# Sticky  Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...



## michelealexander1991 (May 12, 2008)

Hello,
I was wondering if I could just add an alternator to an ev and get a range extender. The alternator seems like a good idea, even an industrial one, now... I have no knowledge in this area whatsoever, so would anyone enlighten me?
*
{Note From The Administrators: *This has now become the official thread for all questions relating to using alternators/generators WITHOUT AN EXTERNAL POWER SOURCE. Call it free energy/perpetual motion/ over-unity or whatever you will. If you have a question about a series hybrid or range extender (with an ICE engine) then feel free to ask start a new thread, if you want to know about the other kind then please read this thread and the wiki first before asking questions. Cheers, mattW}


----------



## ga2500ev (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

An alternator need to be driven to produce energy. Also like any other energy conversion technology, it needs more energy coming in than it will produce.

So where is this energy coming from? I hope not from the battery pack. Since it'll take more energy than it produces, it'll run that battry pack down faster than if you didn't have it at all.

Gas or diesel? Now you're getting somewhere. A series hybrid is essentially this type of system. A diesel genset generates power that drives the electric motor or charges the batteries.

ga2500ev


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Hey, apparently alot of people bring up this idea about some kind of alternator or generation system to take advantage of the car's forward movement in order to extend the range. I should know, I'm one of those people lol. It would be great, but the general consensus is that the actual generation of electricity, the movement of electrons in the coils, basically creates an electromagnet that makes drag, effectively making it harder to move the generator the more power you're generating. 

Here's the thread I started - http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/2-basic-questions-13043.html - These guys are really smart and have helped me think this through, but basically my thought is that if you changed the curve of your generation coils to maximize your capture of the spinning magnetic field, it might also eliminate that radial drag factor and even get it to move faster per power drain instead of the other way around. It would be like a figure-8 circuit, with one set of magnets effectively repelling the other by-proxy of your coiling. There's alot of mights there, so I've got plans and parts to build the thing and I'll be keeping people updated. But until that happens, I'd listen to the conventional wisdom of these guys.


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Well, I have been considering the "micro diesel" approach that would run off of waste vege oil or biodiesel. This would power A/C, PS, and alternator to charge may be 12 v system and provide current to 144v system, not sure about dc-dc conversions though. This would greatly extend the range of the vehicle (depending on the fuel tank and engine size). there are small diesel generators that you could rob the engine from. Also diesels on mowers as well.


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



dfwheelman said:


> Well, I have been considering the "micro diesel" approach that would run off of waste vege oil or biodiesel. This would power A/C, PS, and alternator to charge may be 12 v system and provide current to 144v system, not sure about dc-dc conversions though. This would greatly extend the range of the vehicle (depending on the fuel tank and engine size). there are small diesel generators that you could rob the engine from. Also diesels on mowers as well.


A diesel lawn mower? That would be the perfect engine to harvest and turn into a generator. Good idea. The only mowers I know of in NZ are 2 and 4 stroke petrol engines unfortunately.


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



KiwiEV said:


> A diesel lawn mower? That would be the perfect engine to harvest and turn into a generator. Good idea. The only mowers I know of in NZ are 2 and 4 stroke petrol engines unfortunately.


Yes, I saw one at an auction here and I was REALLY tempted to snap it up, but didn't have a project for it. Now, I have a project and no engine 

I have also seen small diesel generators that would work great.

BTW great work on the videos. I enjoyed them!

Mark


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Here's a picture of the mower

afterthought, it might be a tad big for my application... not "micro" sized, although I have seen some that are.


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

I calculated my daily driving to be less than 50 miles so I don't think the added complexity is worth it for my first car.


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



> Hello,
> I was wondering if I could just add an alternator to an ev and get a range extender. The alternator seems like a good idea, even an industrial one, now... I have no knowledge in this area whatsoever, so would anyone enlighten me?


To answer your question:

If you mean adding an alternator that's powered by the electric motor of the EV, then simply no, it will not work.

This is what you call Perpetual Motion and according to all the laws of physics it is impossible.

You can never get more energy out of a system than you put in.

A simple experiment to do yourself, goto the local hobby store buy two small 6 volt electric motors, link their shafts together then wire them together.

Now try spinning them, they will not continue to spin.


A normal gasoline car's alternator takes energy away from the spinning engine to produce electrical energy, but this is not 100% efficient.

In order to obtain Perpetual motion you need a system that is more than 100% efficient, which is impossible.

EDIT: I think I should make a wiki article on this, seems I've written this nearly 20 times now.
EDIT: Here it is:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=40555#post40555


EDIT: I forgot to mention.

If your referring to an Alternator that is powered by a gasoline/diesel engine as a range extender, then yes, this can work, this is what is called a Series Hybrid.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

I respect that such a thing doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean it _never_ will. Perpetual energy or perpetual motion is not impossible, since by the very definition magnets themselves are perpetual energy devices (though they slowly lose charge over many years). The blockage I think is a mental one and not necessarily a physical one... most people seem to look at the magnetic drag as an inevitability of nature and throw up their hands, and make little to no attempt to thwart it (provided they even get that far in their thoughts..). My disagreement isn't so much with the practicality of this statement, that perpetual motion is _impossible_, but with its theoretical basis - because if you look around at the energies and forces that keep this little world spinning you'll see that's just not the case. It's our technology that has to catch up to the Universe, not the other way around. If we can split atoms and forge particular vortices and build the internet, then someone somewhere someday should be able to make a generator with no electromagnetic drag. The technology hasn't really changed much in the last century, it's a mystery to me why this particular hurtle has remained for so long.. But nevertheless, never say never.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

I've never heard of this electromagnetic drag, but even overcoming it doesn't overcome the fact that whatever energy you are getting from the alternator is coming from the moving wheel, which is getting its energy from the battery. So you are taking energy from the battery to give back to the battery, but you are wasting little bits of it along the way when you convert the elctricity to movement and heat, then to friction and movement, then from movement and friction back to electricity. That friction and heat are not trivial, and don't add up to negative amounts of energy, which is what you would need to wind up ahead.


----------



## MrCrabs (Mar 7, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



momono said:


> since by the very definition magnets themselves are perpetual energy devices (though they slowly lose charge over many years).


If magnets slowly lose charge, over time, (which you agree with) then they are not an unlimited source of energy.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

MrCrabs, over the course of a century or two yeah, especially if you used some strong neodymium magnets. I don't mean 'perpetual energy' in the sense of running virtually 'forever', but for all intents and purposes it would still probably last a lifetime at least.

Weelliot, the electromagnetic drag is caused when you actually start generating electricity with conventional generators, effectively making it harder to move the more power you generate. This is to be expected though from that coil geometry. It stands as the major hurtle to regenerating power this way, but if you crossed that hurtle there wouldn't be anything stopping you from at least making _some_ attempt to gather power back from your vehicle's motion. I'm not discounting friction, or wobble, or heat, I know those are all factors but again even if you got 75% of your power back that makes for a significant added range.


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Hey Guys!
I just have to say something about a magnet being a perpetual energy device..if a magnet is a perpetual energy device then so is any spring or a broom stick for that matter.It is just a property that seems "magical".You can not recycle its energy.You put a piece of steel in front of it that it pulls with whatever force untill it arrives on the magnet then what? You have to spend a lot greater energy to pull the steel off of it and you can do it again. In that analogy I have lots of perpetual energy hooks in my walls holding pictures for years now...anyways sorry this thread got a little sidetracked. Barna


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

You guys are the ones who've got me roped into the perpetual motion montage... I don't really want to prove perpetual motion, because theoretically it wouldn't be perpetual motion. That's given, fine, written in the stones, whatever I don't give a damn. I don't ascribe magnets any special magical properties, like you say it's just a magnet, and it does hold and emit a constant force, but if that constant limited force could be translated into forward spin then you would have a vehicle with a limited amount of constant forward thrust equal to how much magnet force you use. You could have a circuit that essentially would last as long as the permanent magnets themselves (which is a long damn time), with help from various other sources like wall jacks and solar to make up for losses from starting/stopping, heat and that sorta thing. Again, only if you made some clever alterations to the existing charging/drive systems and made a design of generator geometry that made magnetic drag into magnetic help, would this be possible. This should be something everybody who can should be investigating, not something to be scoffed at... And if it does work, it should be _open source_ so anybody can build it! Don't you think cars should work more like wall hooks? Good analogy indeed...


----------



## Wirecutter (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Attention members, admins, et al:

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

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

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

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

Do we need a vote?

-Mark


----------



## michelealexander1991 (May 12, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

What if you lock the wind generator when the batteries are already full??
The answer would be a computer controlling he charge of the batteries and constantly enabling and disabling the turbine which could fit on the sides of the car or on the low part of the front bumper.
Just a thught, but then the answer is a generator just does not work.
Thank you.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Magnets do not give any energy they only provide a force which converts energy from one form to another. To get one magnet to push another magnet you need to move them closer to each other so that their magnetic fields interact. The force they exert on each other is the same or less than the force it took to move them together in the first place. Its not free energy/over-unity/perpetual motion its just a force, like gravity, which can store and convert energy from one form to another.

Electrically you can move electrons into a magnetic field (by moving the wire or using current) and the magnets will push the electrons perpendicular to their motion. If the wire is moving through the field it will push the electrons along the wire, converting the kinetic energy of the wire into electrical energy in the electrons. That is a generator. Or you can convert the electrical energy of the current in the wire into kinetic energy to push the coil. That is a motor. It is a simple efficient energy conversion. Don't bother thinking about electro-magnetic drag or anything like that, it is more of an illustration than the physics itself... All you need to think about it energy conversion, the best you can get is all of the kinetic energy ending up as electrical or visa versa.

Free energy/over-unity/perpetual motion is impossible in the universe we live in, I'm not saying it is hard, or untried or too expensive... it is physically impossible. It is exactly the same as creating your own atoms out of thin air (E=mc2). You are just as likely to create your own distinct universe as you are to get efficiency greater than 100%. I don't mean to be dramatic, I'm just trying to help you understand, some things are impossible and this is one of those things.

Wirecutter- there is a wiki article (two actually, here and here, no one ever checks before starting articles lol.) about this but I'll consider making a sticky too.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



mattW said:


> Free energy/over-unity/perpetual motion is impossible in the universe we live in, I'm not saying it is hard, or untried or too expensive... it is physically impossible. It is exactly the same as creating your own atoms out of thin air (E=mc2). You are just as likely to create your own distinct universe as you are to get efficiency greater than 100%. I don't mean to be dramatic, I'm just trying to help you understand, some things are impossible and this is one of those things.
> 
> Wirecutter- there is a wiki article (two actually, here and here, no one ever checks before starting articles lol.) about this but I'll consider making a sticky too.


Speaking of making microscopic distinct universes... 

I'm agreeing with everything you're saying, and I don't know why we're arguing at this point. Like I said, magnets are nothing magical, they're just constant producers of a certain amount of force. Force can be used to create energy or electricity, and electricity can be converted back to force. It's nothing new, in fact it's all the same principles that go into electric motors and generators today. The only difference is some clever re-engineering of the _geometry_ to turn it into something that would be _as if_ you were holding those magnets close together, and you won't deny that that force exists. As you said, magnetic force becomes electricity and electricity becomes magnetic force, so a circuit can logically mediate that same force between the magnets and put it to work (with losses of course, but I've acknowledged that). Once again I'm _not_ going over 100% - 100% would be the maximum magnet force available and you literally couldn't go higher than that. Again again, I'm not shooting for over-unity, perpetual motion or anything, not snatching atoms out of thin air, just taking another look at how we're using these wonderful things called magnets.


----------



## ngrimm (Oct 19, 2007)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Content posted previously by me was retracted after further research determined author (me) doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground.  Norm


----------



## popeye2008 (May 17, 2008)

Newbie here but wanting to learn so here goes. Probable been talked about before but couldn't we hook up a modified alternator (with magnets) or very small generator to a dual shaft DC traction motor and have the output to the batteries controlled via a electrically controlled disconnect or maybe an electrically controlled clutch like that on a AC compressor between the generator and the DC. traction motor. The generator could be activated by the brake switch and/or electronically, say when the speed of the vehicle was above a certain speed and no juice was being sent to the traction motor? I've read that regen is difficult but not impossible with DC setups this would be a poor mans version, if you will, of regen. Well just some thoughts, curious of what others with knowledge might think.

Thanks


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

popeye2008!
Welcome! Regen is only challenging with series wound dc motors because of the optimum brush timing.If its advanced to be a "good" motor it will likely not be a great generator. Other types of motors (sepex,pm,ac) don't have an issue if their controller is setup for regen.(to my knowledge)Your idea would work no doubt,if someone wants to go through the work involved.(for regen) Barna


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

Norm!
Could you explain that experiment with the magnets in detail(instead of one holds up the other).If you do I'm willing to test it for you.I happen to have a few neodymium magnets of various sizes laying around (from motor and generator building experiments) and been playing with them maybe a little more than I should,but I can say as much as when you hold two of the larger ones in your fist (one in each hand) and you move your hands close if they are facing to repell one will turn around in your fist in an eye blink unless you are godzilla.This is in response to your comparison with a relay or transistor.Like I said I'm open for testing.If you google "museum of unworkable devices" and scroll down to magnet motors all the pictures you see will make you go why didn't I think of that? then read the explanations and it will(should) make sense why they don't work.Barna


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



momono said:


> Speaking of making microscopic distinct universes...
> 
> I'm agreeing with everything you're saying, and I don't know why we're arguing at this point. Like I said, magnets are nothing magical, they're just constant producers of a certain amount of force. Force can be used to create energy or electricity, and electricity can be converted back to force. It's nothing new, in fact it's all the same principles that go into electric motors and generators today. The only difference is some clever re-engineering of the _geometry_ to turn it into something that would be _as if_ you were holding those magnets close together, and you won't deny that that force exists. As you said, magnetic force becomes electricity and electricity becomes magnetic force, so a circuit can logically mediate that same force between the magnets and put it to work (with losses of course, but I've acknowledged that). Once again I'm _not_ going over 100% - 100% would be the maximum magnet force available and you literally couldn't go higher than that. Again again, I'm not shooting for over-unity, perpetual motion or anything, not snatching atoms out of thin air, just taking another look at how we're using these wonderful things called magnets.


I have to disagree with you... the problem is that your "clever re-engineering of the geometry" isnt even teoretically possible....because if it would, it would be system that makes energy from nothing, which is impossible. I guess you have read some amazing websites or watched some fakes videos....internet is full of this s***t. Forget it, it is nonsense. If it could be really possible, it would have the deepest impact on all known physics and it would literally prohibits existing universe as we know it. Realize that energy = mass...system that makes energy from nothing creates mass...this is wierd, isnt it.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



michelealexander1991 said:


> What if you lock the wind generator when the batteries are already full??
> The answer would be a computer controlling he charge of the batteries and constantly enabling and disabling the turbine which could fit on the sides of the car or on the low part of the front bumper.
> Just a thught, but then the answer is a generator just does not work.
> Thank you.


Then in addition to havnig the wind generator create aerodynamic drag when it is working, you would have the aerodynamic drag of the wind generator even when it is not giving you energy. 

Even if it were always sending electricity to the bank of batteries, the aero drag woudl always be greater than the energy it gives. The aero drag must be overcome by the motor, so you will be putting more energy into the motor than you'll get from the batteries. 

Additionally, a wind generator locked so that it won't rotate actually creates more drag than one not locked in place. So lockign it would just create more drag, and give you no 'free' electricity to show for it.


----------



## ngrimm (Oct 19, 2007)

Just for general info, I stopped and looked at the wind generators near Medicine Bow Wyoming back in the 80's. They had blades that were 300 feet long and computer controlled pitch of the blades to keep them rotating at a constant speed to generate 60 cycle current. The blades pitch was turned to be vertical to the wind if it exceeded 90 mph. Pretty impressive to see football field length propeller like blades going thump thump thump as they turned. Norm


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



momono said:


> Speaking of making microscopic distinct universes...


First of all those scientists didn't create that universe, they just put some helium in a vacuum, i'm taking about making your own matter out of nothing .



momono said:


> I'm agreeing with everything you're saying, and I don't know why we're arguing at this point. Like I said, magnets are nothing magical, they're just constant producers of a certain amount of force. Force can be used to create energy or electricity, and electricity can be converted back to force.


The important distinction I am trying to make is that *forces can't create energy or visa versa, forces can only change energy from one form to another.* This is a very important distinction. While magnets can go on CONVERTING energy from electrical to mechanical all day long the force doesn't actually create any new energy. The same is true with a generator as well, all it is doing is converting one form of energy to another. You can't turn the constant force of a magnet into energy. 

You can think of it like money (electrical) and commodities (mechanical) being two different types of wealth (energy). The magnetic force is like the shop keeper that sells you goods in exchange for your money. You are just as wealthy (i.e. you have the same amount of energy) it is just in a different form. The universe is really good at keeping its books so you never get more change than you deserve.

The situation gets worse when the shop-keeper takes his cut of your wealth (energy lost as heat) so for every transaction you lose a little bit of wealth. The more energy transfers the more energy is lost so its better to go without the extra generator unless you only use it for regen.

Hope that clears it up a little.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

Look guys, what I'm proposing isn't that crazy. We know that magnets are a source of a constant amount of measurable force or energy, whatever you want to call it. The energy wouldn't be coming from nowhere, it would be coming from the magnets. The big difference is, the circuit would be geared to harness that energy instead of pitting its finite force in battery power against it. Regardless of what vocabulary you want to use, there is force there, a constant amount of force or energy, that can be used for something, just like a battery except it doesn't run down. There just has to be a better way of doing it all than what's been done for so long. After a century of runtime, I think some of the basic ideas behind electric motor systems could stand to be rethought along a few lines, that's all. But once again, it's not coming from _nowhere_, it's _not_ infinite, and I didn't get the idea from the bloody internet. So far this is all from my head and the discussions I've had with others here and other places...


----------



## joseph3354 (Apr 2, 2008)

i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you,everybody told edison he was nuts..and they all just KNEW that tesla was nuts..so by all means...soldier on.arguing the possiblities wont help.only the completed project will...just another insignificant opinion.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

The important thing I'm trying to tell you is that in physics force and energy are two related but separate concepts. Force is measured in newtons, energy in Watt hours or Joules. They are not equivalent or exchangeable. It is not a matter of the name we put on it, there is a physical difference. The only energy you can get from a magnet is the same energy you bring into the system. I can see where you are coming from in thinking that a magnet gives a constant force therefore we should get constant energy from it, but that is only because you are confusing force and energy. All force does is transfer energy form one type to another. I don't want to keep arguing for arguments sake but this comes up a lot so it is worth resolving. Just do a thought experiment where force and energy are separate things and you will see what I mean.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Another way to think about it is that gravity is very much like magnetism. Magnets, and ferrous metals are drawn to a magnet just like everything is drawn to the earth. It is a force. You can't magically use gravity to get energy. You might argue that an object that is about to be dropped or descend in some manner has potential energy, but once it falls and stops, it is done. Gravity can't do anything more for you. Eventually you hit bottom. Then you have to put energy into the system to raise that object back up. Magnets are the same. 

Granted you can turn magnets on and off, but that is just like turning gravity on and off. It doesn't gain you anything though.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Well, yeah pretty much. You talk about getting power from 'free' natural sources like wind and water, well gravity and magnetism are also forces of nature. In your analogy though, that magnet would be 'falling' for a century or two before it ever got close to hitting the ground. That's not a bad idea either - though we might not have the technology yet - a generator that makes money off the constant pull of gravity? It just seems impossible now, but technology is moving exponentially to the point where we don't know what the next year will bring let alone the next decade. We just have to be clever, and learn to not look at these 'law-binding' forces as working against us.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

Wind and Water have kinetic energy based on their mass and velocity. Magnetic and gravitational forces don't have any energy. Energy is what you need to power something down the road, you can use magnets to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy or use gravity to convert potential energy into kinetic energy (i.e. billy cart/soap box racer), you can even push the car yourself and convert the chemical energy in your food into kinetic energy but you don't get any energy from forces, you just convert it from one form to another.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

momono said:


> In your analogy though, that magnet would be 'falling' for a century or two before it ever got close to hitting the ground.


You have missed the analogy. In the analogy the magnetic force is analogous to the force of gravity. The point that the magnet stops creating movement(when the magnet has gotten as close as it is going to to the thing it is attracted to.) is analogous to when gravity stops creating movement because the object has had another force stop it. That force could be an updraft of air, it could be provided by a person's hand pressing up on it. It could be that the object has hit the ground.

You try to equate the time that the object is falling to the useful lifespan of a magnet.(100-200 years) That lifespan would have to be analogous to the useful lifespan of gravity, which is forever. The thing analogous to how long the bject is falling is how long it takes the magnetic object to either reach the magnet, or run into something between it and the magnet.

The rate that technology is progressing is noteable, but it will always work within the bounds of physics. There are certain truths to physics that can't be cheated.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Once one side of the magnet reaches the attractive force of the coil, the other side will be repelled along while the attractive force is encouraged along by the next coil. Currently motors and generators are based on switching of current from brushes or alternating magnets, but remember that in my design the motion is created from a _rotating magnetic field_ set up in the generation coils. You have to kind of rethink how electric motors work in general to grasp this.. I'm not trying to cheat physics, I'm just working with it instead of seeing it as some undauntable foe. Physics can be friendly! And physics says that magnets are a source of a constant amount of force that happens to affect the movement of electrons when it moves, also that magnets themselves can move when spurred by a movement of electrons. Draw on a circuit is movement of electrons, and if those electrons happen to be moving in a forward-spinning pattern, those magnets just might spin to match it. I respect the work of the great minds that have brought electric motors so far, but nowhere in the tomes of the ancients is it written in stone that a motor _has_ to use switching DC brushes or some kind of timed alternating current.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



momono said:


> Look guys, what I'm proposing isn't that crazy. We know that magnets are a source of a constant amount of measurable force or energy, whatever you want to call it. The energy wouldn't be coming from nowhere, it would be coming from the magnets. The big difference is, the circuit would be geared to harness that energy instead of pitting its finite force in battery power against it. Regardless of what vocabulary you want to use, there is force there, a constant amount of force or energy, that can be used for something, just like a battery except it doesn't run down. There just has to be a better way of doing it all than what's been done for so long. After a century of runtime, I think some of the basic ideas behind electric motor systems could stand to be rethought along a few lines, that's all. But once again, it's not coming from _nowhere_, it's _not_ infinite, and I didn't get the idea from the bloody internet. So far this is all from my head and the discussions I've had with others here and other places...


Energy = force * trajectory (vectors). constant force produces ZERO energy, if there isnt any movement on some trajectory. If you will push to the solid wall, you will give no energy to the wall. But if you wil pull the car and makes it move, you will give some kinetic energy to the movement of the car. This is important. Magnet doesnt radiate any energy, it is like a spring. It can pull or push something, byt it is imposible to create ANY machine that would be using magnets to constant energy production as it is impossible with springs. forget that magnet is any-way diffrent from springs, it is essentilly not.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node58.html



weelliott said:


> Another way to think about it is that gravity is very much like magnetism. Magnets, and ferrous metals are drawn to a magnet just like everything is drawn to the earth. It is a force. You can't magically use gravity to get energy. You might argue that an object that is about to be dropped or descend in some manner has potential energy, but once it falls and stops, it is done. Gravity can't do anything more for you. Eventually you hit bottom. Then you have to put energy into the system to raise that object back up. Magnets are the same.
> 
> Granted you can turn magnets on and off, but that is just like turning gravity on and off. It doesn't gain you anything though.


There is one difference betwen gravity field and magnetic field and in my native czech language it is called "conservatism". No matter which closed trajectory you undertake in conservative field, when you return to your original position, you always ends with the same energy you have started with = closed trajectorries costs or gains zero eneregy. This does not apply to magnetic field, but does apply to electic fields. But as I understand it does not mean it is possible to create pepetual motion or anything like that.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html

sorry for my english.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

The same applies in Physics taught in America, and is a good point. I just didn't think that that point was important for the analogy. I wasn't trying to create a full picture of how magentism compares to gravity, but just enough to show that magnetism isn't special, and that all the special things that momono had attributed to magnetism were also possessed by gravity.

As for your English. There are not apologies necessary. Your English is fine. It's much better than any of my foreign languages.

Now for the moving magnets that were mentioned earlier... In regards to switching the elctric field to switch the magnetic field, motors already do this. If it is to be accopmlished by physically turning the magnet, then that will take energy.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

> Energy = force * trajectory (vectors). constant force produces ZERO energy, if there isnt any movement on some trajectory. If you will push to the solid wall, you will give no energy to the wall. But if you wil pull the car and makes it move, you will give some kinetic energy to the movement of the car. This is important. Magnet doesnt radiate any energy, it is like a spring. It can pull or push something, byt it is imposible to create ANY machine that would be using magnets to constant energy production as it is impossible with springs. forget that magnet is any-way diffrent from springs, it is essentilly not.


If what you guys are saying about motors and magnets is true, then electric motors shouldn't exist to begin with. It works because the electromagnets are constantly re-springing that spring. The only real difference is the application of force - so far, the mechanical consensus has been that repulsion and fast switching motion is what generates electricity, but I don't think that's what Faraday was saying necessarily, just some random set of beliefs that sprang up in the translation loss. I was brought up to understand that a magnet moves electrons in the coil, and the movement of those electrons itself is electricity. I made my coiling design reflect this - instinctively, to 'catch' the greatest possible fluid movement of electrons from the magnets, which would be spinning _forward_ - it's a happy coincidence, though, that this may be just what is needed to reduce the magnetic drag created by the actual generation of electricity, and maybe even turn it around. This is the generator I've drawn up after a life of looking at rivers and seashells and clouds, where things spin and keep spinning, transforming even, because they literally go with the 'flow'. Once again, the problem with what you call 'perpetual' motion isn't any natural allowance or disallowance of the thing, it's the human-so-far maladaptation of a myopic and 2-dimensional thought process to something as strange and wonderful as magnets. Someone said the 'M' word (magic? oh nose!) earlier, and y'know, really it's just a word. We're monkeys swapping new vocabulary basically. The essential difference I can see is that this ingrown scientific mind as it's developed itself is severely out of tune with the phenomenal mystery of the Universe around it. It's a far cry from that original thinking-creature that left the forests for whatever reason, or even from the ancient Greeks who understood that the world had its physical orders and makeups which were inseparable from the spiritual or intelligent ones (the 'golden mean' was called as such because it was effectively a _deity_)... From that point to this I can't really call it progress necessarily, but I can say that everything happens for a reason and science too will 'grow into itself' from this current gawky adolescent.

Okay, that was a rant and a half. But really we're into those levels of thought-pattern-alteration already, so balls to the wall as they say. Back to the tech - 

I've tooled my design a little more as well - I'll be building a 'pancake' style housing out of clear acrylic, except the hub won't be attached to any type of bearing surface but rather free-floating in the chamber with about 1/8 in. of space on all sides, sealed with a vaccuum pump connected to an automatic pressure gauge to ensure as little friction as possible. With strong neodymium magnets, this could theoretically be made very small (say 7-8in diameter), and spin very fast (as it needs to). There wouldn't be any connection to the front wheels or any moving piston whatsoever, just a self-enclosed hub spinning freely in space, suspended by the (rotating!) electromagnetic fields from all sides, according to the draw from the system. It would work I think kind of like a limited reverb effect... And the vaccuum pump could be used for your brakes and other stuff.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

An important clarification is that a MOVING magnet makes electrons flow. Without movement that magent has no influence on the electrons at all. It takes movement. that is where the energy comes from to move the electrons. The movement of the magnetic field.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Well, yeah...


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

momono said:


> If what you guys are saying about motors and magnets is true, then electric motors shouldn't exist to begin with. It works because the electromagnets are constantly re-springing that spring. The only real difference is the application of force - so far, the mechanical consensus has been that repulsion and fast switching motion is what generates electricity, but I don't think that's what Faraday was saying necessarily, just some random set of beliefs that sprang up in the translation loss. I was brought up to understand that a magnet moves electrons in the coil, and the movement of those electrons itself is electricity. I made my coiling design reflect this - instinctively, to 'catch' the greatest possible fluid movement of electrons from the magnets, which would be spinning _forward_ - it's a happy coincidence, though, that this may be just what is needed to reduce the magnetic drag created by the actual generation of electricity, and maybe even turn it around. This is the generator I've drawn up after a life of looking at rivers and seashells and clouds, where things spin and keep spinning, transforming even, because they literally go with the 'flow'. Once again, the problem with what you call 'perpetual' motion isn't any natural allowance or disallowance of the thing, it's the human-so-far maladaptation of a myopic and 2-dimensional thought process to something as strange and wonderful as magnets. Someone said the 'M' word (magic? oh nose!) earlier, and y'know, really it's just a word. We're monkeys swapping new vocabulary basically. The essential difference I can see is that this ingrown scientific mind as it's developed itself is severely out of tune with the phenomenal mystery of the Universe around it. It's a far cry from that original thinking-creature that left the forests for whatever reason, or even from the ancient Greeks who understood that the world had its physical orders and makeups which were inseparable from the spiritual or intelligent ones (the 'golden mean' was called as such because it was effectively a _deity_)... From that point to this I can't really call it progress necessarily, but I can say that everything happens for a reason and science too will 'grow into itself' from this current gawky adolescent.
> 
> Okay, that was a rant and a half. But really we're into those levels of thought-pattern-alteration already, so balls to the wall as they say. Back to the tech -
> 
> I've tooled my design a little more as well - I'll be building a 'pancake' style housing out of clear acrylic, except the hub won't be attached to any type of bearing surface but rather free-floating in the chamber with about 1/8 in. of space on all sides, sealed with a vaccuum pump connected to an automatic pressure gauge to ensure as little friction as possible. With strong neodymium magnets, this could theoretically be made very small (say 7-8in diameter), and spin very fast (as it needs to). There wouldn't be any connection to the front wheels or any moving piston whatsoever, just a self-enclosed hub spinning freely in space, suspended by the (rotating!) electromagnetic fields from all sides, according to the draw from the system. It would work I think kind of like a limited reverb effect... And the vaccuum pump could be used for your brakes and other stuff.


I was talking about permanent magnets which are favorite "magical" substance in majority of over unity machines. Electric motor works, because you are pumping energy to the motor by electic current that is transformed to non-static magnetic field that produces force that drives the motor. The fact that there is non-static magnetic field is essential, thats the reason you cannot replace those electric magnets with permanent ones - motor made only with permanent magnets will never ever work. Static magnetic field does not make electrons move (this is what you dont understand), only non-static field does it. Spring also dont push things away all the time.... If you want to create non-static magnetic field, you have to either move permanetn magnets (dynamo) or use elecromagnets that you will switch on and off. Both of this costs you energy that is at least the same as energy of those electrons you make move.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Yes, exactly. Nothing magical about it, unless you want to call it that. Permanent magnet hub, static electromagnetic stator. Same deal as always, except the driving force, instead of a switching current, is a coil geometry that reproduces the effect of a moving electromagnetic field even though the coils are physically fixed in place. The permanent magnet hub spins to reflect this and keep the electricity moving.. Again nothing out of reality, nothing pseudo, just another way to skin a cat...


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

Walkeer! Did you say the "M" word again? I'm sorry it's my fault, I started with the "M" word on page two, post #14.(I'm actually sitting here with tears running down my face from laughing on that)
momono! So nothing out of reality right? Just a clever way of wrapping wire around this thing. What is this now? I got lost a little.Is this a motor that won't need power or a generator that self excites? I can't wait to see the momono effect in action! Barna


----------



## kevx (May 23, 2008)

At the risk of showing my "newbieness", I'll tell you about a story I saw on TV recently about a guy who built an EV and then mounted two alternators mid vehicle that were belt driven off of the driveshaft. This supposedly made it so efficient that it rarely needed additional charging. I'm not saying that is likely, but it does seem like the energy needed to spin an alternator or generator would be minimal compared to what they might produce. To make the question simpler, suppose it wasn't in the drivetrain, but in an otherwise wasted energy source, such as an unpowered axle or braking. Or am I over-imagining what an alternator produces? I'm not proposing perpetual motion, just converting wasted energy. Hmmmmm.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

I don't think there is much point talking about it any more until monomo actually builds the thing and proves us wrong or learns about conservation himself. I am guessing that he is a kinaesthetic learner i.e. he learns by doing. So monomo I say build us a prototype and we will patiently await your results!


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

momono said:


> If what you guys are saying about motors and magnets is true, then electric motors shouldn't exist to begin with. It works because the electromagnets are constantly re-springing that spring.


...because they're being supplied with electric current  However, the magnet exists only when the current is provided by a battery or other source. Energy in, motion out. 



momono said:


> I was brought up to understand that a magnet moves electrons in the coil, and the movement of those electrons itself is electricity.


Many people think of electricity as electrons moving through a wire; that's the grade-school definition of 'electricity', but is in some ways an oversimplification and in other ways inaccurate. Electricity isn't anything specific; it's a bunch of separate things all grouped together as "electricity".

In technical terms electricity is used to mean the electric charge - a "quantity of electricity" means the same as a "quantity of charge" (as the word "electricity" is used by Einstein, Faraday, Franklin, Maxwell, Millikan, Thompson, et. al.) An electric charge is a charge of electricity. Electric _current_ is the _flow_ of electrons moving in a wire, which we measure the intensity of in amperes.

Notice I didn't say "through a wire". The drift velocity of electrons in metal is slow - a few cm per minute. The speed of electricity depends on the diameter of wire and the value of the electric current. A high current is simply a higher intensity of "flow"; but an electron in alternating current (AC) doesn't really flow at all; it oscillates over a very short distance, wiggling back and forth. When the circuit is broken, the electron stops wiggling and remains where it is, in the wire, where it started when the AC was applied in the first place. 

To make things more confusing, while the electromagnetic field energy created by batteries and generators is oft referred to by laymen who don't know better as "electricity" This, too, is inaccurate. These fields occur _around_ the wire, not _in_ them. The flow of electric current in the wire influences charges around it, creating an electric field. The electric potential of this field to do work (the 'pressure' it applies) is what we measure in volts.

Electricity != energy. Electric _energy_ is made of photons, which is what makes photovoltaics and electric lighting possible.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

kevx said:


> At the risk of showing my "newbieness", I'll tell you about a story I saw on TV recently about a guy who built an EV and then mounted two alternators mid vehicle that were belt driven off of the driveshaft. This supposedly made it so efficient that it rarely needed additional charging. I'm not saying that is likely, but it does seem like the energy needed to spin an alternator or generator would be minimal compared to what they might produce. To make the question simpler, suppose it wasn't in the drivetrain, but in an otherwise wasted energy source, such as an unpowered axle or braking. Or am I over-imagining what an alternator produces? I'm not proposing perpetual motion, just converting wasted energy. Hmmmmm.


You mention that this energy coudl come from an unpowered axle. However, even unpowered axles are actually powered by the electric motor. Even axles taht don't have an electric motor on them have wheels that will be turned by the motion of the motor. It is just done indirectly. The motor turns the drive wheel, which moves the vehicle forward, which turns the other wheels. It makes no difference.

The alternator would be a loss on whichever wheel or driveshaft it is on. Imagine it is like a brake that is left on on that wheel or driveshaft. It doesn't really matter which wheel a brake is on, it's going to slow down a car and use up more energy. 

In short, all movement from the car(assuming we're playing on flat ground) comes from the motor. The motor also overcomes friction and wind resistance and any other forces on the car. The alternator woudl be one of those 'other forces.'

There really is no free lunch.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

momono said:


> Yes, exactly. Nothing magical about it, unless you want to call it that. Permanent magnet hub, static electromagnetic stator. Same deal as always, except the driving force, instead of a switching current, is a coil geometry that reproduces the effect of a moving electromagnetic field even though the coils are physically fixed in place. The permanent magnet hub spins to reflect this and keep the electricity moving.. Again nothing out of reality, nothing pseudo, just another way to skin a cat...


First of all, I am really glad there are people like you who do not trust common authoritties like scientics and work hard to prove they are wrong. It works like insurance for events like conspiracy etc and it is generally right thing until they lie, which is not your case. However, youtube and internet are full of lies about over unity stuff which I am really mad about. When there is some video to prove it, it is always so untrustworthy it proves nothing. 

Back to your post: if magnets are non-magical, as you agree, how is it possible it is the only thing that can create perpetuum mobile (=something that creates energy from nothing) as you claim? Why springs cannot do that? Will you please show us your clever way of making what you just descibed, or will you be secretive as everybody else working on overunity stuff? I would really like see how you tricked energy presevation principle, something nobody else have ever done.



3dplane said:


> Walkeer! Did you say the "M" word again? I'm sorry it's my fault, I started with the "M" word on page two, post #14.(I'm actually sitting here with tears running down my face from laughing on that)
> momono! So nothing out of reality right? Just a clever way of wrapping wire around this thing. What is this now? I got lost a little.Is this a motor that won't need power or a generator that self excites? I can't wait to see the momono effect in action! Barna


Sorry but I really down see what you mean by the "M" word.


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

Walkeer said:


> Sorry but I really down see what you mean by the "M" word.


"M" word = "magic"


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

Thanks Manntis!
The closest to what momono is working on in real world application that I know is bifilar winding. Two coils on top of eachother wound in opposite direction. It cancels self inductance of the coil(s).In generator application the coils would have to be terminated separately for it to be any use and i'm not sure what advantage it would have.In other application it can protect sensetive components in circuits. Barna


----------



## antonis (Apr 28, 2008)

if u use it when u brake u can have some charge but not enough maybe. but u should have more milliage and less pad/rotor wear.


----------



## adric22 (Jan 17, 2008)

Since I drive an electric car (one I built myself) I often get asked about this topic. In fact, almost on a daily basis. I've heard everything from windmills on the car, little wind turbines under the car, alternators on the wheels, and my personal favorite - a co-worker of mine insists that a 5th wheel called a "drop wheel" is the way to go... hahaha

Of course, it is all non-sense. I get so tired of arguing with people that sometimes I just say, "oh.. good idea." and leave it at that.

However, I have thought of many ways of explaining why this doesn't work. If one just one of these ways of looking at it helps somebody understand, then I feel I have contributed something.


One way of looking at the tires and the street is that it is completely analagous to two gears connected by a chain, or two pulleys connected with a belt. Imagine an upside down bycicle only the tires are pulleys and they are connected with a belt. Now, put a generator on one wheel and a motor on the other. Will it work? Most people will realize right away why this won't work. But for some reason, a car seems different. But the street that you are driving on is essentially doing the same job as the belt or chain in this setup.
Another problem people have is they don't realize the amount of power required to move the car, vs. the amount of power generated by an alternator. Most people with any automotive skills know that an alternator isn't very hard to spin. What they don't realize is that the alternator isn't really producing that much power. In fact, it is less than 1% of the power neccessary to move an electric car. So sure, it would only drag down the car by about 1% but it would also only generate 1% or less of what the car needs to move. In order to get any real power generation you'd need like 100 alternators. Then tell me how much drag there would be on the car.
On the same token as point #2, tiny wind turbines would create even less than 1% of the power needed. Probably closer to 0.01% of the power needed to move. However, they would create closer to 1% drag on the car, causing a net energy loss.
Sometimes people say, "No.. I don't mean perpetual energy, it doesn't have to generate more power than it uses. Just some of it, making the system more efficient." Unfortunately, this doesn't hold water either. Even if the generator produced "some" power, that power has to come from somewhere. Where is it going to come from?
All forms of energy obey the same laws. That energy can be magnetic, electrical, mechanical, thermal, etc.. Compare the problem to a different kind of energy. For example, lets imagine it from a mechanical perspective. Lets say we add a belt to the back tire (where the generator would go) and have that belt move the front tires. It is a perfect analogy to the generator question, only we're looking at a different form of energy. In this method, the flaw is obvious.
Sometimes people also confuse it with hybrids and their regenerative breaking and the fact that the ICE charges the batteries. But in that case all of the energy is coming from gasoline. You are converting gasoline to electricity. But if you have no gasoline, where is that energy going to come from? In this case, you are wanting to convert electricity to electricity.. why?


----------



## antonis (Apr 28, 2008)

hi , i was reffering about a hybrid car which had this idea on it. the car was a hybrid toyota supra which is using in each wheel some kind of alternators if you want. this was used for the braking of the car to charge , not the batteries but some cappasitors which in turn charge the batteries .... of cource there is an ecu controlling this. i am not a sciencist but the idea to me sounds not that hard. electronics is not my sector but i m learning ... sometimes all you need is the idea. (if you like more info search about the race on the 15 , 16 joul endurance race , tokashi .i have this in a magazine)and thanks for the infos!


----------



## SuperChuck_A11 (May 29, 2008)

Perpetual Motion aka 200 amp alt on EV at 200 watts per mile as puurposed by post # 44 

I am getting in on this discussion late. But for what it is worth...the argument here so far has been mostly theoretical… let’s put numbers on ONE simple idea. 
Using a CAR alternator to provide full time battery charge. 
AKA will the addition of a car alternator FULLY recharge the batteries or directly power the EV Drive Motor ?? with enough Wattage to need no other outside source of poer or recharge ??

I have seen power usage figures of 160 to 200 Watts per mile thrown around a lot. 
AN EXTREMELY good car Alternator is rated at peak 250 amps, and will put out a continuous 175 Amps in one hour.
Converting to similar terms as :
Watts = Volts x Amps…….Amps = Watts / Volts …Watts per mile / Volts = Amps per mile
Assuming 12 volt system since cheap Car Alternator is 12v 

*Usage:*
……@ a 200 Watts-per mile usage rate if you drive on the interstate for one hour at 70 mph you have used 14,000 Watts or 1,167 Amps @ 12v. 
…….200 watts per mile x 70 miles = 14,000 Watts 
......14,000w / 12v = 1,167a

*Battery Recharge/Replacement Rate*:
…….Rating on Car Alternator is in Amps per hour 
…….Alternator output is 175 amps or 2,100 Watts in one hour

*total Usage vs total Replacement:*
Driving 70 miles per hour for one hour and we generate 2,100 Watts and use 14,000 Watts
*As a range extender*: 
....Per Mile: generate 30 Watts and use 200 Watts 
30w / 200w = 15% ….you get a 15 % increase in range.

*Additionally:*
A car Alternator will consume power from the Drive Motor at:
1 Hp per 25 amps from the Drive motor or 7 HP total for the 175 Amp alternator we are using.
And since the current draw is GREATLY higher than the rated output, you would need to install a device to limit current draw to 175 amps as the needed output of 1, 190 amps would fry the Alternator post haste. An isolator would do it.

Mostly when OEM type manufacturers talk of using an Alternator to increase Range they mean, Regen Braking.

editted to add: Most Car Alternators available from Retail Auto Parts Stores will not deliver 175 Amps continuous, the one I have used as example is a AfterMarket one for street rods, and is HIGH PERFORMANCE. A regular alternator would extend range by only 13w/ 200w = 7%.

Later edited to add: *I didn't write a conclusion and it lead to great confusion*:
the initial idea was to use your EV Drive Motor’s excess torque to power a normal car Alternator, that will in turn act as a 1. magically power the entire EV for de-facto perpetual motion or 2. Act as a range extender.
Performance calculations suggest:
1. as a magic wand to power the entire battery pack. NO it will not. Grossly inadequate.
2. Yes it will extend range *BUT* only by a paltry 15%. So for a normal range of 100 miles you get extended range of 15 miles. That 15 % goes down in the face of Power consumed from the Ev's Drive motor. 
Conclusion:
A car Alternator fails to provide the needed outcome.


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

Hi!
There is no such thing as 200W per mile. There is 200W HOURS per mile.
Wich is the same amount of energy as 12KW for a minute. 200 watts will move a 10 oz.(280gramm) model aeroplane at 70MPH not a 2000+ pound car. To save us all a little time let me just jump to the end of your post
(superChuck_A11) Titled: Additionally , where you answer the question:
A car alternator will consume power from the drive motor at:1 horse power per 25 amps ! 25amps at 12 volts is 300 watts. 1 horsepower is 746 watts. So for every horsepower worth of electricity produced we take 2.5 horsepower away from the traction system.....how exactly is that gonna extend the range? (I really don't expect an answer) This post is okay in the "free energy" section but I saw it posted elswhere where people bought into it and I don't think that is right.It is not my intent to be mean but lets do some research and keep stuff where it belongs Thanks! Barna


----------



## SuperChuck_A11 (May 29, 2008)

3dplane said:


> Hi!There is no such thing as 200W per mile.
> There is 200W HOURS per mile.


Your correct that is Watt - Hour. 

As I understand it The Watts per mile is a calculated actual fuel mileage, the fuel being Electricity which is measured in Watts.
Using Watts per mile as an expression of Fuel Mileage gets us closer to familiar Automotive Engineering terms (miles per gallon is mpg not m/g) Apples to Apples Terminology.
I believe the process is to 
Step 1 drive the EV for one hour or more and then measure remaining battery voltage. 
Step 2 Then Translating battery voltage remaining in the Battery Pack into Watts used for xxx miles of travel. 
Step 3 Then simple division into Watts per mile.

*Fuel Usage for a 200 Watts per mile EV:*
The 200 Watts per mile is a common figure I have seen from current Ev operators. *If this is incorrect could anyone supply a correct Watts per mile ??* 
At 200 Watts per hour usage rate if you drive on the interstate for *one hour *at 70 mph you travel 70 miles so,
(200 watts per hour x 70 miles) for 1 hour = 14,000 Watts TOTAL fuel usage.

*I really don't see where this is calculated incorrectly. Maybe you can show me where it is off ??*

i editted this after thinking about it at work.
I have 2 posts with the same basic calculation as a base. 
In the example above a pertual motion machine is the desired output. With no additional input of watts as being driven, with he EXCESS Torque characteristics drinving a normal Car or bus stlye alternator
the example on the other thread is really about a hybird. An EV fitted with an on-board (diesle ) consuming GenSet. 

So really what we need to know is::::::::Is 200 Watts per Mile not a number Real EV owners are getting ??

Could someone post their way of calculating the Watts per mile from remaining battery Voltage??
.


----------



## Madmac (Mar 14, 2008)

There is only one definition of WATT under the SI units, it is a measurement of power....equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy use or production.

Do not confuse instantaneous watt (not a recognised unit) with watt hour. Watts multiplied by a period of time equals energy. 1 volt of potential difference is applied to a resistive load of 1 ohm and a current of 1 ampere flows, then 1 watt of power is dissipated.
Or watts is equal to amps times volts. The electrical measurement is truly instantaneous (as is a DC voltage or current measurement). So the power in one second is one Joule leading to the conversion of 1 Watt hour being 3600 Joules

Madmac


----------



## Madmac (Mar 14, 2008)

There is only one definition of WATT under the SI units, it is a measurement of power....equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy use or production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_differenceDo not confuse watt with watt hour. Watts multiplied by a period of time equals energy. 1 volt of potential difference is applied to a resistive load of 1 ohm and a current of 1 ampere flows, then 1 watt of power is dissipated.
Or watts is equal to amps times volts. The electrical measurement is truly instantaneous (as is a DC voltage or current measurement). So the power in one second is one Joule leading to the conversion of 1 Watt hour being 3600 Joules

Madmac


----------



## SuperChuck_A11 (May 29, 2008)

Madmac said:


> There is only one definition of WATT under the SI units, it is a measurement of power....equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy use or production.
> 
> Do not confuse watt with watt hour. Watts multiplied by a period of time equals energy. 1 volt of potential difference is applied to a resistive load of 1 ohm and a current of 1 ampere flows, then 1 watt of power is dissipated.
> Or watts is equal to amps times volts. The electrical measurement is truly instantaneous (as is a DC voltage or current measurement). So the power in one second is one Joule leading to the conversion of 1 Watt hour being 3600 Joules
> ...


Just for giggles could you please tell me how many Amps in one Kilogram ??? please ????


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

Chuck!
you can pick my post or anyones at the end YOU were the one ending up with a 15% range increase. Barna


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

One thing you forgot Superchuck. The amount of energy needed isn't just the energy to move the car, but also the enrgy to spin the alternator. It is creating drag on the motor just like the rolling resistance and aero forces. Once you add that in, you will see that you are just then going to subtract it out to have no net gain. And once you factor in the inefficiencies involved in getting the electricity from the battery to the motor to the alternator to the battery, then you are actually wasting electricity.

It's like dangling a leg off the side of a canoe into the water. It changes how much work is needed to propel it. taking a figure in a book about how much energy it takes to move a canoe along is no longer valid once you do that. 

Bill


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

You can't have watts per hour because watts is an instantaneous measurement of power. A 50W light globe uses 50W of power all the time, every instantaneous measure of time will show 50W. You can have a W or kW per mph since it takes a certain amount of power to maintain a particular speed, energy is actually power x time measured in Watts x hours or Wh. Do you get the distinction?

Lets try your example again using more accurate numbers, it takes about 18kW from the batteries to maintain constant 60mph in a normal car. If we have a 36kWh pack then we will be able to maintain that speed for two hours (time=energy/power). That will give us an efficiency of 300Wh/mile. Lets say we add an 10 12V alternators that puts out 150A to recharge our 120V battery pack. Those 10 alternators will deliver 18kW of power back to the batteries which should be enough to keep on rolling right?

Well the problem is those alternators are going to draw their power from the motor (either directly or indirectly via the road and wheels). Lets say you have some of the worlds best alternators that are amazingly 95% efficient at recovering energy. That means that in order to produce 18kW for the batteries these alternators are going to draw about 19kW from the motor. That is in addition to the 18kW that is used to power the car. So in total you have 18kW going into the batteries (from the alternators) and 27kW coming out of them. So it now takes 19kW to travel the same speed and the same battery pack will only last 1hr 53 minutes and only get 114 miles instead of 120. That is using statistics that are optimised for this to work (i.e. a near perfect alternator). So you lose 6 miles of range because of the world best alternators that I made up. 

In a much more real situation. Typical alternators run at a much lower efficiency of 55% and if you run them off a motor/controller that is only 80% efficient then you can recover 44% of the power it takes to run them. So for the highway example above using more real-world measurements 10 alternators to make up for the 18kW of energy it takes to go down the highway would take 41kW of energy from the batteries meaning the 120 mile range you originally got without the alternators is now 53 miles with them. You threw away 67 miles of range. The efficiency of the system goes from 300Wh/mile to 683Wh per mile. If you use the Department of Energy's method of converting electrical efficiency into mpg you get 273.5mpg without the alternators and 120mpg with them. They do the opposite from what was intended.

*AND THAT IS WHY FREE ENERGY DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Phyber Optik (Jun 4, 2008)

Poor guy. He at least deserves an A for effort with his alternator theory.

I have model RC flying wings which are elevon controlled (basically 1 aileron on each wing half). Each are moved by an independent servo, this enables elevator up/down (they move together as one) and moving opposite one another for roll.

Never fails that even some experienced pilots ask me why I didn't try to save weight and use just _one _servo with a dual arm linked to each elevon....then they think about it for a moment, and go OOoohh, yeah.  (This setup would provide roll only)


----------



## SuperChuck_A11 (May 29, 2008)

But I have a 800 watt stereo, I can't recharge the batteries with it ???


----------



## Dan53 (Jun 1, 2008)

I remember when I was a kid I had that game, Daytona USA, a racing game if you don't know. I was very good at it. Once my sister said she wanted to play. I accepted her challenge, knowing full well that I'd give her a sore whopping. When the race started, I took off in the perfect form that I have trained myself to do, putting on a flawless display. My sister, on the other hand, took off in full acceleration, never easing and never using the brake. She hit the wall on every single turn. And by the end of the race, she had LAPPED me, and broken my record. Not having a clue how to play had enabled her to drive faster than I thought possible. The point is, I agree with what some of you are saying in that it seems that those of you that are really smart just throw up your hands and say "it can't be done" because you know better. But I knew damn well that I would beat my sister in that game, too. People also knew that the world was flat. I think that charging your batteries as you drive must be possible, and if it's not, that there's something that can be done to at least improve the current technology. An alternator attached to each of the four wheels that charges one set of batteries while you power the engine with another, and then flick a switch and the opposite happens, perhaps? Maybe this wouldn't work for whatever reason, but the idea is that it's not free energy, though it's just as good. And it's probably going to take creativity, not intelligence (though admittedly it would probably be a lot of both). Hell, how about some pedals in the car for the passengers to keep busy with powering a generator? hehe

Dan


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

Dan53 said:


> I remember when I was a kid I had that game, Daytona USA, a racing game if you don't know. I was very good at it. Once my sister said she wanted to play. I accepted her challenge, knowing full well that I'd give her a sore whopping. When the race started, I took off in the perfect form that I have trained myself to do, putting on a flawless display. My sister, on the other hand, took off in full acceleration, never easing and never using the brake. She hit the wall on every single turn. And by the end of the race, she had LAPPED me, and broken my record. Not having a clue how to play had enabled her to drive faster than I thought possible. The point is, I agree with what some of you are saying in that it seems that those of you that are really smart just throw up your hands and say "it can't be done" because you know better. But I knew damn well that I would beat my sister in that game, too. People also knew that the world was flat.
> Dan


The difference being, with a video game if you just wing it and crash there's a reset button. Do the same with a real vehicle and you could have an electrical fire, a runaway, etc.


----------



## sir (May 23, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

I quite like the idea of over unity devices , I think if you use magnets stong enough to overcome the drag and bigger guage wire for les resistance with more poles to generate electricity at lower rpm and quick charging batteries or maybe capacitors it might just work if you have the coin to fund it . Who knows one day we wont need batteries , thats wishful thinking .


----------



## Phyber Optik (Jun 4, 2008)

One day we may be able to manipulate Earth's gravity so that we're always coasting downhill. And levitating like a Land Speeder.

Then again, by the time science advances for that to happen, we'll probably already have teleportation. 

Beam me _over _Scotty.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Dan53 said:


> The point is, I agree with what some of you are saying in that it seems that those of you that are really smart just throw up your hands and say "it can't be done" because you know better. But I knew damn well that I would beat my sister in that game, too. People also knew that the world was flat. I think that charging your batteries as you drive must be possible, and if it's not, that there's something that can be done to at least improve the current technology. An alternator attached to each of the four wheels that charges one set of batteries while you power the engine with another, and then flick a switch and the opposite happens, perhaps? Maybe this wouldn't work for whatever reason, but the idea is that it's not free energy, though it's just as good. And it's probably going to take creativity, not intelligence (though admittedly it would probably be a lot of both). Hell, how about some pedals in the car for the passengers to keep busy with powering a generator? hehe
> 
> Dan


It makes me wonder how is it possible you dont see it. You want to attach alternator to weels to charge batteries. Ok, why not. I guess you know that if tou want to generate some power by alternator, you have to spin it by some force and the more power you want, the more force tou have to apply. Wind generator generates more power when winds blow faster and thus provide more force. Ok, back to EVs. So the force that you want to apply to alternator to produce energy for battery charge is taken....from weels, so it will slow down vehicle. Energy you get from slowing down the EV by alternator will always be smaller than energy you need to propel the EV unless you use super-conduite motors, invertors and aplternators...than it will be equal..with no energy left to actualy move the car...
Scientics beleive that the conservation of energy priciple is the most significant physical principle we know. And I guess everybody cal feel it is fair that it is this way...it would be odd to produce energy (=mass, E=mc2) from nothing, dont you think?


----------



## SuperChuck_A11 (May 29, 2008)

Dan53 said:


> I think that charging your batteries as you drive must be possible, and if it's not,
> Dan


DAn nobody says it is not POSSIBLE. It is very possible, in fact that is what a REGEN Braking System does.

1. Even with a Regen Braking though your not going to recover 100% or 110% of the Electric used to drive the car forward.
so sooner or later, your batteries are depleted. 

2. We are also saying that using a Car-type Alternator to recharge while underway will not FULLY CHARGE you batteries either. 

ergo *no unlimited range*.


----------



## Dan53 (Jun 1, 2008)

I understand that given current technology we couldn't charge the batteries as we drive because any alternator powered by the batteries couldn't provide the same amount of energy back to them, that's fine. But I was suggesting that one set of batteries powers not only the motor but also, through whatever means, an alternator or series of alternators, that charges another set of batteries, and you may switch between the two sets when one gets low. When Set A gets down to maybe 80% you can switch over to Set B, which have been charging all the while, to run the motor, while Set A becomes dormant and gets charged up. True that maybe it would take too long to charge each set, meaning that Set A might become dead before Set B is fully charged, and I admittedly don't know that. Obviously it would depend on the batteries you were using as well. Batteries that charge rather quickly would be necessary. This idea seems too simple to not have been tried before, so I can assume that it must not work, but I heard that there are batteries in design that will charge in about 5 minutes, and this seems possible with them. You might say that with batteries that charge so quickly, what does it even matter if they charge themselves while driving? I guess I agree, other than that it would just raise technology to a new level if we could pull it off, whether it's totally necessary or not.

Dan


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

How long it takes to charge a battery just depends on how much power you are putting in, which is how fast you are draining the other battery. Splitting the pack in 2 wouldn't make any difference to the net energy of they system- if you pour water from one cup to another you still have the same amount of water... And you always spill some whenever you transfer it... It the same for batteries.


----------



## Dan53 (Jun 1, 2008)

Yeah, I guess you're right.

How many revolutions per minute would an alternator have to spin to put out about 100 volts? Anybody know? Forgive me if this was answered already.

ICE's may have 6 volt or 12 volt generators/alternators, even 24. But they all spin at about 1,000rpms at idle. I can't speak for everything, but on a Beetle the 6 volt and 12 volt generators even use basically the same size pulleys and belt as well. I'm just thinking about this, no real point.

Dan


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

alternators always put out the same voltage (whatever their rating, 12v 24v etc) ,its the amps that go up with more RPM, due to the built in voltage regulators and bridge rectifiers


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

dfwheelman said:


> alternators always put out the same voltage (whatever their rating, 12v 24v etc) ,its the amps that go up with more RPM, due to the built in voltage regulators and bridge rectifiers


unless you have a weak alternator that drops a few volts at low RPM


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

That sounds like a generator, not an alternator.....my VW generator would output varying volt values but alternator is supposed to be 11 - 13.7 volts.

I was thinking about using this on my next project


----------



## Dan53 (Jun 1, 2008)

So here's a generator head that puts out enough energy to charge a battery set for an EV and it spins at about 3600-3700rpm. Is everyone in agreement on this? Forgive my ignorance, but how many RPM's might we expect a wind turbine mounted to a car to put out? I know this has been discussed, but I'm just wondering.

Dan


----------



## dfwheelman (May 15, 2008)

Dan53 said:


> So here's a generator head that puts out enough energy to charge a battery set for an EV and it spins at about 3600-3700rpm. Is everyone in agreement on this? Forgive my ignorance, but how many RPM's might we expect a wind turbine mounted to a car to put out? I know this has been discussed, but I'm just wondering.
> 
> Dan


wind turbine on a car...im still chuckling about that idea.

the overall BEST idea is a series hybrid using a biodiesel engine driving a heavy duty alternator... that generator only puts out 21 amps, a heavy duty alternator can put out 300 amps. even a truck alternator puts out a hefty amperage. Then it depends on how much you want to work for your fuel.

the plans i have says "75 mpg hybrid car"

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Dan53 (Jun 1, 2008)

Can you show us an example of such an alternator? How many rpms would it have to spin to efficiently charge the batteries? It seems that if you're going to go through the trouble of locating a suitable fuel for a biodiesel engine, then your car might as well be fully biodiesel. It would be supremely cheaper than an electric car powered by a small biodiesel. 75mpg is great, of course, but my 10+ year old stock Jetta gets about 40.

Dan


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

I didn't post the thing abotu the biodiesel car above, but I'll comment on it. The attraction of making a car that uses a generator running on biodiesel versus a car running on bioodiesel with no electric motors involved in the system is efficiency. A generator can be made to run at the most efficient speed and load for that particular diesel engine. Whereas a diesel driving the wheels is not always running at the most efficient speed, it is running while the car is not moving, and is always a larger engine than would be needed if the car were set up as a series hybrid.

Even though diesels can run at efficiencies around 40 percent, that is only realized at certain engine speeds and loads. The diesel running the generator can be optimized to those conditions. The diesel in a car driving the wheels is subjected to many different conditions where it is not running most efficiently.

I don't have the time to go on and on about how series hybrid cars can be super efficient if they have an appropriately sized engine hooked to a generator and electric motor. There is plenty of information on the internet about it. It is actually how diesel electric locomotives work. They are the most efficient form of land based transportation there is.


----------



## Gashog (Dec 23, 2007)

dfwheelman said:


> wind turbine on a car...im still chuckling about that idea.
> 
> the overall BEST idea is a series hybrid using a biodiesel engine driving a heavy duty alternator... that generator only puts out 21 amps, a heavy duty alternator can put out 300 amps. even a truck alternator puts out a hefty amperage. Then it depends on how much you want to work for your fuel.
> 
> ...


Did you guys see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-8BX7dUk5c

I've been following these guys for about 5 years.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

An alternator might put out 300 amps, but at only 12V. This is still about 3600W, or 3.6KW. This is also way beyond what the alternator is rated for. I wouldn't expect it to last very long like that.


----------



## G4John (Jun 20, 2008)

Would it be possible to put a clutch on the alternator so that it can be disengaged on flats and uphill? Then engage the clutch downhill and use gravity as a way to power the alternator. Add an inclinometer so it could activate on or off automatically at a specific slope angle when the pull of gravity overcomes the friction of the alternator. Now this might be a negligible way to extend range but extending range even a tiny amount is a good thing. Could this be feasible?


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

This would be feasible, but unnecessary. You don't need to install the alternator. If you want to send juice back to the battery on downhill sections, or during braking, you could just get a controller that enables regenerative braking and get the juice from the motor. Less equipment. Easier system. Production hybrids are already doing this.


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

weelliott said:


> This would be feasible, but unnecessary. You don't need to install the alternator. If you want to send juice back to the battery on downhill sections, or during braking, you could just get a controller that enables regenerative braking and get the juice from the motor. Less equipment. Easier system. Production hybrids are already doing this.


^ what he said.


----------



## G4John (Jun 20, 2008)

weelliott said:


> This would be feasible, but unnecessary. You don't need to install the alternator. If you want to send juice back to the battery on downhill sections, or during braking, you could just get a controller that enables regenerative braking and get the juice from the motor. Less equipment. Easier system. Production hybrids are already doing this.



Thanks, saw people writing about a "brake" but didn't know what that was. Thanks for filling me in. Newbie here.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

Yes, there is a way to recycle energy. Without adding in all the technical mathmatics, you can assimulate that fact that a simple wind generator puts out 26 Amps at 7.5 miles per hour. Due to gear ratio, size of generator, and wind speed. Add this to a car, behind it with a wheel or belt driven from your EV motor and you have a low drag power station that will recharge your batteries as you are moving. At 55 miles per hour, you get approx 190 Amps +/- 20 Amps. Depending on the type of motor, since I am refering to a 400 watt/ 26 Amp @ 7.5 miles per hour. 

Look at my profile and look at my album for more info. I included an example from a flywheel and pictue two with description gives ideas for using wind generators (alternators) that are basically used for low speeds, but can be converted to run at high speeds and give more Amps for charging as the vehicle is moving. 

Hope this helps. I will add mathmatical equations if needed in the future.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

Good idea, if you use an Amperage that meets your requirements and doesn't eat up too much of your energy. Downhill charging is a bonus, even with a 90 Amp Alternator. Need lots of hills. 
Check out my profile for more ideas. A wind generator is a low speed generator (26 Amps at 7.5 mph) and has low drag. This would be more feasible. even if it was belt driven from a wheel behind the car if no other room was available in the engine compartment.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

LeTank said:


> Yes, there is a way to recycle energy. Without adding in all the technical mathmatics, you can assimulate that fact that a simple wind generator puts out 26 Amps at 7.5 miles per hour. Due to gear ratio, size of generator, and wind speed. Add this to a car, behind it with a wheel or belt driven from your EV motor and you have a low drag power station that will recharge your batteries as you are moving. At 55 miles per hour, you get approx 190 Amps +/- 20 Amps. Depending on the type of motor, since I am refering to a 400 watt/ 26 Amp @ 7.5 miles per hour.
> 
> Look at my profile and look at my album for more info. I included an example from a flywheel and pictue two with description gives ideas for using wind generators (alternators) that are basically used for low speeds, but can be converted to run at high speeds and give more Amps for charging as the vehicle is moving.
> 
> Hope this helps. I will add mathmatical equations if needed in the future.


There is so much wrong with this math. 

First of all the energy out of this will never equal the enrgy put in. I could stop there since that pretty much kills this idea. However, if one were to ever try land based wind turbines, it might be good to not be misled by the other math in this. It is suggested that since 7.5 mph creates 26 amps( I'll get back to this later...) that if one were to do 55 mph, it would yield 190 amps. This is a linear calculation. However, it is not a linear function. It is a cubed function. So if one were able to get 26 amps at 7.5 mph, since the new speed is about 7 times faster, the power produced at 55 should be 343 times the power produced at 7.5 assuming the same voltage system in both scenarios. This would be 343 times 26, or about 8500 amps. That is some hefty amperage. So you say something sounds wonderful about this. But I say the opposite... I say this sounds too good to be true. And it is.

You see, I don't know what voltage this is in the previously mentioned system that this turbine putting out 26 amps is working on, but if it is any more than 12 volts, this would have to have a huge sweep area. Huge like more than a 10 foot diameter. Actually lets see how big that would have to be...

A handy equation for wind turbines is 

0.5 X air density X swept area X velocity^3

If you work in metric units you can use 1.23 for density and combine it with the 0.5 to get a new constant of .615. So this makes...

power = 0.615 X swept area X velocity^3

So for this 26 amp turbine if we assume it is running on a 12 volt system, (which would not be enough to run a car.) that would be 312 watts. To get 312 watts at 7.5 mph (which is about 3.35 m/s) we would need a swept area of 13.5 square meters. That is a lot of area. So how long would the blades need to be? Well Pi X R^2 would tell us that this would have to have a radius of 2.07 meters. This is a diameter of 4.14 meters. That's over 13.5 feet. Anyone driving down the road with a wind turbine with a 13.5 foot diameter mounted to their car will be stopped by the authorities. And it wouldn't be because of a conspiracy against free enrgy. It would barely clear under bridges if the blades also barely cleared the ground. It would not fit in one lane, and it would be dangerous to anyone that might get in it's way. This would not be a trivial weight. This is not a little house fan.

Now that we see the size necessary, it might be easier to see how this would create significant drag. In fact the math will tell you that the drag created will be more than the power created. And that drag has to be overcome by the motors, which get their juice from the battery. 

Just for fun we could go back and do the calculations for a more realistic 120 or 144 volt system that makes 26 amps at 7.5 mph. I won't waste space on that though since it will undoubtedly yield a wind turbine that none of us could build and could never be mounted to any vehicle other than that huge thing that mooves the space shuttle. 

The really bad thing about it is that this assumes high efficiencies. We haven't looked at the energy lost in transferring the wind energy into rotational motion into electrical energy into chemical energy back into electrical energy back into rotational motion back into linear motion. Every step has inefficencies.

You can call me a party pooper if you'd like. You can even go tell people that I am probably some disguised horrible government official or disguised big oil cronie that is trying to keep down the free energy movement. Unfortunately the sad truth is that I am an engineer that is trying to show you the pertinent math so that you won't waste money on a system that will not work. Sorry.

Keep brainstorming though. There are still more ways to skin a cat. I can gaurantee that you will be more successful in your inventing if you pick up some physics though.

And remember energy in equals energy out. This is always always true. Unfortunately some of that energy will get out in unuseable forms like heat or creating sound, or friction, or other inefficiencies. These are your enemies. You can never beat them. You can only decrease their take.

Good luck.


----------



## SuperChuck_A11 (May 29, 2008)

One thing about patents, a Patent doesn't mean it is a good idea, or a technicaly feasible one.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

weelliott said:


> I didn't post the thing abotu the biodiesel car above, but I'll comment on it. The attraction of making a car that uses a generator running on biodiesel versus a car running on bioodiesel with no electric motors involved in the system is efficiency. A generator can be made to run at the most efficient speed and load for that particular diesel engine. Whereas a diesel driving the wheels is not always running at the most efficient speed, it is running while the car is not moving, and is always a larger engine than would be needed if the car were set up as a series hybrid.
> 
> Even though diesels can run at efficiencies around 40 percent, that is only realized at certain engine speeds and loads. The diesel running the generator can be optimized to those conditions. The diesel in a car driving the wheels is subjected to many different conditions where it is not running most efficiently.
> 
> I don't have the time to go on and on about how series hybrid cars can be super efficient if they have an appropriately sized engine hooked to a generator and electric motor. There is plenty of information on the internet about it. It is actually how diesel electric locomotives work. They are the most efficient form of land based transportation there is.


STOP THIEF! You stole my idea! Heh heh, this is what I'm here to work out. So far I've gotten good information towards that end. Once I work out the motor/generator portion of this, selecting the correct ICE to drive the generator will be cake. Plus, this setup has the added advantage of not needing batteries by the ton. 

Momono, I know there's a lot of detractors here, and normally I might be one, except...

Metal doesn't float on water, metal doesn't float on air. It can't, it's too heavy. Yet airplanes and ships do it every day. Sound travels at some 850MPH at ground level, yet your voice can travel 45,000 miles with a 3 second delay. The impossible simply hasn't been done yet. After all, whoduthunk you could shake magnets at a wire and lift tons thousands of feet or pump water for miles?

Unfortunately, the only way to know if your idea will work is to try it, and the only way to try it would be if you have an electric car you can use. If you were to isolate your battery capacity to 10 miles of range, then verify, then recharge, put on the towed generator and run again, if this concept is valid then you should be able to run 11 miles with the towed generator. If you can only go 9 miles, then you know it doesn't work.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

Damn. This thread was so long I even ran out of pop-corns.

Keep it up, I had several good laughs.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I've been reading alot of this particular thread on the forum and I have a question about if something would hypotheticaly work. If I re-built a motorcycle stator system using rare earth magnets for the magnetic poles and rewound the coils with 20 turns of 4AWG wire (wire size and turns are just a questimation at this point) and built this entire system into the front wheel of a motorcycle that originaly had drum brakes so that when my front wheel was spinning at about 500rpm I would be generating 40 volts at 250 amps, Then feed the voltage into a capacitor bank that would power my motor and also had a system that would send extra power that couldnt be stored into some kind of cooling system for the electric motor, Why it wouldn't allow me to have basicly a infinite mileage range and limit my top end to the gearing of the bike. If you research into wind generators and how people can rebuild alternators that output the same power at 300rpms as a regular one does at 3000+ rpms, Then realize that a motorcycle wheel at crusing speeds and even in stop n go traffic will probaly always be at least 300 rpms or higher and then add in the need for a light weight low volt high amp power system for a brushless etek powered motorcyce and you can imagine the possabilities. There are practicly a infinite number of inventions out there and things that seemingly wouldn't ever work together can be a major breakthough. I have a million and a half refinements in my head over the basic system I described so if you don't think what I am thinking of doing will work then explain in DETAIL why you think it won't. BTW this is not perpetual motion or over unity or some bullshit like that, I will still have a battery to power the bike for the first time I start it and to get up to power generation speeds.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

It can be used as brake, because it will slow your motorcycle a lot...this is why it is called regenerative braiking. People, stop thinking about these perpetual motion ideas...it really doesn work.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Several times I have told myself that this woudl be the last time I post to this thread. Mostly because I fear that the advice that I post on here won't be understood by those that need it. But some of these ideas are so entertaining I just have to comment on them. So keep them coming. 

As for the motorcycle, this is not that entertaining. It is pretty simple with one twist. The simple part is that the power generated by the front wheel generator has to come from somewhere. When the generator in the front wheel is turned, it will create a force on that wheel, a drag if you will. That drag must be overcome by the motor. That will require more fuel, and amazingly enough the amount of energy that you need to give the motor to overcome that drag force will be more than what you get out of the generator.

The slight twist on this one is that the generator is very very unlikely. To generate 40 volts at 250 amps, that would be 10,000 watts. That's 10 KW. That is equivalent to about 13.5 horsepower. If you look into purchasing a generator that is capable of producing that kind of power at that high of a current, you will quickly see that they are very very heavy. In the hundreds of pounds range. Even built with rare earth magnets it would still be quite heavy and most notably large. If you went up to say a 120 volt system at 83 amps, that would allow you to lighten it up a little, but it would still be too large to fit in the front brake drum of a motorcycle.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Its funny that the post right after mine says to stop thinking about perpetual motion when I say right in my post that it isnt perpetual motion. The power for the front wheel generator comes from the momentum generated by the electric motor moving the bike. Ive heard people compare ideas like mine to taking a pedal bike flipping it upside down hooking a electric motor to the back wheel and a generator the front wheel and running them together with a belt to simulate the road. People who think that a belt under tension mimics the road it doesnt the road doesnt require tension to turn the wheels. I plan on using magnetic around the circumference of the wheel at angles and a very power magnet on the forks that will push the magnets away from it, That isnt a crazy scheme for a magnet engine it is to over come any drag from cogging and to reduce the overall rolling resistance. OH and Id like to know why my generator is unlikely, A custom build generator designed for medium speed operation could put out the power im talking about, Look into custom permanent magnet generators built for windmills and hydro turbines. From what I have read the size of the wire the turns of the wire and the number of magnetic poles (permanent or electromagnetic) all determine the voltage and amps it puts out at a given speed. I imagine I could built a 36v 100 amp alternator easier then a 40v 200amp one but Will I be able to pull more amps (250 for 45 seconds) out of my capacitor pack for quick bursts of speed? I understand you guys might be sick of these types of questions but why not just entertain the possability that it can be done? The japenese magnetic fan company has magnetic motors that have a electromagnet to boost it past the point where most magnetic motors would lock up and if one of there motors was hooked to a generator then the generator into itself it will power itself! We are at the point where a highly efficent energy generator system is a possibilty as a EV power source IMHO. I don't get why people aren't into this stuff more, It will eventualy lead to infinte range for our EV's!


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Any time you are trying to put a certain amount of energy in and then have it keep recycling through and providing infinite energy without losses, that is perpetual motion. That is what you are trying to do, so even though you don't label it as such, that is what it is.

As for the ground versus the belt, the ground is the same as the belt in the respect that it physically links the two. Whatever braking forces the front wheel put on the bike have to be overcome by drive forces supplied by the rear wheel. 

To put it more simply, you are making the front wheel do work-make electricity. to do this requires force. If you have ever tried to turn a generator by hand to do something as small as light up a small light, you will appreciate how much force you have to exert on the handle to get juice to flow. The more juice, the harder you have to push. The front wheel will be powered by the ground. Since it is turning the generator, it will require a lot more force to turn it than if it were just freewheeling. It would be just like having the brakes on. 

If you have ever driven with the brakes on in a car, you might have noticed that you can give it more gas to go the same speed that you coudl without the brakes, or you can use the same gas and go slower, but you will not be able to go the same speed with the same amount of gas since some of the energy is being used.

The whole in your theory comes from the assumption that different scales of energy make it so that certain things are insignificant compared to others. You are assuming that since the generator is small, it won't have any significant effect on the motor. The motor is so powerful it won't even notice that the generator is there and will just keep the bike going at the same speed. If that is the case, then how do you get a significant amount of energy out of the generator if an insignificant amount of energy is being used to turn it. 

All this energy stuff is very well documented to all be significant. When NASA calculates the trajectory of rockets everything is considered. There are no variables that are assumed to be too small to be included. 

As for the improbability of the generator, I am speaking of building one that can put out the power you want and still fit in the hub and not be too heavy to affect the handling of the bike.

If you ever do get any of this to work, tell us about it.

Good luck.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Ok so your guys issue is that you believe the rolling resistance of any generator or alternator built into or onto a vehicle is that too much for the motor to over come and provide enough power to move, Correct?

What if I design a hybrid then? Use a 5.5hp 4-stroke engine from a RV generator and design my own purpose built generator to provide 36VDC at 100amps (with bursts of power up to 300amps for 30 seconds). Is this something easier for you guys to believe is possible? The other thing I was thinking about is a pedal powered generator but itd look a little weird pedaling at highway speeds! Ultimately I believe there will a better way to power our EVs then heavy bulky batteries of any kind.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Ok so your guys issue is that you believe the rolling resistance of any generator or alternator built into or onto a vehicle is that too much for the motor to over come and provide enough power to move, Correct?
> 
> What if I design a hybrid then? Use a 5.5hp 4-stroke engine from a RV generator and design my own purpose built generator to provide 36VDC at 100amps (with bursts of power up to 300amps for 30 seconds). Is this something easier for you guys to believe is possible? The other thing I was thinking about is a pedal powered generator but itd look a little weird pedaling at highway speeds! Ultimately I believe there will a better way to power our EVs then heavy bulky batteries of any kind.


It is not the rolling resistance. It is the rotational resistance. I'm not talking about the friction involved. That would be significant, but even before that, the force required to turn the generator in order for it to produice electricity at all is the force I am talking about. The more power you want from a generator the more force you have to put on it, or the faster you have to turn it. The amount of power that a generator will produce is equal to the amount of power put into turning the generator. So say you want it to produce 1 KW. That is about 1.3 HP. Each horsepower generated requires applying a torque on the shaft of the generator at a speed so that they multiply together to equal to 5252lbXftXrev/min. So a torque of 1 pound-feet spinning the shaft at 5252 RPM, or a torque of 20 pound-feet spinning it at 262.6 RPM, or 500 lb-ft at 10.5 RPM or whatever. For your 13.5 HP generator, the force and speed must be ten times as much.

So this is the force that the motor must overcome. I am not saying that the motor can't do it. If it couldn't, then you could just get a bigger motor, or a smaller generator. What I am saying is that the amount of electricity that the generator produces will be less than or equal to the amount of energy that it takes to turn the wheel. That energy that it takes to turn the wheel comes from the drive wheel, which is powered by the motor, which gets juice from the battery. So the energy to turn the generator comes from the battery-not from the road.

As far as using a generator to power the vehicle, that is possible. It takes some fancy controls, but it is possible, is not perpetual motion, and is simply a series hybrid. The chevy volt is like this. The thing with that is that you are actually getting that energy from somewhere. It comes from teh gasoline in the generator, or from your pedal power if you pedal the generator. As for pedaling a generator, it would take some mad pedaling, and since a bike would weigh less, have less aero drag, and have fewer efficiency losses from converting from one form of energy to another to another, it would be more efficient to go with a bike.

I seriousl y suggest getting a little generator and hooking it up to various loads and moving it by hand to get an idea of the amount of work it takes to get juice.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I have a 2200w AC generator right now and various Alternators from various vehicles. The easiest one to turn that puts out the most power is the stator system from the motorcycle I am converting to electric (84 kawasaki GPZ 600cc) I was thinking of building a generator from 3 motorcycle stators by mounting them stationary inside a tube big enough for another tube containing permenant magnets in it to spin around the stators. Then rewinding the stator coils so that each stator put out 12v at 60 amp and feed the power to a capacitor system that would feed my motor and controller. Regardless of weither it is pedal powered ICE powered or some crazy perpetual motion idea, That is the type of generator I want to use as it would be extermely compact exteremly powerful and wouldn't require high rpms to generate the required power which means it wouldn't need as much torque to generate the electricity.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Its funny that the post right after mine says to stop thinking about perpetual motion when I say right in my post that it isnt perpetual motion. The power for the front wheel generator comes from the momentum generated by the electric motor moving the bike. Ive heard people compare ideas like mine to taking a pedal bike flipping it upside down hooking a electric motor to the back wheel and a generator the front wheel and running them together with a belt to simulate the road. People who think that a belt under tension mimics the road it doesnt the road doesnt require tension to turn the wheels. I plan on using magnetic around the circumference of the wheel at angles and a very power magnet on the forks that will push the magnets away from it, That isnt a crazy scheme for a magnet engine it is to over come any drag from cogging and to reduce the overall rolling resistance. OH and Id like to know why my generator is unlikely, A custom build generator designed for medium speed operation could put out the power im talking about, Look into custom permanent magnet generators built for windmills and hydro turbines. From what I have read the size of the wire the turns of the wire and the number of magnetic poles (permanent or electromagnetic) all determine the voltage and amps it puts out at a given speed. I imagine I could built a 36v 100 amp alternator easier then a 40v 200amp one but Will I be able to pull more amps (250 for 45 seconds) out of my capacitor pack for quick bursts of speed? I understand you guys might be sick of these types of questions but why not just entertain the possability that it can be done? The japenese magnetic fan company has magnetic motors that have a electromagnet to boost it past the point where most magnetic motors would lock up and if one of there motors was hooked to a generator then the generator into itself it will power itself! We are at the point where a highly efficent energy generator system is a possibilty as a EV power source IMHO. I don't get why people aren't into this stuff more, It will eventualy lead to infinte range for our EV's!


Problem is that you actually dont understand that infinite range EV is perpetuum mobile of first type to be correct. It is machine that generates energy (moving any EV requires energy) from nothing and current mainstream science believe that this is not possible. 
Did you ever ride a bike with dynamo attached to power the front light? Do you remember how hard you have to pedal compared to unattached dynamo? Any device that generates any energy (alternator, dynamo) requiers some any other energy as input and that input is equal or bigger than output energy.... if it would be that simple, sb. would be using it already, dont you think?
Magnetic motors are also perpetuum mobile = the same crap all over again....it doesnt work. and no elecromagnet will help. see for yourself.




Persanity said:


> I have a 2200w AC generator right now and various Alternators from various vehicles. The easiest one to turn that puts out the most power is the stator system from the motorcycle I am converting to electric (84 kawasaki GPZ 600cc) I was thinking of building a generator from 3 motorcycle stators by mounting them stationary inside a tube big enough for another tube containing permenant magnets in it to spin around the stators. Then rewinding the stator coils so that each stator put out 12v at 60 amp and feed the power to a capacitor system that would feed my motor and controller. Regardless of weither it is pedal powered ICE powered or some crazy perpetual motion idea, That is the type of generator I want to use as it would be extermely compact exteremly powerful and wouldn't require high rpms to generate the required power which means it wouldn't need as much torque to generate the electricity.



So you are telling us that you have alternator that is easy to turn and generates a lot of energy? So if you connect it to 5kW ICE, it will generate more energy than 5kW? You are not serious, are you....


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

1st off a EV with a infinite range isn't automaticly perpetual motion.
2nd


> Magnetic motors are also perpetuum mobile = the same crap all over again....it doesnt work. and no elecromagnet will help. see for yourself.


 Well that isn't true at all. The japanese magnetic motor company wouldn't exist if that was. There design is a simple magnetic motor with a few electomagnets to boost it past the point where those types of machines usual "stall" out. 
3rd To be honest I have never riden a bike with a generator or dynamo attached so I can't comment on that. Ever single alternator I have ever hand spun was easy as hell to rotate, Although the electromanet inside wasn't on so Im not sure if it would spin as freely with it turned on, From what you guys are telling me I imagine it wouldn't.
4th


> So you are telling us that you have alternator that is easy to turn and generates a lot of energy? So if you connect it to 5kW ICE, it will generate more energy than 5kW? You are not serious, are you....


 No, Im telling you I have a design for a electric generator that will generate alot of energy at low rpms with little to no resistence usual associated with these types of machines and that by having one incorporated into the front wheel of a electric motorcycle that It would provide a essential infinite range for the vehicle. It would of course need a bank of capacitors and need them to be charged before it could ever self power. Stop thinking in the "the rules are the rules box" and start imagining how different aspects of different technologies can be incorporated together to make a new type of device or type of technology. It happens everyday.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

There's loss. Period. Loss in transfer from wheel to generator, loss from generator to some sort of a booster/converter to deliver pack voltage. Then loss in the conversion from pack voltage back to the motor in order to provide infinite distance. 

lets say 72V, and you're cruising along at 50A, thats 3600W if you're full throttle. I'd like to see you fit even a 3000W generator inside a bike wheel. What happens if you go up a hill? 

Put it this way, if you have a generator running on gas with no load, it doesn't bog down. As soon as you put a load on it, turn on lights, run power tools, it bogs down, and automatically increases the throttle to provide more power. The point is, it really bogs things down when you're trying to generate large amounts of energy. Same thing if you have a hand crank generator. Put one light on it, its easy to crank. Put 20 on it, and I bet its a little harder to crank. Well it is, because I've actually done it, back in highschool physics. Its not rocket science.

If you have a design, I'd like to see some calculations on your design. What is the field strength? Weight of magnets? size of copper that you're using? Flux calculations? efficiency calculations? What is the voltage output for 500rpm and 2500 rpm respectively? What is the max current output of the generator at 10ftlbs of torque? What is the full weight of this device. 

The extra weight alone of a 5000W generator WILL slow you down, whether its attached to anything or not. Then add a load (the batteries/controller/DC-DC converter) and you've got more drag. I just don't see how you think you can defeat losses, or generate enough power to keep going. Power in- power losses=power out. 

This is how it looks to me. You state that Power in (from motor while driving)= Power out (from the generator to the pack). You would have to be in complete balance to keep going infinitely.

But you don't take into acount that 

power in (power used by the motor) = power out (generator) - generator losses - weight drag - mechanical drag from the generator due to the load - losses from boost/conversion to pack voltage - mechanical loss of the chain/sprocket - motor electrical efficiency

It starts to add up. And even if you have a 90% or more efficient generator, I PROMISE you, you can't overcome unity gain (100%), and you cannot overcome all the other losses.

If you think you can, go ahead and spit out some equations and forumulas to prove your point. Put something down on paper... it starts to make more sense if you can prove it.

Without documentation, its just bitching.... I've provided documentation, where's yours?


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

Persanity said:


> 4th No, Im telling you I have a design for a electric generator that will generate alot of energy at low rpms with little to no resistence usual associated with these types of machines and that by having one incorporated into the front wheel of a electric motorcycle that It would provide a essential infinite range for the vehicle.


Simply put, no. 

alternators convert kinetic energy into electrical energy, no more, no less.
and they do so at around 50-60% efficiency. for an alternator to put out 5kw, you would need 10kw of energy inputted into it. in the case of your bike, that 10kw would come from the forward momentum energy of the bike. 

This is how an alternator works. this is the only way an alternator works. there is no hidden magic. 

look at the big picture here. there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. you cant create it, you cant destroy it. you just move it about, and change its form. so, if your 'low resistance alternator' isnt converting the kinetic energy of the bike, where is it getting it from?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Persanity said:


> The japanese magnetic motor company wouldn't exist if that was. There design is a simple magnetic motor with a few electomagnets to boost it past the point where those types of machines usual "stall" out.
> .


 
The Japan Magnetic Fan Compay made one press release in 2004 which has been repeated by over-unity freaks ever since. Here is a long, humorous rebutal from Slashdot dated April 15, 2004.


"No, no, no. See, you just don't understand. He's using _magnets_. They have powers that you just don't understand.

What'll happen is this. You'll have a 9-volt battery that you take with you when you leave for work in the morning. You use this battery to run a little half-watt motor (540 mW, according to the article). Now, clearly this isn't enough to move your car - but wait! This motor drives a generator, which makes 1.755W of output! (from the article). This still isn't enough, but we might be able to work something out...

The 1.755 W drives a 1.7 W motor. This motor, in turn, drives a generator. This generator can generate 5.525 W of electricity. We'll use this energy to drive a 5.5 W motor. That motor will turn a generator, which thanks to the mysterious power of _magnets_ will generate _17.875 W_! Amazing!

This still isn't enough to move your car very fast - but wait! We're not done! If we use our 17.875 W to drive a 17.5 W motor, it can drive a generator which produces *58.09 W!!!* That's a lot of power! It's almost 1/10th of a horsepower! Next, we'll use that electricity to power a fancy 55 W electric motor, which (because the magnets have eternal power forever) can turn a generator producing 178.75 watts! Clean! Cheap! Quiet! With this power, we can operate an electric motor which in turn drives a generator generating an awesome 580 Watts of power! Using this electricity to drive another motor / generator pair, we can generate 1.888 kW of clean, wholesome electric power! It's amazing!

Now, let's say we've got a 1.8 kW motor in the trunk. This motor drives another generator which produces 5,850 W of power - that's 7.842 HP in your trunk. We'll use the electricity to drive another motor, this time a 7.8 HP motor - notice we're allowing for (I^2)R losses - which in turn drives a generator. This generator puts out a whopping 18.85 KW of power - that's as much as 10 hair dryers! But, rather than dry all 10 of our passengers' hair at once (can't do *our* hair, we're driving!), we'll use that electricity to drive a 25 HP electric motor. This is a big motor, but not as big as it would be if it didn't use the amazing power of _magnets_! It can drive a generator that makes 61.26 kW of electricity, which let me tell you is quite a bit! This electricity will be used to drive an 82 HP electric motor - as much as a small electric car. But you don't want a SMALL electric car, nosiree Bob! We use that dinky-assed commuter-car motor to drive a honkin' big generator, which pours out a torrent of electrons - almost 200,000 watts worth! Yikes! That's enough electricity to drive a 265 HP motor! Wow!

But why would we want a pitiful little 265 HP motor in our car? We're carrying 10 passengers, remember? Let's keep going! If we use that 198 kW to drive a motor/generator pair using Minato's incredible _magnetic_ technology, we can generate 644 kW of clean, efficient electricity! That's enough to drive an 863 HP electric motor, which thanks to its use of _magnets_, can be as small as a gallon paint can - and just as quiet!

Isn't this incredible? Using a single 9 volt battery - preferably an Energizer or Duracell - and 14 super-quiet, incredibly efficient electric motors along with 13 revolutionary electric generators, we're driving an 863 HP super monster screamin' machine with 10 passengers! We're passing Corvettes and Ferrarris like they're glued to the asphalt, and we don't need any gasoline to do it!

Tune in next week, as I show you how it takes only 20 motor/generator pairs - using Minato's incredible _magnetic_ technology - to generate 1.21 Jigawatts - twice! You can send TWO DeLoreans "Back to the Future" at the same time, and STILL have enough electricity to run that bangin' DVD player in your sun visor!

Now, I realize that this all seems a bit hard to believe, but that's just because you don't understand the incredible power of _magnets_."




And just in case you haven't had enough of this *Perpetual Motion* discussion, google *Kohei Minato *the retired rock star/inventor of this motor.

Later,
Keith


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

1st off why are you being an asshole and getting an attitude over a forum discusion about a theoretical generator to power a as yet un-built bike? 

I havn't worked out any calculations beyond that I know I can fit 10-15 turns of 4g copper wire on each of the 18 legs of my stator (which is out of a motorcycle and is inverterd form of a car alternator stator) and that I can replace the 4 (weak) permanent magnets that spin around the stator now with 20 N50 neodymium magnets and if I build it into a alternator casing I could use 3 stators stacked and 3 rings of magnet, 1 around each stator. I'll admit Im not that great at math and Ill admit Im not sure how to calculate the output of a generator. All I know is that people have built the type of generator I am building but with only 1 stator and 3 times bigger for wind mills so I increased the number of stators proportionatly for how much I shrunk it. As far as some proof that magnetic motors can provide plenty of torque with minimal power, Here you go.

Proof you can get more power out the you put in, Up to 6x to be exact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4qjZocje0c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHpikCPKPiE&feature=related <-If nothing else watch this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQAo3O2d8cU&feature=related

Proof that magnetic motors in conjunction with electromagnetics work on a commercial scale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8utqgS7es7k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8LaVH-pn0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHKkuNAuJA&feature=related

Simplest form of magnetic motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bBqI87a_Go&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGiWiXMHn0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ttm13AyiMs&feature=related


If the videos don't convince you that at least EVENTUALY what I am saying is possible then I guess your stuck in your way of thinking and all I can say is good luck.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Thats not proof, its just videos of people CLAIMING to have succeeded in over unity gain. None of them have ever proven it. Their claims have never been verified by scientists or engineers. Any reason most of them are Australian? They've been working on these perpetual motion machines for decades, and I've yet to see one in that time actually step up to bat and prove it. Almost every single claim out there has been debunked. Look in the past 20 years, 100's of companies have claimed its true, gotten investors, and vanished into the wind.... why do you think that is? Its because they pulled a fast one, got some money and split.

Your "theoretical" design is THEORY, you THINK it works... go build it, come back and show us. I've hand wound generators, handpicked magnets and designed small generators. Surely you can do it too. Come back with some numbers. I'd love to see them, not because I don't believe you can do it, Its because you're talking the talk, but have quite a lot of trouble walking the walk. 

True, generators can be created that are MORE efficient than before, but there is NO SUCH THING as getting more power out from what you put into it. their claims are bogus. I bet you believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth fairy too. Are you being led by blind faith? Just because someone tells you they can do it, does it mean its true?

Why are you being so immature by calling names? I provided constructively critical questions asking you to prove your claim. If you'd actually paid attention in physics class you'd know the balances of force and energy. You'd be able to provide some insight as to why it'd work. All you provided is ONE way to wind a generator. Congratulations Einstein, you reinvented the wheel!

Did you ever think that you were thinking inside the box? Here you are, insulting left and right, getting frustrated with all of us. None of us has really repeated the same argument. We each have provided arguments as to why it won't work, and support our arguments with proof, equations, references. We each think about the issue independantly, and provide different answers. We're all thinking outside of the "perpetual motion" box. You claim "it has to work, yes, yes, yes.... it HAS TO!!!! I don't believe you all, it MUST work...." All you have provided is "claims".... thats not proof. 

Those are a bunch of guys trying to get massive amounts of hype, so investors will give them money to develop something that will NEVER reach unity.... EVER.

And until you succeed in doing so, shut it....


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

Hey guys!
Lets keep this friendly, this thread is just too much fun to read for a lot of people.
Persanity!
May I suggest if your three stators are identical(or close enough) you could just stack them on top of eachother and wind the three as one.
It would greatly cut down on resistance losses,plus you end up with a more compact powerful unit. What's with the 4g wire?(gauge?)
Barna


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Proof you can get more power out the you put in, Up to 6x to be exact.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHpikCPKPiE&feature=related <-If nothing else watch this one


The only thing proven here (if you listen closely) is that he ran his little homemade motor (*with no load whatsoever attached to it*) for 50 hours and, by swapping around a couple of batteries (which started out at approx 12.65v) during this run, ended up with batteries that (in his own words) "still had 12 point somethin' volts". When the batteries in my bike read "12 point somethin' volts" - it's time for a charge.

If you haven't noticed yet I'm on this thread purely for the entertainment.

Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarden ; There is no such thing as a free lunch!!
Keith


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I was never not keeping it friendly, I simply askked why frodus was getting an attitude and being a jerk when Im talking about theories and possibilities. I have only said I have ideas and that I would like to do this or that, I never said anything about knowing 100% itd work. If I knew 100% what I was thinking would work you think Id be here telling people about it? All I want to do is bounce ideas off of people. 

Frodus You obviosly only watched the 1st video and decided to make your comments, Watch them all and see if some of the things you think are 100% fact don't change. I also don't understand your whole can't walk the walk thing when your the one getting upset and being a jerk. Im just simply talking about theory for fun dude, Take the stick out sit back down and CALM down.

Im not here to fight with ANYBODY. Im here to have discussi ons and if you don't like my ideas then don't participate in the discusion. I bet if I was here 20 years ago saying I wantted to make a flashlight that worked by generating electricity when you shook it that you would be telling me it wouldn't work or If I had said 5 years ago I wantted to build a motor 1/3rd the size of a golf cart motor but with more power that you would be saying it wasn't possible and yet I have a mars brushless motor.


----------



## bespurcell (Jun 29, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

A quote from Michael Faraday taken from the wiki entry above

_"Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature, and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency."_

sums up my ideas on this discussion perfectly.
Keith


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> I was never not keeping it friendly, I simply askked why frodus was getting an attitude and being a jerk when Im talking about theories and possibilities. I have only said I have ideas and that I would like to do this or that, I never said anything about knowing 100% itd work. If I knew 100% what I was thinking would work you think Id be here telling people about it? All I want to do is bounce ideas off of people.
> 
> Frodus You obviosly only watched the 1st video and decided to make your comments, Watch them all and see if some of the things you think are 100% fact don't change. I also don't understand your whole can't walk the walk thing when your the one getting upset and being a jerk. Im just simply talking about theory for fun dude, Take the stick out sit back down and CALM down.
> 
> Im not here to fight with ANYBODY. Im here to have discussi ons and if you don't like my ideas then don't participate in the discusion. I bet if I was here 20 years ago saying I wantted to make a flashlight that worked by generating electricity when you shook it that you would be telling me it wouldn't work or If I had said 5 years ago I wantted to build a motor 1/3rd the size of a golf cart motor but with more power that you would be saying it wasn't possible and yet I have a mars brushless motor.


How did I get an attitude? My post in response to you poked tangible measurable holes in your theory. You just didn't like hearing logical answers and critical questions. Go reread it and listen to what it says. I didn't start out with an attitude, but rather I started out with logically explaining to someone for the 100th time that you're likely not taking into acount losses. I did get defensive once you called me an asshole. You started the namecallilng and immature comments.

Just because you don't want to hear the answer, doesn't mean I'm being a Jerk or an Asshole.

I've seen all those videos before, its nothing new, and it hasn't changed my view of thing. I'm a degreed EE, with a great physics and math background and I just don't see any tangible evidence that any of this stuff is true. 

There are more documented cases of these "machines" being disproven, and No documented cases of these being proven. I commend them for gains in efficiency, but to create more power than they put in, is really tough to swallow when they can't even stand by their claims when the general populous wants proof.

Show us some calculations, put something on paper.

We get all sorts of newbies that come in here with the same idea of running a generator off the wheel to generate electricity to run the machine. Its nothing new, you're idea is nothing new. But we've YET to see any of these inventors create anything working.

Ideas look great on paper, but when you build it, the physical world can wreak havok on those ideas due to the limitations of our physical world. Mechanical and Electrical losses are two of those limitations.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> 1st off a EV with a infinite range isn't automaticly perpetual motion.
> 
> SNIP
> 
> Ever single alternator I have ever hand spun was easy as hell to rotate, Although the electromanet inside wasn't on so Im not sure if it would spin as freely with it turned on, From what you guys are telling me I imagine it wouldn't.


Actually once you say infinite range with no energy input to the system, you are talking abotu perpetual motion. It's almost the definition of it. 

The alternators are easy to rotate. That is because they aren't actually generatign any energy. Try hooking a load up to that alternator. Hook up a high wattage lightbulb like a headlight and see hwo easy it is to spin it. Now try to actually light that headlight. You will have to spin it fast. In order to do this you will have to use some belts or gears or some mechanism to make that spin faster yet be powered by you. Try putting a pedal bike in a stand and mount the alternator so the pulley is touchign the rear wheel. Then pedal the bike with and without the light hooked up. It is much harder with the light hooked up because you are actually completing the circuit. If you have a disposable alternator, try grounding the two lines together and pedaling. That's even harder.

Saying that an alternator is easy to spin is like saying a bike is easy to pedal when the wheel isn't touching the ground. It is a true statement, but it is because it isn't doing any work. There is nothing on the other end of the system using up energy. I could probably get my bike up to about 50 mph according to my speedometer if it were just in a stand. In fact I coudl probably do that with my arms easier than with my feet. On level ground I'd be lucky to hit 25.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Persanity said:


> 1st off a EV with a infinite range isn't automaticly perpetual motion.
> 2nd Well that isn't true at all. The japanese magnetic motor company wouldn't exist if that was. There design is a simple magnetic motor with a few electomagnets to boost it past the point where those types of machines usual "stall" out.
> 3rd To be honest I have never riden a bike with a generator or dynamo attached so I can't comment on that. Ever single alternator I have ever hand spun was easy as hell to rotate, Although the electromanet inside wasn't on so Im not sure if it would spin as freely with it turned on, From what you guys are telling me I imagine it wouldn't.
> 4th No, Im telling you I have a design for a electric generator that will generate alot of energy at low rpms with little to no resistence usual associated with these types of machines and that by having one incorporated into the front wheel of a electric motorcycle that It would provide a essential infinite range for the vehicle. It would of course need a bank of capacitors and need them to be charged before it could ever self power. Stop thinking in the "the rules are the rules box" and start imagining how different aspects of different technologies can be incorporated together to make a new type of device or type of technology. It happens everyday.


1) yes it is, because it generates energy for moving the car from nothing. if you dont get it, I am sorry....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

2) go and study some basic physics rules, it is hard to argue with you when you have no idea how things works. Especially focus on energy conservation principle, that is one of the very basic rules current psysics is standing on. If you prove this is wrong, the Nobel price is yours for sure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

And this:
"Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be _impossible_, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence


----------



## bespurcell (Jun 29, 2008)

Persanity said:


> I bet if I was here 20 years ago saying I wantted to make a flashlight that worked by generating electricity when you shook it that you would be telling me it wouldn't work or If I had said 5 years ago I wantted to build a motor 1/3rd the size of a golf cart motor but with more power that you would be saying it wasn't possible and yet I have a mars brushless motor.


Faraday discovered the invention that makes the flashlight you are talking about possible.... in the 1800's.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

frodus said:


> And this:
> "Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be _impossible_, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence


The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry, and the theorem can be proven. In other words, as long as the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time — as long as the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws _must_ be true, in the sense that they follow from the presupposition using mathematical logic. To put it the other way around: if perpetual motion or "*overunity*" machines were possible, then most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics, or both would have to be false. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that mathematics is believed to be absolute, since its veracity is not dependent on anything that happens in the real world.
Of course the universe does not have to conform to our belief of how it works. In this case it is easy to check whether or not the theory is correct. Using telescopes we can examine the universe in the distant past; the fact that stars even exist and are, to the limits of our measurements, identical to stars today, is a direct visual demonstration that physics was similar in the past. Combining different measurements such as spectroscopy, direct measurement of the speed of light in the past and similar measurements demonstrates conclusively that physics has remained substantially the same, if not identical, for all of observable history spanning billions of years.

I have been studying physics on Charle's University for 5 years and I can assure you that physicist have overwhelming amount of reasons to believe conservation laws are correct. If it would be wrong, it would have the greatest inpact on everything you know about, because the very basics of psysics are working because of these laws. Stability of atoms, molecules and matter itself is maitained due to fact that energy cannot be destroied nor created. Nukes are also evidence of these laws.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

wouldnt a room temperature superconductor be usable to create perpetual motion?. have you ever seen magnetic discs rotating above superconductors as their own magnetic field is reflected? (couldnt think of the proper word, sorry) 

and as for the speed of light, what about bose-einstein condensate? doesnt light slow to walking pace when traversing it? (granted it accelerates back to normal speed on exit, suggesting it never reduced energy state)

Dont get me wrong, i think any machine that use's newtonian physics must comply to the normal laws, so all of these magnet motors, etc are bullshit.

but once you get down to the laws of quantum physics, all bets are off.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

But even in a Bose-Einstein cloud the laws of energy conservation still apply. And creating one takes a lot of energy. When you are pumping heat out of a system and trying to get it within millionths of a degree from absolute zero, or whatever they are now approaching, it is hard to get the heat out faster than it goes in without using tons of energy. 

Last I heard, the laws of conservation of energy even apply in quantum mechanics. I'm assuming that I would have heard if things had been proven otherwise.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

weelliott said:


> But even in a Bose-Einstein cloud the laws of energy conservation still apply. And creating one takes a lot of energy. When you are pumping heat out of a system and trying to get it within millionths of a degree from absolute zero, or whatever they are now approaching, it is hard to get the heat out faster than it goes in without using tons of energy.
> 
> Last I heard, the laws of conservation of energy even apply in quantum mechanics. I'm assuming that I would have heard if things had been proven otherwise.


true. although still doesnt explain the possibility of room temperature superconducting material creating perpetual motion. If a room temperature superconducting material is found, wont that affect the laws of conservation of energy. Or would the laws of conservation of energy prevent any such superconducter existing?

on a side note (I am genuinely curious about this, i rarely get to talk to physicists), if we imagine two particles that are entangled and seperated. then we use energy to alter the spin of one particle, the other should alter its spin accordingly. my question is, where does the energy come from for that?


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

manic_monkey said:


> true. although still doesnt explain the possibility of room temperature superconducting material creating perpetual motion. If a room temperature superconducting material is found, wont that affect the laws of conservation of energy. Or would the laws of conservation of energy prevent any such superconducter existing?
> 
> on a side note (I am genuinely curious about this, i rarely get to talk to physicists), if we imagine two particles that are entangled and seperated. then we use energy to alter the spin of one particle, the other should alter its spin accordingly. my question is, where does the energy come from for that?


I honestly don't know if the laws of conservation of energy prevent room-temperature super conductors. I don't see why they would. Even if it were to be found, I don't see how that would enable perpetual motion. 

Superconductors are just really low resistance. The efficeincy of an electric motor would be increased if superconductors were used, but even though the flow of juice isn't being resisted by the resistance of the wire any more, it would still correspond to the magnetic field that is acting on it or it is creating. In short, with superconductors, that electricity to motion energy change would become more efficient, but it would never become over 100% efficient, and there are still many more ways that energy would be lost. If you were to use superconductors and also get rid of all friction, rolling resistance, all air resistance, any material deformation that causes heat or sound, and all that other stuff, then you could in theory operate at 100% efficiency, but that would still just conserve the energy in the system. It would just keep you going if you were on a level surface. It would be hard to breathe in that absolute vacuum though.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

weelliott said:


> It would be hard to breathe in that absolute vacuum though.


 hehe

I was gonna mention vaccuums, but thats the reason I didn't.... pretty much not gonna happen with a vehicle.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

manic_monkey said:


> wouldnt a room temperature superconductor be usable to create perpetual motion?. have you ever seen magnetic discs rotating above superconductors as their own magnetic field is reflected? (couldnt think of the proper word, sorry) off.


Magnet levitating above superconductor is no perpetual motion, because it generates no energy, it just sits there and thats all. No difference betwen this and you sitting on the chair. do not mistake force with energy, because Energy = Force * distance in vectors.



weelliott said:


> I honestly don't know if the laws of conservation of energy prevent room-temperature super conductors. I don't see why they would. Even if it were to be found, I don't see how that would enable perpetual motion.
> 
> Superconductors are just really low resistance. The efficeincy of an electric motor would be increased if superconductors were used, but even though the flow of juice isn't being resisted by the resistance of the wire any more, it would still correspond to the magnetic field that is acting on it or it is creating. In short, with superconductors, that electricity to motion energy change would become more efficient, but it would never become over 100% efficient, and there are still many more ways that energy would be lost. If you were to use superconductors and also get rid of all friction, rolling resistance, all air resistance, any material deformation that causes heat or sound, and all that other stuff, then you could in theory operate at 100% efficiency, but that would still just conserve the energy in the system. It would just keep you going if you were on a level surface. It would be hard to breathe in that absolute vacuum though.


In fact, superconductors have exactly zero resistance, not really low. But it has nothing to do with perpetual motion.


----------



## Phyber Optik (Jun 4, 2008)

I put a wind generator and a large electric fan on a sailboat and can sail forever in zero wind conditions.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

thank you for your replies on superconductors. i can see where i was getting mistaken. i had seen all the videos on discs with multiple magnets spinning above a superconductor, but upon further research i see that the disc has to be set spinning in the first place, and merely maintains the energy given to it. so with the normal losses mentioned, its not gonna be much use, except for energy storage.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Like I said, Im not here to fight or argue with anybody. Id rather have a nice logical discussion with precise answers as to why something won't woprk rather then a big ole catch all like "perpetual motion is impossible". In my mind I am not after perpetual motiom. I just want to design a highly effecient electric generator into the hub of my front wheel to recapture electric energy. My motor supports regen yes but my controller doesnt and I cant afford a different controller right now. I may not have a degree in EE but I am far from stupid and just cause I cant explain with a formula and equations how something works doesnt mean I dont know how it works. Frodus Im sorry if I offended you when I said you were being an asshole but I felt that you were being rude/attacking my ideas. You may answer questions like this all the time but I never had asked before so I dont like all the angre from past expierences getting thrust upon me. Now going back to the whole shaker flashlight thing... If I mount a rod on my front wheel that will move up and down as the wheel spins, kind of like old school train wheels, and have a neodymium magnet on the end that is about the size of a motorcycle piston and had that travel through a spool of copper wire on the outside of the tube and the rod and magnet are moving on the inside. Basicly a giant shake flashlight that you don't shake and is powered by the motion of the wheel. What do you think of that design? What are the holes in this one?


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Like I said, Im not here to fight or argue with anybody. Id rather have a nice logical discussion with precise answers as to why something won't woprk rather then a big ole catch all like "perpetual motion is impossible".


ok, but the problem is, your previous proposals actually WERE perpetual motion...



Persanity said:


> In my mind I am not after perpetual motiom. I just want to design a highly effecient electric generator into the hub of my front wheel to recapture electric energy.


 if used as brake, I have no problem with that.



Persanity said:


> If I mount a rod on my front wheel that will move up and down as the wheel spins, kind of like old school train wheels, and have a neodymium magnet on the end that is about the size of a motorcycle piston and had that travel through a spool of copper wire on the outside of the tube and the rod and magnet are moving on the inside. Basicly a giant shake flashlight that you don't shake and is powered by the motion of the wheel. What do you think of that design? What are the holes in this one?


 again, for braking, why not. If you want to use it all the time the bike is moving, that is really stupid idea, because when it generates power, at least the same power is substracted from the moving energy of your bike - it will slow it down like brakes. It could work if it would generate more power than it would substract from moving energy, but that would mean it has bigger efficiency than 100% and that is definition of perpetual motion - which doesnt work.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Now going back to the whole shaker flashlight thing... If I mount a rod on my front wheel that will move up and down as the wheel spins, kind of like old school train wheels, and have a neodymium magnet on the end that is about the size of a motorcycle piston and had that travel through a spool of copper wire on the outside of the tube and the rod and magnet are moving on the inside. Basicly a giant shake flashlight that you don't shake and is powered by the motion of the wheel. What do you think of that design? What are the holes in this one?


You seem fascinated by the shaker flashlight. But, the wheel thing won't work either. Generating electricity is not free, it takes effort to push electrons and that effort is seen as resistance to movement. If you put something on the wheel that generates electricity, regardless of the method used to move the magnet, you are putting resistance to movement into the system. In fact, this method is worse because you are adding in a mechanical conversion, from roundyround to up and down. This conversion will also take energy to make.

All is not lost though, because your idea does have some merit. Instead of looking at the spinning wheel as the source of motion, look at the forks. The motorcycle forks are just a big set of shock absorbers, which keep the wheel planted to the pavement while isolating the rider from the bumps in the road. There is a considerable amount of up and down motion being damped here, and the energy generated by this damping is converted to heat in the shock absorber fluid. And, this is exactly the type of motion used by the shaker flashlight to generate power. This would not be generating free energy aka perpetual motion, it would be recovering energy that is currently 100 percent wasted, without affecting forward motion in any way. 

So, if you were to look at replacing the lower tube of the shocks with powerful magnets, and replacing the upper tube with an assembly that lets you put coils around it, you could generate power this way. Course, you'd still need a way to both isolate the rider from road bumps and keep the wheel planted to the pavement. No idea if a powerful enough magnet would provide enough shock absorption through motion or not.

I was actually looking at something along these lines to replace the 4 shock absorbers found on a car, but unfortunately I don't have what it takes to make something like this.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

I would like to add nothing is impossible when it comes to finding an alternative energy source to replentish your Amps being used. 
Even little things such as this can help.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Elemental_Rod_Generator

It may need to be larger, but if someone lives in Japan or the Philippines where you can either get one from the company that produces them or get the details from the inventor himself how to build it. 
His website:http://www.freewebs.com/narfschwartz/

Anyway, I believe in finding the right combination of things can help make up the difference in Amps used, therefore extending range.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

LeTank said:


> I would like to add nothing is impossible when it comes to finding an alternative energy source to replentish your Amps being used.
> Even little things such as this can help.
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Elemental_Rod_Generator
> 
> ...


Many people think perpetual motions actually are impossible.

citation from your link: Two rods. One is composed of 73 elements, and the other, with 74 elements. An electrical charge apparently builds up in one of the rods because of this difference, creating enough potential to generate electricity continously. This charge is alleged to be a function of neutrinos striking differentially. 

Oh my...does he even know what neutrinos are? I doubt that...just another piece of crap / lie


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I spent the entire weekend working on a pedal generator. I have 3 electric motors from power wheels with the gear box still attached and those are being spun by me pedaling a unicycle type thing. The power generated is 40 volts at 3 amps and I can run a tread mill at 4 miles an hour off that electricity. I figure if I add 6 more motors I can generate 120 volts at 9 amps and use a converter to convert it to 36 volts and 100 amps. As of right now the thing is easier to pedal then back pedaling a bike. If 9 motors gets harder to turn I'll gear the entire thing out more so its easier to pedal. I also saw some kid on youtube use a brushlss model airplane motor to push his bike at 2 miles an hour for 4 hours on 6 9volts battery packs, So I could use a model air plane motor as a electrical pedal assitant and use battery packs to power the motor. I got some options to what Im doing now that I have done some hands on research.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

Persanity said:


> The power generated is 40 volts at 3 amps and I can run a tread mill at 4 miles an hour off that electricity. I figure if I add 6 more motors I can generate 120 volts at 9 amps and use a converter to convert it to 36 volts and 100 amps.


your maths is a little bit wrong - 120V and 9A is 1.08KW, while 36V and 100A is 3.6KW. the correct values would be 36V and 30A. That is of course assuming 100% conversion efficiency. The real efficiency will probably be 75-90%



Persanity said:


> As of right now the thing is easier to pedal then back pedaling a bike. If 9 motors gets harder to turn I'll gear the entire thing out more so its easier to pedal.


Im afraid it will get harder to turn. to generate more power, you'll have to pedal harder. Im not sure of the efficiency of the generators your using, so its hard to give a definite figure, but automotive generators are around 50-60% so thats a reasonable number to use. so you'll likely have to put 2KW worth of pedal power to get out the power your expecting




Persanity said:


> I also saw some kid on youtube use a brushlss model airplane motor to push his bike at 2 miles an hour for 4 hours on 6 9volts battery packs, So I could use a model air plane motor as a electrical pedal assitant and use battery packs to power the motor. I got some options to what Im doing now that I have done some hands on research.


sorry, im not sure i understand this bit. are you saying your going to use a brushless motor to drive the 9 motor generator?


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

If I use any type of motor to drive the generators it will be as a helper motor to reduce the amount of force needed to pedal and the motor would have its own seperate power source, like a motorcycle battery. 

The other part is I didn't do any math to get the numbers, I was just talking about what it was putting out and what I need it to put out. So with the 3 motors putting out 40 volts at 3 amps and going on a linear scale 9 motors would put out 120 v at 9 amps. What I need is 36v at 100-200 amps. So I either need to add more motors or rewind the armatures with high gauge wire to carry more amps and use stronger magnets in the generators and possibly add more magnetic poles. Or possibly get brushless R/C car motors to replace the motors from the powerwheel gear boxes. I've seen hand crank generators on youtube like I am thinking about so It can be done, Its just all about the amount of power I want to generate. All I know is I'd rather pedal at a constant speed to generate electricity then pedal at a million different speeds to manual move the bike.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

Persanity said:


> If I use any type of motor to drive the generators it will be as a helper motor to reduce the amount of force needed to pedal and the motor would have its own seperate power source, like a motorcycle battery.


theres absoloutly no point in using a motor to drive, or assist in driving the generators. the motor will be ~80% efficient, wasting 20% of the battery power, and the generators only ~50% efficient, wasting yet more power. you would be far, far more effective to just hook the battery straight to whatever your using the power for



Persanity said:


> The other part is I didn't do any math to get the numbers, I was just talking about what it was putting out and what I need it to put out. So with the 3 motors putting out 40 volts at 3 amps and going on a linear scale 9 motors would put out 120 v at 9 amps. What I need is 36v at 100-200 amps. So I either need to add more motors or rewind the armatures with high gauge wire to carry more amps and use stronger magnets in the generators and possibly add more magnetic poles.


really sorry to have to say this, but this just isnt going to happen. 36V 100A is 3.6KW, 200A is 7.2KW. That is a shitload of power. remember YOU have to supply that power to the generators by cycling, It doesnt come from nowhere. (and with the generators having ~50% efficiency, you would have to have a pedal power of nearly 15KW!!). 

the average non athlete MAY be able to provide 200watts per hour, and 400watts per hour for an elite athlete. so you best get down the gym




Persanity said:


> I've seen hand crank generators on youtube like I am thinking about so It can be done, Its just all about the amount of power I want to generate. All I know is I'd rather pedal at a constant speed to generate electricity then pedal at a million different speeds to manual move the bike.


I promise you, you haven't seen 15KW hand crank generator on youtube. maybe your confusing KiloWatts with KiloVolts? besides, you really dont need 7kw to power a bike. that sort of power would drive a car. it sounds like your trying to make a sort of series hybrid bicycle?? where you pedal to generate electricity, then the electricity powers a motor? is that your goal?


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Yes my goal now is to create a human/electric hybrid motorcycle where all electric power comes from pedaling. I have a brushless mars electric motor that will be run at 36v/100 amp continuous and up to 250 amp for 45 seconds. So 3600watts continuous and 9000 watts for 45 seconds. What I want to rewind my own motors or find motors that can produce 12v and 50 amps at 600rpms and have 5 of them 3 with electric clutchs from A/C compressors so I would have 100 amps continuous and 250 amps for 45 seconds on demand as "nitro boost". If I used a 12-1 ratio from the pedals to the motors it shouldnt be too hard to get 600 rpms. I know not everything online is true put I have seen these voltages and amp ratings produced at these rpms in windmill generator aplications and hydroturbine projects. I know I have alot of research ahead but it'll be worth it in the end to be able to pedal my bike up to 80 mph on the highway lol


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Yes my goal now is to create a human/electric hybrid motorcycle where all electric power comes from pedaling. I have a brushless mars electric motor that will be run at 36v/100 amp continuous and up to 250 amp for 45 seconds. So 3600watts continuous and 9000 watts for 45 seconds. What I want to rewind my own motors or find motors that can produce 12v and 50 amps at 600rpms and have 5 of them 3 with electric clutchs from A/C compressors so I would have 100 amps continuous and 250 amps for 45 seconds on demand as "nitro boost". If I used a 12-1 ratio from the pedals to the motors it shouldnt be too hard to get 600 rpms.


It seems like you ignored the part i said before about non athlete humans only being able to achieve a pedal power of 200 watts. 

let me put it another way. that 200 watts of pedal power is mechanical energy that is to be converted into electrical energy. it is your only source of energy. it doesnt matter how you wind your motors, how many motors you have, how you gear them, wether they have clutches. there is STILL ONLY 200W OF ENERGY FOR THEM TO CONVERT INTO ELECTRICITY. the electrical power you get out of the generators will always be proportional to the amount of mechanical energy you put into the system (by pedaling), but it will always be LESS than the amount of mechanical energy you put into it. 

these are hard rules, they do not bend, they do not break. they are as constant as the universe itself and far less forgiving


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Persanity still didnt study Energy conservation law, that is the whole problem....he is still trying to build a perpetual motion ie. machine that has more than 100% efficiency.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Walkeer said:


> Persanity still didnt study Energy conservation law, that is the whole problem....he is still trying to build a perpetual motion ie. machine that has more than 100% efficiency.


How do you figure that a human electric hybrid is a perpetual motion machine? If im putting the work into it then its not perpetual. 

Manic monkey, I didnt ignore what you said I again just stated what I need, Besides it just doesn't make sense. How can it be a "rule" that you can only get between 200 and 400 watts from pedaling no matter what? There are more efficent motors and more powerful magnets for PM DC motors then there was in the past. My brushless mars motor is 90% efficent (or so its advertised as that) so I can get a 90% efficent generator and be able to get the power I need. If I have a system that uses 10 motors from r/c cars and a gear box with a 10/1 ratio then spining the gearbox shaft 120rpm would give me 1200rpm at the motor on each motor. Right now Im getting 10-15v at 3 amp from one of these motors but with a low ratio( like 3-1) so I don't get how I am limited to what power I can generate. Exspecial when they say 746 watts is equal to 1 hp when HP is such a horrible rating system. If it said that 10'' lb of torque was equal to 746 watts then itd make more sense to me.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Manic monkey, I didnt ignore what you said I again just stated what I need, Besides it just doesn't make sense. How can it be a "rule" that you can only get between 200 and 400 watts from pedaling no matter what?


no, youve missed the point. its not that you can only 'get' 200-400 watts, its that you can only GIVE 200-400 watts of energy by pedalling. and only the energy you pedal with is going to be converted from mechanical to electrical energy



Persanity said:


> There are more efficent motors and more powerful magnets for PM DC motors then there was in the past. My brushless mars motor is 90% efficent (or so its advertised as that) so I can get a 90% efficent generator and be able to get the power I need.


a 90% efficient motor is only 90% efficient when used as a motor. it doesnt mean it will be a 90% efficient generator. the efficiency will drop significantly




Persanity said:


> If I have a system that uses 10 motors from r/c cars and a gear box with a 10/1 ratio then spining the gearbox shaft 120rpm would give me 1200rpm at the motor on each motor. Right now Im getting 10-15v at 3 amp from one of these motors but with a low ratio( like 3-1) so I don't get how I am limited to what power I can generate. Exspecial when they say 746 watts is equal to 1 hp when HP is such a horrible rating system. If it said that 10'' lb of torque was equal to 746 watts then itd make more sense to me.


i think i understand now where your thought process is going wrong. Its with the word 'generator' and 'generate'. it would be much much better if you replaced the words with 'convertor'. you see, alternators, and motors/generators CONVERT mechanical energy into electrical energy. instead of thinking of how much energy you can generate, think of how much energy you can convert to electricity.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Persanity said:


> How do you figure that a human electric hybrid is a perpetual motion machine? If im putting the work into it then its not perpetual.


 It is perpetual motion if you get more energy than you give to it = more than 100% efficiency.[/quote]



Persanity said:


> Manic monkey, I didnt ignore what you said I again just stated what I need, Besides it just doesn't make sense. How can it be a "rule" that you can only get between 200 and 400 watts from pedaling no matter what?


 That is what I am telling you all the time. You dont understand the energy conservation law, which is the "rule" you are talking about. I will try to explain it to you and to anybody else who think perpetual motion is possilble. 
ANY system that outpus more energy than is on its input is prohibited by this law. If you have ANY alternator/generator/dynamo you can imagine, it can produce at most only the energy/wattage you are delivering to it by peddaling, spinnig it, shaking it or what ever else. So, if your legs can deliver about 400W, there is NO system/generator/dynamo that can tranform this to more than 400W, even superconductivity will not help. This is the most proven and trusted law in current physics. It can be wrong, but its very, very unlikely.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

manic_monkey said:


> a 90% efficient motor is only 90% efficient when used as a motor. it doesnt mean it will be a 90% efficient generator. the efficiency will drop significantly


Umm, how much of an efficiency drop are we talking about here? According to my research an electric motor is actually better described as an electric converter, it will convert electricity to mechanical energy just as easily and efficiently as it will convert mechanical to electrical energy. In other words, if you have two identical motors connected electrically and spin one to 1000RPM via mechanical means, then the other motor should be able to spin at 1000RPM. This is not taking wiring losses in the connection between the two motors, taking that into account the second motor should actually spin at about 950RPM. This also does not address any brush positions, it only addresses two identical motors on paper.

Can you explain your post a bit more? My post here has nothing to do with the human powered thing you responded to, I'm only interested in this one comment you made. Thanks.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

I think there is proof that overunity exists.
Go to youtube or google video and type in overunity.
A recent video is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3882105020865257140&q=overunity&ei=zut-SODbOInurQOssaSaBQ

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7747771837722247647&q=overunity&ei=zut-SODbOInurQOssaSaBQ

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2882573161028701426&q=overunity&ei=zut-SODbOInurQOssaSaBQ

and the list goes on.

As of 2003, you cannot patent any overunity type device or engine in the United States. Why? I think you can take a good guess. 

Anyway, the basic laws of physics are a century old. A time when they thought you would fly apart at the speed of sound, was proven wrong and then now they still believe nothing can put out more energy than it takes in, but even the force of energy of a vehicle is ten times coming out than is used to push it. (Wind, drag, any type of friction with the motor and througout the vehicle. etc.) The key is to harness that energy being lost.
That is basic cocept. 

Well I expect many to disagree, but that is normal.
We cannot change every mind to believe, but that is the great thing about God's given freedom to believe what you want.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I believe what I want, but I don't believe 99% of what I see on youtube.

Youtube has fake videos on it all the time. Its hard to see if the motor is really overunity because we can't see if anything under the device or table is actually doing the work. Its really not proof, as the cameraman lets you see only what he wants you to see.

I think there's some VERY efficient designs and some major breakthroughs in efficiency, but I can't believe what some guy on youtube posts online. Its so easy to fake those.

Overunity does not exist YET. To prove that all of science to date is WRONG is going to take more than a video on youtube. Its going to take some major scientific proof and test to actually DISPROVE the laws of balance and equilibrium. Its not that they're OLD laws, its that they're laws that no one has been able to disprove in 1000's of years. And you still cannot prove that overunity exists, because you are only pointing to a video on youtube.

Where are the scientists that are supporting these claims? Documentation? Applications in other countries for these inventions? Articles? Books?

I'm sorry, I don't believe most of what I see on the internet, how can you?


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

LeTank said:


> I think there is proof that overunity exists.
> Go to youtube or google video and type in overunity.
> A recent video is:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3882105020865257140&q=overunity&ei=zut-SODbOInurQOssaSaBQ
> ...


I always have to laugh when I see such videos... very funny. Why dont they sell it on internet? If I would have any overunity machine, I would sell it and probably makes a lot of money... problem is, it is fake. It simply doesnt work. 





LeTank said:


> Anyway, the basic laws of physics are a century old. A time when they thought you would fly apart at the speed of sound, was proven wrong and then now they still believe nothing can put out more energy than it takes in


Yes, and they are very well tested and proven. The more we know about physics, the more proofs we have to support these laws. In scientific world there is no single experiment, not even teoretical, that could prove this wrong. It is not becuse it is forbidden to think this way, it is because it simpy doesnt work that way.




LeTank said:


> but even the force of energy of a vehicle is ten times coming out than is used to push it. (Wind, drag, any type of friction with the motor and througout the vehicle. etc.) The key is to harness that energy being lost.
> That is basic cocept.


Wrong. All of the energy is coming out, if there would be no friction, you would need energy only to iniciate the movement of the car, than it would move forever, if the road would be flat around the world. That is also Energy conservation law. If there is no loss of energy, than it must move forever.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

we should stop feeding the trolls (LeTank)....

He said in another thread that he's got a car that runs on 4 batteries and a transformer to convert his 4 batteries to 220V.....to run an AC motor and gets good mileage.



LeTank said:


> "So me and my trusty 10,000 watt invertor with its twin tied connections making it 220"
> 
> "They are not that bad of a cost and will help you get further range. You can buy all different types, just make sure it is DC to DC if you have a DC motor. If you use AC motors, you can easily just keep adding up the a/h (Amp hours) and keep it 12volts with a 12volt inverter. ( I use a 10,000 watt inverter on my EV.)"
> 
> ...


So, on 4 batteries, and a 10,000W inverter and a step up transformer, you're running an AC motor?

I'd like to see some pictures. What are the brands for all the parts used? What AC motor, What inverter and What step up transformer? How do you control the throttle?

Please provide us a picture or two with my name on it, or a youtube video..... because as YOU YOURSELF stated, its not proof until its on youtube.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Ok, So If I can generate 400 watts with pedaling Can I run my mars brushless electric motor at 12 volts and 30 amps? Thats 360 watts. Id only have 840 rpm and 3 ft-lbs of torque but I think thats more powerful then a 400 watt scooter motor. Soooo, If I put this on a mountain bike frame and have capacitors to store my pedal power for the motor does that sound more fesible? I don't care about a top speed or anything right now I just want a working self powered electric bike. Also I am real confused on batteries. If I have a 1000 cranking amp marine battery with 150 amp/hrs does that mean I will get 150 amps a hour for 6 hours (150 x 6 is 900amps)?


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

LeTank said:


> As of 2003, you cannot patent any overunity type device or engine in the United States. Why? I think you can take a good guess.


because overunity is impossible therefore any device making such a claim must be inherently fake




LeTank said:


> We cannot change every mind to believe, but that is the great thing about God's given freedom to believe what you want.


God? hmmm, you know god and overunity have something in common. can YOU guess what?


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

LeTank said:


> I think there is proof that overunity exists.
> Go to youtube or google video and type in overunity.
> A recent video is:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3882105020865257140&q=overunity&ei=zut-SODbOInurQOssaSaBQ
> ...


Looks like every one of those devices on the videos has a source of power other then itself. So they made steam. Big deal. Why didn't they immediately drive a turbine generator with it to prove it works and would power itself? Because it doesn't.



manic_monkey said:


> because overunity is impossible therefore any device making such a claim must be inherently fake
> 
> God? hmmm, you know god and overunity have something in common. can YOU guess what?


oh oh oh! me me me! Because you can't prove it?  What did I win? A trip on the reality boat?




Persanity said:


> If I have a 1000 cranking amp marine battery with 150 amp/hrs does that mean I will get 150 amps a hour for 6 hours (150 x 6 is 900amps)?


150a/hr is probably a 20hr rating (Marketing trick). At a 20hr rating you will get 7.5a for 20 hours. If you actually pulled 150a you might get 30 min (or less).


----------



## ngrimm (Oct 19, 2007)

Persanity, I think you need to ask yourself what the net gain would be in using your own power to generate electric power to move the bike. In my opinion, the process would only serve as a variable transmission even if it had 100% efficiency which you know it can't. So compare it to your current bike transmission which is just sprockets. It allows you to convert the torque and rpms in your legs (horsepower) to increase torque to the wheels for climbing hills while at the same time decreasing rpms at the wheels. There are no magic sprockets that allow you to increase both torque and rpms at the same time. Even though it may be a fun project, it seem you unlikely to me that you will be able to exceed the efficiency of gears or sprockets by utilizing a pedal driven generator powering an electric motor. I guess if you don't mind pedaling as hard as you can even while on flat ground or going down hill to charge the battery to help climb the next hill maybe there would be some benefit if not for the extra weight. If nothing else you are bound to learn a lot of things while experimenting with it and that's what it's all about.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

ngrimm said:


> Persanity, I think you need to ask yourself what the net gain would be in using your own power to generate electric power to move the bike. In my opinion, the process would only serve as a variable transmission even if it had 100% efficiency which you know it can't. So compare it to your current bike transmission which is just sprockets. It allows you to convert the torque and rpms in your legs (horsepower) to increase torque to the wheels for climbing hills while at the same time decreasing rpms at the wheels. There are no magic sprockets that allow you to increase both torque and rpms at the same time. Even though it may be a fun project, it seem you unlikely to me that you will be able to exceed the efficiency of gears or sprockets by utilizing a pedal driven generator powering an electric motor. If nothing else you are bound to learn a lot of things while doing it though and that's what it's all about.


He'll be able to store pedal power not being used when driving down a hill, for example, and release it to assist him when driving up the next hill. This might be easier on the rider in the long run.


----------



## ngrimm (Oct 19, 2007)

Interesting how we like argue about what can be proven and what can't. For instance do we even exist as individuals? It has been said we are made up of a bunch of moving ever changing molecules so that in reality we are just an illusion. I am using my brain which is an illusion to type this on a computer, also an illusion to dispute the existence of a higher power and creator. Not that's funny.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

i am a jelly doughnut


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

you know, i did think twice about wether to make the god/overunity comment, knowing that it may spark some controversy.... but its been a boring day and i needed some entertainment 

and frodus - when you say your a jelly donut, i think i actually believe you. 

now, if you was an everlasting, overunity donut, then i might have an issue.....


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I AM a jelly doughnut

So is this guy:
http://www.helpmegetrandomwithladysovereign.com/vid2/

Please believe me... If there's a video of it online, it MUST be true!

Also, aliens, god, time travel, invisibility, lockness monster, bigfoot and teleporting have all been proven via online videos.... watch out, or... or I'll prove it to you!


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I didn't say anything about magic torque /speed sprockets.... If I build this into a mountain bike frame I won't care if It doesn't go faster then 15-20mph so long as it has enough torque to go from 0-15/20 in a few seconds. I guessn I have some research to do into batteries, Unless I just use the same set up as the guy from www.electricmotion.org since he has almost my same motor and controller.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

hmm, all this talk of donuts has me thinking.

Walkeer, can i pick your physics brain for a moment?

If we had a hollow toroid electromagnet, which we filled with ionized gas, woudl there be a way to calculate the energy requirements of the magnetic coil/field required to contain the plasma?

I guess what im asking is if it is possible to make a capacitor using plasma electrode(s)?
and what sort of power density would this achieve?


----------



## bespurcell (Jun 29, 2008)

A flux capacitor would work.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

frodus said:


> i am a jelly doughnut


I am a ba na na! vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I wonder if we fill the middle of my torroidial doughnut with vanilla creme, and induce drooling, if the flex of the outer shell of the doughnut would actually store calories for use later?


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

frodus said:


> I wonder if we fill the middle of my torroidial doughnut with vanilla creme, and induce drooling, if the flex of the outer shell of the doughnut would actually store calories for use later?


That's wrong in so many ways.


----------



## scarab (Jul 3, 2008)

Hi 
I'm about to use a dc motor which i am told is difficult to add regenerative braking.
I saw something on the net called a tagger or something like that which was a swinging arm hooked onto what looked like the tow bar.
This was towed behind to generate power.
What it was used for I don't know?

Also on the net was a gut who had a drop down scooter wheel driven by an electric motor to make his vehicle a hybrid, switch of the ice and be propelled by the electric motor.

I'm wondering why a dropped down wheel actuated by the brake driving a generator would not provide braking and regen at the same time .

Activating the brake would disconnect the power from the battery to the drive motor and at the same time activate the drop down generator.

This is a simple mechanical method of using the energy from braking for regen without all the complicated electronics to convert whatever type of motor to regen.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> SNIP
> 
> Exspecial when they say 746 watts is equal to 1 hp when HP is such a horrible rating system. If it said that 10'' lb of torque was equal to 746 watts then itd make more sense to me.


It might make more sense to you, but it woudln't make any sense to a person using physics as it is intended to be used. It would be like saying that miles per hour is antiquated and you should switch to measuring speed in kilometers. Not kilometers divided by time, just kilometers. 

Watts and HP are both measures of power. How much work can be done in a given amount of time. Watts is metric, HP is English. HP is simply defined as 550 lb X feet/sec. This means you could move 550 pounds up one foot in one second, or 1100 pounds up one foot in two seconds, or one pound up 550 feet in one second, or whatver. It just needs to multiply out. It is units. It can also be used in rotational motion. It is equal to the rotational speed in RPM times the torque in lb-ft divided by a constant of 5252. The constant is because there are two pi radians per revolution and since there are 60 seconds in a minute. Without the RPMs, it is just a torque, not a power. 

To understand the difference between torque and power, it would be possible for you to generate more torque than any production car engine. ANY. seriously. You could just hook a 10 foot long bar up to a crank on an engine and stand on it. If you weigh 150 pounds, you just put 1500 lb-ft of torque on it. The thing is that torque was applied only while you were on it. Once the engine rotates, and your bar hits the floor, no more torque. Since power is rotational speed time torque, you would have to find some way to make the engine keep going with the torque on it to make any power. To get more horsepower you need to either make it spin faster or put on more torque.

I think that we can see that even with your super long bar it isn't going to be possible for you to apply 1500 lb-ft of torque to it AND get it to stay spinning at 3500 RPM or so. That is what it would take to to match the 1000 hp mark of the Bugatti. That would be a lot of climbing up on that bar, then moving it when it fell down. In fact if you kept track of how much you had to climb up and hop on that bar then let it fall, and also kept track of the speed that it fell and the torque on it, you'd see that they match. The calcualted HP from both methods should match up since there is not free lunch.

Normally I collect money from school systems or Universities for dispensing this stuff, but I'll let you have it for free since I didn't give you any cool visual aids.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Ok, So If I can generate 400 watts with pedaling Can I run my mars brushless electric motor at 12 volts and 30 amps? Thats 360 watts. Id only have 840 rpm and 3 ft-lbs of torque but I think thats more powerful then a 400 watt scooter motor. Soooo, If I put this on a mountain bike frame and have capacitors to store my pedal power for the motor does that sound more fesible? I don't care about a top speed or anything right now I just want a working self powered electric bike. Also I am real confused on batteries. If I have a 1000 cranking amp marine battery with 150 amp/hrs does that mean I will get 150 amps a hour for 6 hours (150 x 6 is 900amps)?


Just for clarity, cranking amps is just the maximum current that the battery will produce if fuly charged. There is no time involved in that number. The 150 amp hour rating is not 150 amps/hour, but a product of the two amps multiplied by hours. This means that you can have a 150 amp load for one hour, or a 2 amp load for 75 hours, or whatver multiplies to 150 amp hours.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

weelliott said:


> Just for clarity, cranking amps is just the maximum current that the battery will produce if fuly charged. There is no time involved in that number. The 150 amp hour rating is not 150 amps/hour, but a product of the two amps multiplied by hours. This means that you can have a 150 amp load for one hour, or a 2 amp load for 75 hours, or whatver multiplies to 150 amp hours.


It's probably a 20hr rating like most batteries are rated. That's 7.5a for 20hrs = 150ah. Any more then 7.5a and the ah rating will drop. Any less then 7.5a and the ah rating will rise. It isn't linear either.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

lazzer408 said:


> It's probably a 20hr rating like most batteries are rated. That's 7.5a for 20hrs = 150ah. Any more then 7.5a and the ah rating will drop. Any less then 7.5a and the ah rating will rise. It isn't linear either.


I was tryinhg to stay away from how batteries actually work and just explain the basic theory of what the units themselves mean. understanding the actual behavior is the next step, but this person needed to sort out the difference between cranking amps and a unit that they had turned from amp-hours into amps/hour.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

weelliott said:


> I was tryinhg to stay away from how batteries actually work and just explain the basic theory of what the units themselves mean. understanding the actual behavior is the next step, but this person needed to sort out the difference between cranking amps and a unit that they had turned from amp-hours into amps/hour.


Rather then just say 'whatever' turns these numbers into ah, give him the correct number of '20'. Don't leave the uneducated, uneducated.  I think the average person can see what's being explained.

As far as cranking amps or cold cranking amps. Cranking amps is at 32deg and cold cranking amps is at 0deg. This is the maximum current that can be drawn from the battery for 30 seconds without the cells dropping below 1.7v.


----------



## Walkeer (Apr 29, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Soooo, If I put this on a mountain bike frame and have capacitors to store my pedal power for the motor does that sound more fesible?


You can provide your peddaling power to engine OR to batteries, or divide it, but you cannot use your 400W (tops) to motor and at the same time to batteries.


Persanity said:


> I just want a working self powered electric bike. Also I am real confused on batteries.


Self powered bike sounds like perpetual motion, what are you thinking exactly?


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Well everything is on track now! I have my motor, controller, wiring harness, donor bike and a blueprint to put it all together. Only thing missing is... TADA-POWER! What I am thinking is having 2 battery banks, each comprised of 3 12v 100amp/hr motorcycle batteries. The first bank will power the motorcycle and the second bank will be charged by a permanent magnet alternator that will be operated via pedal power. When the 1st bank empties the bike will switch to the second pack and I can begin to charge up the 1st pack. I estimate that I can charge the batteries up to 80% in 45 minutes and the other 20% will take an additional 45 minutes because it will be a lower amp charge past the 80% mark. If I can get the bike to run for 90 minutes off a fully charged 3 battery pack and it takes 90 minutes to charge the second pack I should never run out of... TADA-POWER! What do you all think of this idea? It gives me basicly infinite range without perpetual motion of any sort. I also think itd be easier to charge batteries via pedal power then running the motor directly from pedal power. I will probaly need some capacitors in there to even out the power flow to the batteries.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Well everything is on track now! I have my motor, controller, wiring harness, donor bike and a blueprint to put it all together. Only thing missing is... TADA-POWER! What I am thinking is having 2 battery banks, each comprised of 3 12v 100amp/hr motorcycle batteries. The first bank will power the motorcycle and the second bank will be charged by a permanent magnet alternator that will be operated via pedal power. When the 1st bank empties the bike will switch to the second pack and I can begin to charge up the 1st pack. I estimate that I can charge the batteries up to 80% in 45 minutes and the other 20% will take an additional 45 minutes because it will be a lower amp charge past the 80% mark.


youre charging the battery pack through pedal power, right? pedal power will provide only 200-400w/hr. thats 200 watts of power in an hour. your battery pack is 36v 100amp, which is 3600watts. it'll take you 18 hours to charge the battery pack through pedal power alone, not 45 minutes. please could you show your calculation on how you managed to get the figure of 45 minutes?

for the record, ive never seen a 100 amp motorcycle battery either. 10 amps maybe, but 100 amp is HUGE. a 100amp 12v battery normally weighs 30kg+. so you'll be dragging around 6 of them! thats 180kg. good luck with that


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Well everything is on track now! I have my motor, controller, wiring harness, donor bike and a blueprint to put it all together. Only thing missing is... TADA-POWER! What I am thinking is having 2 battery banks, each comprised of 3 12v 100amp/hr motorcycle batteries. The first bank will power the motorcycle and the second bank will be charged by a permanent magnet alternator that will be operated via pedal power. When the 1st bank empties the bike will switch to the second pack and I can begin to charge up the 1st pack. I estimate that I can charge the batteries up to 80% in 45 minutes and the other 20% will take an additional 45 minutes because it will be a lower amp charge past the 80% mark. If I can get the bike to run for 90 minutes off a fully charged 3 battery pack and it takes 90 minutes to charge the second pack I should never run out of... TADA-POWER! What do you all think of this idea? It gives me basicly infinite range without perpetual motion of any sort. I also think itd be easier to charge batteries via pedal power then running the motor directly from pedal power. I will probaly need some capacitors in there to even out the power flow to the batteries.


First off, you don't want to get past 80% DOD (depth of discharge). Never discharge to 100%.... you'll kill your batteries.

Do you have any idea the torque required to generate energy at 100W? I'd LOVE to see you sustain 90 minutes of generating energy off pedal power. Say you discharge a 3600 pack to 80%, thats 2880W. You say you want to do that in 90 minutes? You're gonna need to generate power at a rate of 2000W. Equivalent of a 2000W gas powered generator fully loaded. You'd need to pedal continuouosly at around 8-10hp for 90 minutes.

Also, 36V at 100Ah is 3600Wh, and you're putting this in a motorcycle. If you wanted to go 90 minutes, you'd only be able to do 2400Watts per hour (2400 plus 1200). Just estimating that without losses for simplicity. So at 2400W, and its a motorcycle, I doubt you'd be able to get much higher than about 100Wh per mile with 6 100Ah lead batteries onboard at a speed of ~20-25 miles per hour (this is looking at other bikes, and even 100Wh/mile is giving you alot). So, given that, your range is about 36 miles on flat ground, without "charging" it, per battery pack. Thats going to be one heavy bike.


I think we're all waiting.... can't wait to see what you come up with...This is going to be frickin hilarious to see a motorcycle with a 2000W pedal powered generator on it with 6-100Ah batteries and persanity pedaling at ~1rpm due to the torque required to recharge his batteries.

You'd be better off putting those 6 batteries in series, and run 72V and a sepex motor and get regen for stop and go/down hills.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

whut he said 



frodus said:


> You'd be better off putting those 6 batteries in series, and run 72V and a sepex motor and get regen for stop and go/down hills.


What if he uses regen all the way back through the system to pedal the enegry back into his body? Think of the gain!


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I already have purchased my motor and controller those items will not change. So please stop saying I would be better off spending money on a different motor, It is not going to happen. manic_monkey you asked to see my figures for why it will only take 45 minutes to charge the batteries, Can I ask you where I said I was using SLA batteries for you to make all the assumptions that you did about charging times? Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYBh4ec05c to see the power that li-ion motorcycle batteries have. Also the jackal electric bike which is based off the etek motor has a top speed of 40 miles a range of 25-30 miles and does that with 48v 22AH and weights 130lbs, All that is pretty comparable to what I want except a longer range. I do admit after reading over the tekbattery site again that they do not have a 100ahr battery so I will be stuck with 23ahr. But 12v 23ahr lithium ion batteries that weight 12lbs seem like a good choice to me. Now that you know what batteries I am using , Do you guys think it is possible to pedal enough power to charge those batteries?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

> I already have purchased my motor and controller those items will not change. So please stop saying I would be better off spending money on a different motor, It is not going to happen.


Well, its true. What motor/controller did you finally end up getting? If its a perm it'l do regen. Sepex is just more efficient. If its series, forget about regen. It was just a suggestion. You never told us what your system is, so I don't even KNOW if you got a sepex.



> manic_monkey you asked to see my figures for why it will only take 45 minutes to charge the batteries, Can I ask you where I said I was using SLA batteries for you to make all the assumptions that you did about charging times? Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYBh4ec05c to see the power that li-ion motorcycle batteries have.


His comment on 100Ah SLA's was based on your previous statements:


> What I am thinking is having 2 battery banks, each comprised of 3 12v 100amp/hr motorcycle batteries.


and


> If I have a 1000 cranking amp marine battery with 150 amp/hrs does that mean I will get 150 amps a hour for 6 hours (150 x 6 is 900amps)?


When you say motorcycle battery (Almost all are SLA, Flooded or AGM), coupled with your other comment about "marine batteries", why would we think you were talking Li-ion. If you meant Li-Ion, then you should have specified this. Again, we were basing our comments on your statements. We assumed your design had not changed.

Regardless of battery technology, power is power. If you use 3000W of energy, you have to recharge 3000W of energy. Its still going to take HOURS AND HOURS to recharge, not 90 minutes. Even if you change to Li-ion, it will still take more than 90 min to recharge.



> Also the jackal electric bike which is based off the etek motor has a top speed of 40 miles a range of 25-30 miles and does that with 48v 22AH and weights 130lbs, All that is pretty comparable to what I want except a longer range. I do admit after reading over the tekbattery site again that they do not have a 100ahr battery so I will be stuck with 23ahr. But 12v 23ahr lithium ion batteries that weight 12lbs seem like a good choice to me. Now that you know what batteries I am using , Do you guys think it is possible to pedal enough power to charge those batteries?


nope. even at 23Ah, and 12V and assuming your voltage of 36V has not changed, and you are STILL doing two packs of 36V at 23Ah for a total of 828Wh per pack, which is ~1600 total... assuming that you can pedal at 200W/hour, its going to take 3-4 hours per battery pack at 80% DOD (~660WH). lets say you COULD pedal at 300W, it'd take you 2-3 hours.

Also, with 36V 26Ah at 828Wh, you'll likely only get about 8-10 miles range per pack. So you'd have 3-4 hours to drive 8-10 miles range.... which is about.... 2.5 miles per hour.

You'd be better off walking.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

I have a Mars Electric motor model ME0201013001 and a Sevcon Millipak SBPM controller. I am using a 1984 Kawasaki GPZ as my donor bike. I have basicly everything figured out except my batteries and my charger. Getting away from all the regen perpetual motion and other stuff I am interested in that you guys keep saying I cant do, What would your suggestions be for a power system for this motor/controller/bike combo? The bike stripped down to a rolling chassis with only the parts I need for the conversion weights about 100-150lbs. I weight about 150lbs as well. I intend on gearing the bike for a top speed of 60mph but I don't need to do that in any specific time frame so long as it can do it in under a minute (ie 0-60 in 59 seconds). I would like a long range of travel for my bike as I would eventualy like to ride it from CT to CA but I obviously don't need a 1000 mile range BUT a 50 mile range or more would be great. That is what I am trying to achieve and that is what I am trying to figure out how to do. I have managed to do everything so far on only 800 dollars so the battery system will be the most expensive part of my bike and therefore the most important part I need to get right the 1st time. I am willing to use solar/human/regen etc. power in conjunction with batteries/capacitors to achieve the range I want. Thank you.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Do you guys think it is possible to pedal enough power to charge those batteries?


The reason we're using powered vehicles like motor cycles and cars is because they're fast and we like to cut down the travel time. Going fast is using a lot of energy, hence we're using oil or electricity. If we could provide that kind of energy with our legs we could as well bike in 50 MPH and save the fuel.

With other words; no matter what stuff you get, it'll take MUCH longer time to charge the batteries by pedaling than it will take to discharge them while driving. If it's OK for you to spend HOURS (possibly days) of pedaling for half an hour to an hour of fun, pedal away. If you're still thinking of charging one pack by pedaling while driving on the other it simply ain't gonna happen.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Now you're talkin! I'd start a new thread for your bike, just because its wandering off topic.



> I have a Mars Electric motor model ME0201013001 and a Sevcon Millipak SBPM controller.


Good, you have regen, that'l help. Problem is, its only 48V... you're going to have a hard time getting to 60 mph.



> Getting away from all the regen perpetual motion and other stuff I am interested in that you guys keep saying I cant do, What would your suggestions be for a power system for this motor/controller/bike combo?


Well, for the range you need of 50 miles, you're going to need something around 5000Wh... roughly (I estimate most bikes at 100WH/mile, some are higher, some are lower, depends on speed and driving). at 48V you'd need just over 100Ah batteries, about 15 of them for 48V. that'd give you roughly 4800Wh (they sell 60Ah, 90, 100 and 200 cells from what I've seen). Obviously you'd want BMS and a lifepo charger. It would keep the weight down quite a bit. 50 miles is a tall order.... and it won't be at 60mph, you'd be lucky to get 50. The acceleration from a stop would be brutal on the batteries.




> I would like a long range of travel for my bike as I would eventualy like to ride it from CT to CA but I obviously don't need a 1000 mile range BUT a 50 mile range or more would be great.


it would be great, but can you fit enough bats in for that range you want?



> I am willing to use solar/human/regen etc. power in conjunction with batteries/capacitors to achieve the range I want. Thank you.


consider parallel hybrid of letting pedal power be power assist, rather than using it to recharge... just couple it to the wheels directly, less loss.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

10hp and 3kwh+ battery pack

give or take


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

What exactly is it this guy is trying to accomplish? Bottom line is the more components you add to any system, the more inefficient it gets. A chain straight to the wheel is the most efficient. A chain to a generator adds the efficiency loss of the generator, then the loss of the battery, then the loss of the controller, then the loss of the motor. You don't gain anything. Or am I missing the goal?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

manic_monkey said:


> 10hp and 3kwh+ battery pack
> 
> give or take


that'd give him.... MAYBE 45mph, and 30 miles (roughly) but NOT 60mph and 50 miles.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

lazzer408 said:


> What exactly is it this guy is trying to accomplish? Bottom line is the more components you add to any system, the more inefficient it gets. A chain straight to the wheel is the most efficient. A chain to a generator adds the efficiency loss of the generator, then the loss of the battery, then the loss of the controller, then the loss of the motor. You don't gain anything. Or am I missing the goal?


read his last post, I think he gave up, and asked what he could do to get 50 miles and 60mph with a 48V Etek and Sevcon controller.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

frodus said:


> that'd give him.... MAYBE 45mph, and 30 miles (roughly) but NOT 60mph and 50 miles.


10hp should do the job easy enough. my old bike weighed 230lb's, and would top 85mph with only 12.5hp. my moped only had 6-7hp and still did 55mph

I agree about the range though. i took a guess at that from looking at the ranges that people said they were getting out of their bike conversions on evalbum


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

manic_monkey said:


> 10hp should do the job easy enough. my old bike weighed 230lb's, and would top 85mph with only 12.5hp. my moped only had 6-7hp and still did 55mph
> 
> I agree about the range though. i took a guess at that from looking at the ranges that people said they were getting out of their bike conversions on evalbum


and that bike had how many gears? 5?

This one will likely have....1

10hp should do the job, but he might have to leave the tranny in (if possible) and the extra weight sucks, it takes up space, and it decreases overall efficiency... he wants range.... 1 gear with 10hp, i doubt it'l do that in 1 gear without tanking his batteries every time he stops because the motor sucks amps at low RPM.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Yeah for some reason my controller doesn't have regen and I will either be running at 36 or 24 volts not 48 volts so I guess I should have included that info before since everything you guys said didn't take that into account.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Yeah for some reason my controller doesn't have regen and I will either be running at 36 or 24 volts not 48 volts so I guess I should have included that info before since everything you guys said didn't take that into account.


That complicates things. Your going to need some BIG batteries.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

maybe you should just make a little scooter...


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

lazzer408 said:


> What exactly is it this guy is trying to accomplish? Bottom line is the more components you add to any system, the more inefficient it gets. A chain straight to the wheel is the most efficient. A chain to a generator adds the efficiency loss of the generator, then the loss of the battery, then the loss of the controller, then the loss of the motor. You don't gain anything. Or am I missing the goal?


Maybe you are missing the goal. I suspect that the reason you are missing it is because you are using that outdated science called physics. Persanity uses his own science. You've got to think outside the box. 

His idea is to take mechanical energy and split it. Actually not split it, but rather multiply it. Use it to power the bike, and use the same energy to turn a generator. Perhaps it should be split four ways and power two more bikes connected by cables. (perhaps I should patent that idea!!) Of course this generator has a very high efficiency. It's so high it nullifies the argument that generators are not 100% efficient. Then put it into an ultra-efficient battery(So efficeint it doesn't matter how fast you can put juice in, it always gives you plenty out.) then once you take the energy out of the battery and use it at the motor that motor also works magic. It not only exerts enough force to move the bike forward, but since it is magical it can also supply force to turn the generator without even noticing. It is that bad-ass. Or maybe it was the generator that was bad-ass. I can't remember. But that energy is used twice, to power the bike, and to power a generator that will charge another set of batteries that he will switch to once they are charged. Perhaps energy could be split four ways here too! or Eleven!!!... These go to eleven... all across the board... Eleven... eleven... eleven... It makes them one louder, you know... I digress.

I will admit that I have lost track of all of the details, so I might have certain parts of the design wrong, but I'm sure I've got the spirit of it.

It all seems perfectly clear to me. The goal is to build a bike that creates energy out of thin air(or super batteries) so that it can go forever without having to refuel. Wouldn't you want one?

I'm beginning to think that Persanity is smarter than he leads on. He's probably actually a professor at some major research University that heads up some department. He simply posts to this thread for all of our entertainment. Most others have either grasped us physics-bound-naysayers, or just stopped posting, but not persanity. He persists. I will say I admire his drive. He doesn't just say he's going to do something, he is actually doing it. He has bought parts. So maybe in the end, yers from now, when it has not worked, he will have learned quite a bit about how electronics and mechanics and the human body actually work. Then he will have a good bit of experience to pull from to design something with a better chance of working. 

You've got to learn somewhere. I tried getting a paper airplane to fly by putting matches in the back. That's how rockets fly. Right? Then I learned. Since then I have built a race car from scratch, designed the hull and codesigned the propulsion system of a human powered submarine that won it's class, converted my house heating system to use peanut oil, built numerous oddball contraptions, converted a car to run on vegetable oil without any kits, and several other things. So maybe in twenty years Persanity will look back on this and laugh about his naive days when he thought he could build a bike that weighed several hundred pounds, could go 50 mph, and achieve unlimited range all on pedal power. Then he'll walk out to his shop and work on his latest invention that the rest of us will be buying three years later.

But one thing he needs to learn first is that listening to relative-experts that are trying to tell one that it won't work can lead to valuable insight into what the design challenge really is, because sometimes the details of an idea are what cause the problem, but in others the challenge is not that the details are bad, but the entire idea is flawed. I think the bike is the latter scenario.

So Persanity, I wish you luck in your future tinkering, and if you ever get the bike built and working in some fashion, you WILL be steps closer than the average Joe to understanding fabrication, construction, design, frustration, and energy conservation. So good luck. I'd suggest that next time you experiment with something that isn't so expensive though. Perhaps build a model first.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Wow... It looks like between the last posts that I had read before my last post, and a few hours ago Persanity has realized the limitations, and has started listening to the advice of others. I am truly excited about this. Seriously. He's already on the road to great things. 

When I used to teach I would get excited when I ran across kids that had both brains and determination since it is rare to see both in one kid. (For the record, I'm not calling Persanity a kid! My students' were kids. Rarely older than 22.) It is apparent that he has the determination. It now sounds like he has opened up his mind to what others are saying. It's only a matter of time before he builds something noteworthy. Noteworthy in a good way.

Now comes the important part. The education. 

Good luck Persanity!!


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

weelliott said:


> Wow... It looks like between the last posts that I had read before my last post, and a few hours ago Persanity has realized the limitations, and has started listening to the advice of others. I am truly excited about this. Seriously. He's already on the road to great things.
> 
> When I used to teach I would get excited when I ran across kids that had both brains and determination since it is rare to see both in one kid. (For the record, I'm not calling Persanity a kid! My students' were kids. Rarely older than 22.) It is apparent that he has the determination. It now sounds like he has opened up his mind to what others are saying. It's only a matter of time before he builds something noteworthy. Noteworthy in a good way.
> 
> ...


The challanged mind will learn.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Seriously, Fuck all of you assholes.
I have never once said this is what I AM doing. I have always said this is what I WANT to do. If WANTTING to do something makes me a retard then I am retarded. I never wantted "free energy" I had the idea of using a gas generator to power my bike. Then a human powered generator. Then batteries that would be charged by human power. ALL I have wantted is the ability to charge the bike without plugging into the power grid. I hate technology and how it plays a role in our daily lifes. I want to go live off the grid and never ever have to go back, But I need transportation and thus where this idea began. I have all the parts I need to build my bike and I dont care how long it takes to charge or what my range is Ill do it my way and Ill learn from my mistakes like all you apperantly have from all of the vast projects you have been involved in. Unlike you this is my first project, Before now I have spent my time building 3D models and programming video games to use those 3D models, This is the 1st time my designs come off the drawing board as they say and leap into the real world. So again I apologize for not having all the real world expierence of this little click of assholes on this forum.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Seriously, Fuck all of you assholes.


Woah, was that called for?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Seriously, Fuck all of you assholes.


 
DUDE, we're trying to help you realize the limitations....which you seem to think can be ignored or exceeded.

Please, don't stop dreaming and thinking, but when it comes to building it in the real world, its not always as it seems. I'm passing on a year of research in EV's and 10 years of engineering experience, thats all. 

I'd love to see you build it, but I also don't want you to fail on your first try.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

we're all just trying to help you

ahhh, who am i kidding? Im just baiting you for my own cruel entertainment! but take comfort in knowing that you bring so much joy to my life.


p.s if you hate technology, why are you on the internet, and work in computer modelling?


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

If you think making fun of somebody and there intelligence and there project is helping yeah sure you guys are helping ALOT.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

frodus said:


> DUDE, we're trying to help you realize the limitations....which you seem to think can be ignored or exceeded.
> 
> Please, don't stop dreaming and thinking, but when it comes to building it in the real world, its not always as it seems. I'm passing on a year of research in EV's and 10 years of engineering experience, thats all.
> 
> I'd love to see you build it, but I also don't want you to fail on your first try.


You have made quite clear the limitations that are out there by making fun of all that I have wantted to do, I have never ignored what you have said. I have said I didn't understand or said that doesn't seem right but NEVER ignored.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> So again I apologize for not having all the real world expierence of this little click of assholes on this forum.


Well, here's the thing, we failed too... a ton along the way.

I failed at:
- researching decent batteries for my motorcycle. I just used some I got for free because it was easy, now I'm looking at other options to increase my range.
- figuring out my charging system before I got her running, now I'm charging them in series very slowly.
- getting my motorcycle endorsement before I got her running
- getting her registered and insured before I got her running
- chosing the correct gear ratio because I didn't listen to other people when they said to go with a 5 or 6:1 ratio because I didn't want to spend the money on a decent sprocket... only to end up buying one in the end.
- chosing a decent contactor because I had one I got free which sucks amps and gets warm, so I did what others did and got an EV200 contactor.

I learned alot, learned that series doesn't do regen (without trouble), sepex is hard to find, AC on a motorcycle is spendy, good batteries are important, efficient system design is a requirement (not an option) and that you really have to do a drag test for air/mechanical resistance to figure out how much power you need, see what speed you want to go and figure out accleration you want in order to chose the motor and controller to match, and then design a battery pack that will supply the needed kWh.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Seriously, Fuck all of you assholes.


Wow, I haven't even posted to this topic yet, but I'm included in "all of you"...



Persanity said:


> ALL I have wantted is the ability to charge the bike without plugging into the power grid. I hate technology and how it plays a role in our daily lifes. I want to go live off the grid and never ever have to go back


Build a wind generator. Build a solar panel & battery energy storage system. Build a solar still steam generator and turn a turbine and generator.

When you get home at night, plug in to *your* "grid" and reap the benefit of your free electrons. All day long while you're at work, these sorts of technologies can be storing up energy to run your off-grid world and charge your vehicle.

No reason to call me an asshole... or any of these other guys. You came here apparently for help, and these guys are trying to help you- but because you have apparently repeatedly refused to accept the advice you've been given you earned a reputation as a nut job, and your solution is to resort to name calling of a whole audience of readers.

Physics is a bitch. Get used to it.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

It's not that were trying to be assholes. Were trying to save you from wasting too much of your time by explaining what works and what doesnt and why. Some of it is laughable because alot of us have been in your shoes before and now realise how stupid we were. Ok maybe I'm just speaking from my own experience being the idiot. 

By all means if you want to continue your project do so. I'll still help if you have questions. I know Trav. will too. One thing you can't loose is the experience you'll gain from your hands-on projects.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

lazzer408 said:


> One thing you can't loose is the experience you'll gain from your hands-on projects.


Yep, but the tuition to the school of hard knocks is pricey... either in dollars or in risk to life and limb.  

I'll be the first to admit that I don't always believe someone when they tell me something unless I can research it adequately to prove they're right, or experiment to find out for myself.

Sometimes there is more fun in proving yourself wrong than there is in assuming everyone else knows what they're talking about. After all, if it wasn't for people experimenting with things that other people say are impossible or ridiculous, we wouldn't realize that electricity and magnetism are related (thanks Faraday), or that AC is more efficient than DC (or even have a concept of AC, thanks Tesla), etc.

More power to the tinkers of the world... feel free to experiment, but always realize sometimes people already know for fact (and can prove) that something won't work the way someone hopes it will... and inevitably, those who repeatedly try to "re-discover" these things will be scoffed at. It's the way of the world.


----------



## danwatchorn (Aug 1, 2008)

Hello,

I'm a newbie at this as well, but instead of all this arguing about overunity and such has anyone on this site actually tried putting in extra alternators and measured their results? I guess you could say I really don't care "proving" it works. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

Here it is, incredibly simplified.

Lets say it takes 100 watts of energy to turn the alternator, but your motor is only 95% efficient. This means you'll have to actually "burn" around 105 watts to turn that alternator. Now, lets say your alternator is only 90% efficient. That means if you put 100 watts of energy into it, you get 90 watts out of it.

So... you're burning 105 watts to produce 90 watts, wasting 15 watts.

There's no such thing as a 100% efficient motor or alternator, and there is no such thing as getting more out of something than you put into it.

Example: If you put a quart of water into a gallon jug, you still have a quart of water, even if you pour the contents into a 5 gallon bucket. No more water "magically appeared" when you changed it from one thing to another, in fact some was lost because it remained in the previous two containers or was spilled in the transfer process.

Similarly, another thing that many new folks to the world of EVs wonder is, "Can't I put a wind generator on top of the car and use that to extend the range?"

Sure, you can put one on there- but you will not extend the range, you'll see decreased range. For one, the blades, mast and generator housing cause drag (and lots of it) which requires more power to push the vehicle forward. Second, the generator is not 100% efficient (or more). You put more in than you can get out.

As such, that power is far more efficiently used to simply drive the vehicle- but now we're off of Persanity's point- he apparently just wants to generate free power to charge his vehicle, and THAT *is* possible... but still can't get something for nothing.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

danwatchorn said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm a newbie at this as well, but instead of all this arguing about overunity and such has anyone on this site actually tried putting in extra alternators and measured their results? I guess you could say I really don't care "proving" it works. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.


do you believe it could work?

do you believe it is worth testing something where the physics is contradictary to your hypotheses?

do you believe that other people that have tested similar things in the past are all wrong?

there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the laws of thermodynamics are concrete, and no evidence to suggest they are flexible, or breakable.


p.s we know its you persanity, there was no need to change your name.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

danwatchorn said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm a newbie at this as well, but instead of all this arguing about overunity and such has anyone on this site actually tried putting in extra alternators and measured their results? I guess you could say I really don't care "proving" it works. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.


We've measured alternators input and drag at synkromotive for a project with the local Bus system on their alternators. We also tested one of the ones we had in house, and the efficiencies are not great. They're also listed in the specs for the alternator. Nowhere near enough to put back into the system any reasonable generation, they put more drag on the system than it puts out.


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Actualy the all of you assholes thing meant simply that, All the people who where being assholes just to be an asshole (ie manic monkey who thinks I am petty enough to register a different screen name and actualy talk under it), So if you weren't doing that then it wasn't directed at you. On the topic of inefficentcy and what not, The internet has alwas been inefficent at getting across emotion behind the typed word. Anyway, I want to say thank you to frodus for explaining himself more and not getting offended. I actualy found your project on youtube today frodus and it looks pretty cool. To everybody who cares I am sorry for over reacting I just really hate my inteligence being insulted. I know alot of shit about alot of shit but I will never claim to know everything about anything. Now back to the actualy topic, Frodus have you guys ever tested a PM alternator to see how efficent they are? Also I just bought a 200 or 400w electric scooter off my friends mom for parts like the electric throttle and speedo and other dash stuff. How well do you think the motor would work as a generator for regen DURING BRAKING to put back ANY amount of electricity back into the system? I've been told by Dan at teamdelta.com, where I bought my motor & controller, that my sevcon unit DOESN'T have regen. I was under the impression that the mars motor needed a PMAC controller unit from sevcon to work and that the unit DOES have regen. I tried contacting sevcon to ask specificly about my controllers part and serial number but I received no response. Anybody know if sevcon used to sell a PMAC controller that didnt have regen/


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

Persanity said:


> How well do you think the motor would work as a generator for regen DURING BRAKING to put back ANY amount of electricity back into the system?


The little unite motors used in scooters do work as generators but you'll have to spin them faster then it normally runs as a motor to get a voltage high enough to put any current into the pack. Or wire up a boost convertor to step it up. Those using regen on series wound motors are changing the way the motor is wired to get regen. This way they don't need to be spun up any faster then they were running.


----------



## danwatchorn (Aug 1, 2008)

manic_monkey said:


> do you believe it could work?
> 
> do you believe it is worth testing something where the physics is contradictary to your hypotheses?
> 
> ...


 
Actually, I was thinking about turning the drive shaft, which is an already spinning axis, into an alternator... lining it with magnets and putting a structure on the outside of it with coils to collect the electriciy from the electromagnetic field generated. 
Is there a force in this system that would counter the the spin of the shaft?


----------



## Persanity (Jul 5, 2008)

Ok, I am on ebay looking at solar cells, I have already planned on using the fairings on the bike, Would coating the fairings in solar cells to charge the batteries be a workable idea? There are 3"x6" cells that produce 0.5 volts and 3000 milliamps (which is 3 amps correct?) If I used SLA batteries I believe they charge at 14 volts, So I would need 28 cells to make 14 volts but itd be at 84 amps and I'd need a 7 by 14 foot area for 28 3x6 panels, But could this be done in anyway?


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Ok, I am on ebay looking at solar cells, I have already planned on using the fairings on the bike, Would coating the fairings in solar cells to charge the batteries be a workable idea?


If you park in the sun alot.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

> Anyway, I want to say thank you to frodus for explaining himself more and not getting offended. I actualy found your project on youtube today frodus and it looks pretty cool.


No problem, we just wanna see another cool project on the road thats all. And thanks for the feedback, Its been a great project. Just installed my new rear sprocket, keep an eye out for another video with the new sprocket.



> Frodus have you guys ever tested a PM alternator to see how efficent they are?


yes, they're not that efficient, on the scale of 20-30% of the energy at the shaft goes back to the batteries.




> How well do you think the motor would work as a generator for regen DURING BRAKING to put back ANY amount of electricity back into the system?


You said you got a mars Permanent magnet motor? and the sevcon Millipak 48V. All of the millipak's specify regenerative braking, so you won't need to "add" a generator, you've already got one. What is the part number/link to the one you bought?



> I've been told by Dan at teamdelta.com, where I bought my motor & controller, that my sevcon unit DOESN'T have regen. I was under the impression that the mars motor needed a PMAC controller unit from sevcon to work and that the unit DOES have regen. I tried contacting sevcon to ask specificly about my controllers part and serial number but I received no response. Anybody know if sevcon used to sell a PMAC controller that didnt have regen?


So you got PMAC... well, the one on their site for PMAC says it does regen, so I'm not sure whats up.

Give us a model number.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Ok, I am on ebay looking at solar cells, I have already planned on using the fairings on the bike, Would coating the fairings in solar cells to charge the batteries be a workable idea? There are 3"x6" cells that produce 0.5 volts and 3000 milliamps (which is 3 amps correct?) If I used SLA batteries I believe they charge at 14 volts, So I would need 28 cells to make 14 volts but itd be at 84 amps and I'd need a 7 by 14 foot area for 28 3x6 panels, But could this be done in anyway?


ok, you're adding amps AND voltage, you can't do that.

If you connect them in series, volage adds, current does NOT. If you add them in parallel, they'll be the same voltage, but current ADDS.

so, 28 cells at 0.5V is 14V but still, 3A.

Do what was suggested before, have solar at home and a couple of batteries that you can dump charge or use an inverter when you get home to recharge..


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

This has been a great thread. Thanks, everybody, for the lively discussion.


danwatchorn said:


> Actually, I was thinking about turning the drive shaft, which is an already spinning axis, into an alternator... lining it with magnets and putting a structure on the outside of it with coils to collect the electriciy from the electromagnetic field generated. Is there a force in this system that would counter the the spin of the shaft?


Yes, unfortunately there is. You've cleverly eliminated all the mechanical losses, but what's not obvious is that the electrons the magnets are pushing through the coils are pushing back on the magnets with the same force. The more current you draw from the coils (the faster the electrons go), the more force it will take to spin the magnets. And that force will counter the spin of the drive shaft and diminish the amount of energy applied to the wheels. (This is also why shorting the output of a wind turbine stops the blades from spinning.)

Because of this, even with the complete elimination of belts, pulleys, and bearings, the amount of electrical energy you gain from this setup will always be less than the mechanical energy you rob from the wheels. Sorry.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

This thread is about finding solutions the limited EV Range. Any idea is welcome on this thread that will give DIY EV'ers that extra mile. 

If we can obtain 500 miles on one charge per day, that is really all we would need. 
So that is the goal, to find a solution to obtain 500 miles on one charge. 

Solar, wind, push trailers, generators (HHO, Ethanol, or other fuel sources for generators), regen braking, and anything else you can find that will help us all is greatly appreciated. 

Before you get your pants on fire with this subject, let us look at this in a new light. Those of us who believed it was possilbe may have been proven right after all. Shelby Supercars and Ronn Motors are claiming years between charges. Now these people are not new to the Auto world. *Shelby Supercars is claiming "years between charges*".
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/15/new-electric-car-coming-from-fosh-automotive-in-three-days/
Shelby cars are a bit expensive on the other hand.

We can only hope to see these Unlimited Mileage EV's on the road soon. 
For now, we can only hold our breath and see what comes. (I am betting there will be a large amount of legal tormoil going on over these vehicles and the Oil Companies will be crying over it with a ton of Lawyers.

Nanosafe batteries.
It is said in their website pdf file that their batteries will be used in the new ZAP vehicle among others. 
Some other testing done with the NanoSafe battery.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/27/nanosafe-battery-tests-show-minimal-loss-of-charge-capacity/

Now, it would make sense that if these batteries can be charged within minutes or on demand from the Themal Solar rods placed within the vehicle that it could have Unlimited Daytime Travel. That is what possibly what they are implying. Or is it? 
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.energy.hydrogen/2006-12/msg00044.html

Let me add something. I had a mysterious email from an Engineer (name not given) who worked for some "unkonwn" Auto Company that was begging to have the Unlimited Mileage Thread reposted because there was (as he quoted) "an exceptional amount of good ideas that could increase and even allow EV's to obtain Unlimited Mileage". Upon others who were disappointed the Thread was closed whom I had to explain I had no control over what happened to the thread. So if we can keep this thread on an even level, perhaps something good can come from it to help us all. (And the Admin will not have to close it.)


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Before you get your pants on fire with this subject, let us look at this in a new light. Those of us who believed it was possilbe may have been proven right after all. It seems there is a Company called *Fosh Automotive* that has an *Unlimited Mileage EV *that will change the Auto Industry as we know it. *Shelby Supercars and Ronn Motors* are also claiming the same. Now these people are not new to the Auto world even if the Fosh Automotive company name is. *Shelby Supercars is claiming "years between charges*".
> http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/15/new-electric-car-coming-from-fosh-automotive-in-three-days/
> Shelby cars are a bit expensive on the other hand.
> 
> ...


735kwH... wouldn't that be roughly 100 times larger in capacity per unit than lithium? (assuming it doesn't weigh 22,000lbs) 

That sounds unlikely to me.... very unlikely.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Heh, that is what I thought too, but as I read the pdf file it tells how the NanoSafe battery is even smaller and holds 10 times the charge of larger Lithium type batteries. So they say, but lets hope its true. 
Toshiba and A123systems are also making the same type of NanoSafe batteries for Electric Vehicles that will soon be out.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

And if you are going to comment, on a certain part of a previous post, please just copy the part that you are commenting on, NOT the whole post!

Those guys at the EVDL post every part and all it does is waste space....


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Toshiba and A123systems are also making the same type of NanoSafe batteries for Electric Vehicles that will soon be out.


I've read somewhat on the nano population technology for depositing the microstructure to hold more electrons, however, I don't think 100 TIMES higher than the best batteries now seems likely. If it could be done it would be as big of a breakthrough as in material science going from copper weapons to pure cast aggregated diamond nanorods. I don't think there's been such a jump in any field.... ever (as far as materials are concerned) with no midsteps between.

If this IS true, any investor that did not throw money at their faces in stacks taller than the New York skyline are fools. The way I've read the nanopopulation can be recycled completely as well. Once I settle in with my IRAs in a few years down the line I'd look into something like this *IF* it was viable.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

after a moment reading the document they only claim a 500% increase... which is possible. They claim up to a 4000W/kg power density. The problem though as far as I can tell with current Lion is the price vs. time it takes to kill the battery, not the problem they state in this article. It's not weight (though that does help) or size that ruins the design, but the costs.

I'd like to see them make these for the same price as Li-ion now.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, FoshElectricAuto.com has updated its website with the big announcement, as promised. Unfortunately, their big announcement conceals far more than it reveals. One thing we learn is that the $25K price point was intended for only the first ten cars (those will now be given away for free as a publicity stunt), and the rest of us have to pay $45K to $55K. And this IR-PV system they have -- why don't they market this and license/develop it for use on residential rooftops? Why constrain such a revolutionary technology to cars? I'm sorry, but when a company hints at greatness and promises to reveal all in a future announcement, and then the announcement fails to reveal anything of any value whatsoever, my BS meter goes off the scale.


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I'm fairly convinced that Altairnano's Nanosafe batteries do live up to their claims.

The problem is price, they're estimated at $2.50-3.00 per watt-hour(or more), last I remember.

A 25KWH battery pack (good for a 65-70 mile range, Sedan) would cost $62,500 at $2.50/watt hour.

Phoenix Motorcars used the NanoSafe batteries in their vehicles but had to get another battery manufacturer to supply them with more batteries.

It seems that Altairnano can't produce enough NanoSafe batteries, so unless they find a better manufacturing method, they may stay out of reach for quite a few years.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

While reading through some of MIT's News I came across an article that talks about "Unlimited Battery Power" which the car uses the sun to recharge the batteries during daytime. 
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/PDF/N29.pdf
(About half way down the page) It also says that 5 have been sold. Perhaps Jay Leno bought one? haha. 
Other articles state that some students at MIT had also found a solution for continuous recharging, but did not give out any details on how it was done. 


More info is needed, keep posting any updates when you find them on Fosh or even the NanoSafe Batteries.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Fosh Automotive Update
Fosh proven a fraud.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

BS meter sent to fosh.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Why wait! You know BS sells in this country.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, first, I will bring up the magnetic coil free energy device. This is on youtube as well, which I will list links. Now, I listed this on the first page of 100+ Miles per charge EV's thread, but never really opened it up for discussion. Steve Marks was the inventor, but a new person bought him out. However, the patent and videos are still free to watch and free to make your own device from the patent. I have read the patent very carefully, which if you even skim over one paragraph, you miss an important step in creating the device. Ok, I want some input of what you think of this device and how you may find it useful in charging your EV or even using it to run your Charger to charge your EV. From what I gather on the videos, you get about 12 Amps from a coil that is about a foot in diameter. It isn't much, but what can we do to improve this device? Suggestions, theories, and logical comments welcome. If you don't think it will work, tell your reasons why and why it could not be improved.

The most recent video is from April 2008 in which his associate (Jack Durban) tells his story behind working with Steve Marks on this Toroid Generator. 
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=bcb5de0bd0f181ea8c9e7c56ba37815f5a52c02ec6da2cd7

Or
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4486.msg89361.html#msg89361

Or the torrent has it as well. 
http://www.samsonium.org/sites/default/files/SM_TPU_DVD.torrent

Or you can go here to get all the links with Jack Durban.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Videos:Jack_Durban:Steven_Marks_TPU
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Jack_Durban's_experience_with_Steve_Marks_Toroid_Generator


Now, for Steve Marks info on wiki. 
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Steve_Marks_Toroid_Generator

Videos of the Toroid Generator.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Steve_Marks_Toroid_Generator#Videos

The PATENT for the Toroid Generator. 
http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/patent.html

Well, what do you think. Will a larger unit sufice to put out enough Amps to be useful or will it work great for just a simple garage energy source to charge your EV over night?


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Put a load on the devices you find on places like this and you will have your answer. To charge your battery you need a good load and you just can't do it. Now if you just want to build a device that ups the voltage using coils and condensers and claim it's getting free energy you truly have not learned anything about electricity. Up the voltage with a coil and you lower the amps. I can take 110 volts and make any higher voltage I want but at a cost of loosing amperage. I could take that high voltage and very low amperage and charge my battery pack but it would take the same time to charge if I just used a normal cheap-o charger. So high voltage and low amps or low voltage and high amps will yield just about the same. But in the process of running something though a coil and condenser will result in a loss through heat. So you actually have less if you muck with the original output to get those whopping 500 + volt readings. 

THERE IS NO FREE ENERGY PERIOD. NO OVER UNITY OR MAGIC FORMULA. IF THERE WAS THIS WORLD WOULD ALREADY BE USING IT. IT IS ONLY A DUPE TO GET YOU TO SPEND MONEY IN THE END ON STUPID IDEAS THAT DONT WORK UNDER LOAD. NOTHING NEW HERE. 

Oh whats up with all those links requiring us to register. WHAT A CROCK. Pretty much proves my point. 

Take a copper wire 50 feet long and string it between two trees and then attach an led to one end and then from led to ground. Not even enough energy to light the led. However if you put a meter on the line you register a voltage. Wooooopie. FREE ENERGY. CAN I CHARGE MY EV WITH IT? Maybe in a 100 years you could eventually get one partial charge on your bank of batteries. Ooooop's batteries have a self discharge faster than you could charge. So the answer is NO you can't charge anything. Can't even light an led. The led is your load.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,

Back when I was in the 5th grade, I had an idea for what is now called a magnetic motor. There was an assigned science experiment coming up, so I built the motor for the project.

I used natural magnets for both the rotor and the stator, each of which were drilled into wood. I used a strip of lead with holes drilled in it to block the magnetic field. I KNEW it would work. The rotor rotated around a nail driven through both pieces.

As you can imagine, I failed miserably making that thing work, and in front of the whole class. By the end of the day, everyone knew what had happened. Everyone else used experiments from a book and they all worked. I was humiliated in a way that only a 5th grader can be humiliated.

One point that seemed odd to me is that I got a perfect score on that experiment, and nobody else I asked did. I didn't poll the whole class, but nobody believed that I could get a perfect score when the experiment didn't work. Years later I figured out that my experiment really WAS an experiment, where everyone else just copied one somebody else tried. An experiment which fails to work can still be successful.

Over the years I still held the dream, and kept learning things about magnets and efficiency and mechanical things in order that someday I could make it all work.

One day it finally clicked. In every case, there is always some aspect of the process which draws more energy than you can get. Nobody explained this to me, I figured it out on my own. Rather, EVERYONE explained it but until I got there on my own, I would not believe it.

Any principle in which over-unity would apply in nature would self destruct before anyone had a chance to discover it, because it would add energy to itself and finally come apart. Nature does not work that way. There is no free ride. Magnets do not provide energy, they only provide a force the same way a spring does.

You could do yourself a huge favor by learning the physics behind all the things you want to try. As well, just because somebody can rig a video on YouTube doesn't mean it's true. The infamous cell phone popcorn popper video was actually CGI. It looked very real, but it wasn't.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> LeTank,
> You could do yourself a huge favor by learning the physics behind all the things you want to try. As well, just because somebody can rig a video on YouTube doesn't mean it's true. The infamous cell phone popcorn popper video was actually CGI. It looked very real, but it wasn't.


we've been trying to tell him this for quite a few replies.... so much that he's actually started another thread


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

Persanity said:


> Seriously, Fuck all of you assholes.


Persanity,

I haven't checked out this forum in a few weeks, and apparently I posted the bit that made you explode. Sorry about that. I am not sure if it was my first one that pointed out how you had seemed to ignore some of the physics we were telling you, or the second one where I appologized then explained that apparently you were now listening to others number crunching. In my second post I was sincerely trying to say that you had great potential. Seriously. I'm sorry if you thought I was being a sarcastic asshole. 

Believe me we have all had projects that have failed. I can't remember them all. I have had things that I thought would work well not work at all, like a wind powered water pump with a horrible seal design that only pumped perhaps a tenth of what I had thought it would. I accidentally ordered gears for a submarine transmission in inch measurements versus centimeters. They were far enough above spec'd weight that it threw the buoyancy of the craft way way off. Shit happens. We're trying to keep you from making the expensive mistakes. When it seems that you are not listening, it gets frustrating. Maybe you were listening, but just missed the subtler points. I don't know. But I'm Sorry if I offended you. Seriously.

Incidentally the suggested wind/solar grid idea to recharge the batteries does seem like a pretty good idea in my opinion. It seems that it would fit your design goals. Might not be cheap, but the transportation part of the solution would be much lighter.

Have a good one.
Bill


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, so let us ditch the Toroid Coil idea. Unless someone else has something else to add to the proof of concept that it works or they made one themselves. I guess someone on overunity was making one, but still no details on it. 

On to the next concept of recharging batteries for "Unlimited Mileage".
What is your input on Thermal solar energy to create unlimited Battery power?

Theories, ideas and proof of concepts welcome. Include links if you have them with your post. If you don't think it will work, back up your words. 

By the way, I started this new thread to bring forth new ideas, some that exist we can look further into while others are still on the brink of new technology that may benefit us in the near future. So, before you assume anything, let us dig in the guts of it all and keep up the search for something that may benefit us all. 

http://www.freshpatents.com/Multipl...rvesting-device-dt20070208ptan20070028958.php

Here is an interesting machine. It is just too cool not to post. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrB7KRvxUk&feature=related

Concept from 1977 (NASA) of portable thermal solar.
http://works.bepress.com/jpohl/8/
Charging EV's at your home? 

Or how about just solar for "Unlimited Daytime minutes"? Sounds like a cell phone ad. 
http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/

Here is something that looks like a Zap, but sun powered. 
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/astrolab-electric-hybrid-vehicle/
Now, I want just the solar arrays for charging batteries, they can keep the car. 

Um...ok. A solar E-Tractor?
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/2006-08-01/Solar-electric-Mowers-Tractors.aspx

A possible place to find the best solar charging technology. A list of groups.
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Energy/Renewable/Solar/Solar_Electric/Solar_Powered_Vehicles/
A lot of reading and exploring. Still reading these..ack.

Anyway, take a looksie and have your say. Yay or nay to solar charging your vehicle?


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

I've also enjoyed reading this thread.

Perhaps there's another way to explain the principles of energy out will never be greater than energy in. How about skipping the step of converting the mechanical energy back into electricity and leave it mechanical. Suppose we have the bike with a motor on the rear wheel. Now we decide to try to get some energy back out of the front wheel. We should be able to put a belt on the front wheel and tie that back into the rear wheel to add a little bit of power, right? It's obvious that just connecting the two wheels isn't going to gain you anything. So, what if we add a gear in there to increase the torque at the back wheel? That doesn't work either. But that's what you're trying to do when you want to take energy from the front wheel and put it back into the batteries.

One day while exercising on my elliptical machine in the basement, I wondered how much energy I might be able to generate. I found out that 1 Calorie (actually kilocalorie but that's what is on nutrition labels for food) equals 4184 Joules or 4184 Watt-seconds. Dividing that by 3600 seconds in an hour gives me 1C = 1.1622 Watt-hours. Charts say you can burn 7.3 Calories/minute riding a bike 10 MPH. So, exercising for an hour I could produce 438 WH. I don't know what percentage gets lost to body maintenance, but it'd be interesting to find out.

Edit: Ok, at http://www.saris.com/CalorieCalculator.aspx it seems that only about 22% of human Calories burned gets converted into mechanical energy. They also say "This conversion ranges from about 1.05 Kcals per Kjoule for the most efficient athletes to about 1.15 for our least efficient athletes". So, to charge up a battery pack on a bike, you might need to make it one of those long bikes that have a whole family pedalling


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2008)

*Fosh Bull*



> The curtains will open and all information will be released on 8/18/2008 at 4:00PM CST. You better be back here, so you can proudly proclaim that you were part of this world changing event.


Well the above is directly from their site and we have given ample time to prove and we waited and you said to give them a chance. I said why bother. IT IS NOW AUG 25TH. BACK TO OUR DAILY GRIND. AND I TRULY HOPE WE DO NOT GO THROUGH THIS GARBAGE AGAIN. 




WHAT A CROCK OF GARBAGE. THE ONLY WORLD CHANGING EVENT THAT IS TAKING PLACE IS YOU BUYING THE BULL ONCE AGAIN.









LeTank said:


> Well, let us see what Fosh Automotive comes up by Monday. If it is true, we will hear about it, if not, then I will personally send the BS meter to Fosh Automotive.
> 
> I will do some digging to see if any News Agencies have it posted to where they will be covering it or not. Someone should be posting it that they will be doing the interview and getting people interested to watch..it would seem logical with something this big.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Fosh Bull*



gottdi said:


> Well the above is directly from their site and we have given ample time to prove and we waited and you said to give them a chance. I said why bother. IT IS NOW AUG 25TH. BACK TO OUR DAILY GRIND. AND I TRULY HOPE WE DO NOT GO THROUGH THIS GARBAGE AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


not surprising.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Fosh proven Fraud once again.


----------



## joseph3354 (Apr 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

not saying this is another scam,but,doing a whois search for foshelectricauto.com reveals another annonymous account(like lionev ).no contact information listed on fosh's site.no events scheduled on evcast calendar until this coming friday.no information about fosh at the big idea site. not good signs at all........


----------



## joseph3354 (Apr 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

well here you go,the big announcement:
http://foshelectricauto.com/monday25.htm

be advised it is a graphic and repugnant commentary on the state of our society. 

can we end this thread now please?


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

What a scammer!!!!

Yes, please end this now and close it.....


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Anyway, for now, forget Fosh, but Shelby Supercars and a few others including the New Trius is bringing out new solar film technology that will enable the batteries to recharge during the daytime. 


Well, next we will bring up Shelby Supercars as I will dig up all I can on them and bring them here to this thread, including videos. 
The challenge to find a solution for more mileage even possibly unlimited Mileage is still here.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

What is going on? Both Shelby Supercars and Ronn Motors took their electric extended range vehicles (including years between charges) off their webpage. Which ever one had the "years between charges" was gone. The other had solar cell technology they were using to get extended range that was way over 200 miles during daytime.
Were they being paid off? Threatened? Whats the deal? That is upsetting.

Here is the website about Shelby Supercars.
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/

A shot of the fastest electric Shelby Supercar.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/Ultimate+Aero+EV/

Website about Ron Motors.
http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/
Even still, I would love to have one of these..then turn it into electric. haha

Well, then on the side note, we also have a new battery that claims 500 miles per charge. Well, more like a capasitor. Charges in 5 minutes, goes 500 miles. Not bad.
http://media.cleantech.com/3174/eestors-weir-speaks-about-ultracapacitor-milestone

Some articles about EEstor.
http://media.cleantech.com/companies/eestor

Oh, and if you add Solar panels or thermal solar to your car..with the EEstor caps of course.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-End-o...ge---Unlimited-Solar-Power-Storage&id=1291459

Something about the supercapacitor
http://www.nonplanar-nanostructures.com/

Patent
http://www.nonplanar-nanostructures.com/patent.pdf

Ok, the wild, wierd and insane..what the ????? is it? 500-1000 miles per charge? Mua-ha-ha-ah-ha
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/zanis.dream.car.2.746733.html

But, wasn't this idea of switching between batteries brought up in the first thread of Unlimited Mileage? Hmm. and it works or so it is said to work. Perhaps a proven concept. Perhaps that wierd thing will blow up. haha Seriously I can not see that thing going 200 miles per hour. 

Ah man, over 1600 miles per gallon vehicles created by high schoolers. Too bad it wasn't electric.
But, perhaps ideas for a nice small generator to charge batteries with?
http://www.switched.com/2008/03/24/high-schoolers-create-car-that-gets-1-693-miles-per-gallon/

As I said, the quest still goes on. This thread is a great place to do it. 

If you have theories, links to websites, or anything that will help get to at least 1000 miles per charge even if it is using cathodes and nanotechnologies, post it here.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> you have braggin rights on fosh,


Yeah Baby. Told YA! Not one DOUBT about it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

OMG you really going to fall for it again? I TOLD YA SO before. Jumping from one to another. Don't you ever learn?




> Well, then on the side note, we also have a new battery that claims 500 miles per charge. Well, more like a capasitor. Charges in 5 minutes, goes 500 miles. Not bad.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> OMG you really going to fall for it again? I TOLD YA SO before. Jumping from one to another. Don't you ever learn?


Well did you read the links? Several reputable companies including ZENN, Lockheed and others are using or will be using the Cap-battery from EEstor.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh! I forgot to mention there is a world of Exotic Kit Cars just begging to be built into electric cars. Why wait the products are out there and you only need to buy the components and put them together. 

Heck get one of these puppies and make it electric. Pretty nice I'd say. Not a standard VW pan conversion but you can. This is just one sample. No need to start a car company. Build a kit. Heck that is what we are doing when we convert. We build a kit.










Don't buy the hype and just go build your own. The components are available and within reach of most who want an electric. Maybe it's not a Tesla but who the heck cares. With one of these it looks just as nice or better and still is HWY drivable. 

Pete : )


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Well did you read the links? Several reputable companies including ZENN, Lockheed and others are using or will be using the Cap-battery from EEstor.



It is not a done deal. Just hype.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Reputable companies get scammed too.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yes, I like the kit cars too. The lambo kit car is sweet, make it electric..why not. 
Ok, if you need proof about the EEstor capasitor here it is. 
5 min Charge=500 miles. 
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EEStor
http://media.cleantech.com/2272/lockheed-martin-to-use-eestor-batteries
http://media.cleantech.com/3173/eestor-gets-scientific-backing-its-advanced-batteries
http://media.cleantech.com/2644/zenn-gearing-up-for-eestor-powered-car

If you don't want to go to the links here is what it says in part:
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) announced that it signed a deal with EEStor to use the secretive Ceder Park, Texas, company's ultracapacitors....
Lockheed Martin, the world's No. 1 defense contractor, did not disclose financial terms for the exclusive international rights agreement.
The company said EEStor is developing a ceramic battery chemistry that could provide 10 times the energy density of lead acid batteries at one tenth the weight and volume.
Other::
EEStor claims that this new advance allows for a specific energy of about 280 watts per kilogram. This represents a more than doubling of that of the most advanced lithium-ion technology and more than ten times that of lead-acid batteries. This would allow an electric vehicle to travel up to 500 miles on a five minute charge.And just as significant, EEStor says they will be able to mass-produce the units at a fraction of the cost of traditional batteries.
So it will also be affordable. 

Their website is still under construction. 
http://www.eestor.us/
But it is registered. 
Information on EEstor.us
Domain Name: EESTOR.US
Domain ID: D2923880-US
Sponsoring Registrar: .US REGISTRAR L.L.C.
Registrar URL (registration services): whois.networksolutions.com
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID: 26831998
Registrant Name: EEStor, Inc
Registrant Organization: eeStor, Inc
Registrant Address1: 715 Discovey Blvd.
Registrant Address2: Bldg I, #107
Registrant City: Cedar Park
Registrant State/Province: TX
Registrant Postal Code: 78613
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Country Code: US
Registrant Phone Number: +1.512259760
Registrant Facsimile Number: +1.512259745
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registrant Application Purpose: P1
Registrant Nexus Category: C21
Administrative Contact ID: 26831998
Administrative Contact Name: EEStor, Inc
Administrative Contact Organization: eeStor, Inc
Administrative Contact Address1: 715 Discovey Blvd.
Administrative Contact Address2: Bldg I, #107
Administrative Contact City: Cedar Park
Administrative Contact State/Province: TX
Administrative Contact Postal Code: 78613
Administrative Contact Country: United States
Administrative Contact Country Code: US
Administrative Contact Phone Number: +1.512259760
Administrative Contact Facsimile Number: +1.512259745
Administrative Contact Email: [email protected]
Administrative Application Purpose: P1
Administrative Nexus Category: C21
Billing Contact ID: 26831998
Billing Contact Name: EEStor, Inc
Billing Contact Organization: eeStor, Inc
Billing Contact Address1: 715 Discovey Blvd.
Billing Contact Address2: Bldg I, #107
Billing Contact City: Cedar Park
Billing Contact State/Province: TX
Billing Contact Postal Code: 78613
Billing Contact Country: United States
Billing Contact Country Code: US
Billing Contact Phone Number: +1.512259760
Billing Contact Facsimile Number: +1.512259745
Billing Contact Email: [email protected]
Billing Application Purpose: P1
Billing Nexus Category: C21
Technical Contact ID: 5358805
Technical Contact Name: Network Solutions, LLC.
Technical Contact Organization: Network Solutions, LLC.
Technical Contact Address1: 13200 Woodland Park Drive
Technical Contact City: Herndon
Technical Contact State/Province: VA
Technical Contact Postal Code: 20171-3025
Technical Contact Country: United States
Technical Contact Country Code: US
Technical Contact Phone Number: +1.18886429675
Technical Contact Facsimile Number: +1.5714344620
Technical Contact Email: [email protected]
Technical Application Purpose: P1
Technical Nexus Category: C21
Name Server: NS7.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server: NS8.WORLDNIC.COM
Created by Registrar: .US REGISTRAR L.L.C.
Last Updated by Registrar: .US REGISTRAR L.L.C.
Domain Registration Date: Tue Oct 08 02:09:33 GMT 2002
Domain Expiration Date: Sun Oct 07 23:59:59 GMT 2012
Domain Last Updated Date: Wed Jul 25 16:58:53 GMT 2007

Just for proof. Sorry it was so long, but people like gotthi need this.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You all are far too forgiving of these so called companies. If they had a product or even a working prototype I would be more forgiving. But Nooooooooooooooooooo and you all buy the hype even after time and time again it is proved that they are only after your money.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Big RED Flags here: 

1. It can allegedly charge within 5 minutes with enough energy to move a car 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity -- about 45 cents a gallon.

Pretty worthless link.

2. March 31, 2008 - Exclusive
By David Ehrlich, Cleantech Group

Well it is kind of old information and the use of may, can and should all say the same thing. It is not a done deal. 

3. EEStor claims third party verification

Want me to continue?


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Just for proof. Sorry it was so long, but people like gotthi need this.


What Proof? And it's GOTTDI please. 

I need what? Oh I am quite certain that I do not need that junk. I've been around the block so to speak enough to know and I don't have to keep proving it buy buying the crap and waiting and seeing it never come to light. I have always said, if you have a product or working prototype (not a working tiny model) I will be much less forgiving. But with all the secretive mulling around I have not doubt about the outcome of these companies. NO DOUBT.

Pete : )

Lets get on with building EV's with what we do have that works and is proven to last. If and when a new world shattering product is brought to market I will come running if it's affordable. Until then I will continue to use what works and when I can improve upon it I will. Or when I can add an improvement I will as long as it's affordable. 

: )


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

This being the biggest red flag of all!



> This Site Is Under Construction and Coming Soon.


YEAH! RIGHT!


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

This is the real deal and not some pipe dream.

http://inertext.homeunix.com/woodruffgroveorganics

65 mph so far on 72 volts and I can pull 300 amps from the battery if I want. Car still does well when kept to 200 amps or less. Acceleration is about what a normal VW engine will push a car to speed. No real need for more. It will get a bit more later. For now it is a working EV and one I can show. No speculation here. No secretive things hidden here. Controller is a GolfTech 72 volt @ 550 amp's max and it's silent.

: )


----------



## joseph3354 (Apr 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

65 mph on 72 volts? thats quite an accomplishment. congratulations!
most vehicles barely make 50 mph on that kind of power.
letank,eestor is old news. lockeed martin locked them away months ago. military applications will not see public use for years to come.don't hold your breath.we all want the magic battery or motor or system that will make EVs mainstream.but succumbing to the hype associated with alot of the scams out there is not the answer.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> 65 mph on 72 volts? thats quite an accomplishment. congratulations!
> most vehicles barely make 50 mph on that kind of power.


Gearing, Motor, Weight. With the voltage I am using I am hitting the top end at 65. A 72 volt pack is not nearly as heavy as a 144 volt pack and many are using much smaller motors for the weight of the vehicle. My motor is big but the smaller generator/starter motor I have pushes the car to 62 mph. Many of the small cars are much heavier than the VW Ghia. So weight has a lot to do with it and many are using wimpy 6 1/2 inch motors. If I put my generator/starter 6 1/2" motor in lets say a Geo Metro I would not expect to see 62 mph. Maybe 55. I will be pulling out both seats in the Ghia and adding one buggy style racing seat. It is about all I can do to lighten the load. Door panels will be replaced with aluminum panels that are lighter in weight but not by much. My Ghia is about as light as it can get. I do have room for 6 extra 6 volt batteries making for a 108 volt system. I may try to find room for 8 more for 120 volts. My Ghia would scream at the weight but it would surly go much faster and further.


----------



## weelliott (May 12, 2008)

mark1030 said:


> One day while exercising on my elliptical machine in the basement, I wondered how much energy I might be able to generate. I found out that 1 Calorie (actually kilocalorie but that's what is on nutrition labels for food) equals 4184 Joules or 4184 Watt-seconds. Dividing that by 3600 seconds in an hour gives me 1C = 1.1622 Watt-hours. Charts say you can burn 7.3 Calories/minute riding a bike 10 MPH. So, exercising for an hour I could produce 438 WH. I don't know what percentage gets lost to body maintenance, but it'd be interesting to find out.
> 
> Edit: Ok, at http://www.saris.com/CalorieCalculator.aspx it seems that only about 22% of human Calories burned gets converted into mechanical energy. They also say "This conversion ranges from about 1.05 Kcals per Kjoule for the most efficient athletes to about 1.15 for our least efficient athletes". So, to charge up a battery pack on a bike, you might need to make it one of those long bikes that have a whole family pedalling


It is generaly accepted that 200 Watts is about the most a person can put out for more than a few seconds, and even then 200W is something that a fit person can put out, not the average person. If you're just an average Joe that hasn't run a mile since they made you do it in high school , but you can still climb a few flights of stairs, I think 125 to 150 watts might be a good estimation of the energy you can put into a machine.

I had the idea a few years back to create a pedal powered generator to augment my electricity at home. However, once I did the math I found that the 200 bucks that I estimated it would cost to build it would likely never be earned back. Even if I could do 200 Watts, that is five hours to produce one kilowatt hour, or about 15 cents worth of electricity. So since 200.00 is 1333 times as much it would take 6667 hours of pedaling to break even. The odds of everything lasting that long was pretty slim. To put that many hours into perspective, a car traveling at an average speed of just 40 mph would cover over 250,000 miles in that amount of time. Most cars are dead by then, or at least have undergone a major repair. The odds of my bike lasting that long without need for repair are pretty slim.

It's kind of surprising how cheap electricity is, and how little energy a person can produce.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Fosh named hoax. A disgusting one at that.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/foshautomotive/

autobloggreeen.com was pretty upset along with a number of others for the disgusting site. I am sure someone will get back slapped for the crap on the site. 

I did a search for the holders name of the website, it was "Anonymous".
Well I could not associate the name with the hacker group called Anonymous since I think they would go a bit further and deface Obama's website and put such junk on it, so I am sure it wasn't them. I have done a lot of research in the past on that group (As I am a Computer Security Consultant/ISC/CISP for various organizations as well in my spare time)

Anyway, ghottDI will love that is was a hoax. haha

So, besides I have emailed another battery company for specs on their battery and hopefully will have some answers soon about a possible 800 Ah battery, but it is still new and I won't say anything till I know its a sure thing. Just a FYI here.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

No one will be able to stand up and say they were the one who predicted the end of the world. : )


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I will say one thing, I did not expect it to be a political hoax but it was for sure not for real. I am a bit taken back by the amount of folks who really gave it any thought that it was or might even be remotely real. No world changing technology will be presented in this fashion. That is the first clue. You won't find world changing technology from a site under construction either. Get a clue and listen.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

the perpetual motion car has been aborted......


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,

I know you're just being extremely optimistic here, but as a general rule of thumb if a company has claims which are vastly different from what everyone else's claims are, the alarm bells in the back of your head should be going off.


History is full of new earth-shattering discoveries of principles that changed the world. History is full of inventions based off those principles. However, history is also full of examples where two people did the same thing at the same time, parallel development, because two guys on two different continents saw the same events and had the same ideas.

Because of that, if you make an earth-shattering discovery, you will publish it as soon as you get your data together and can reasonably defend it because if you don't, somebody else you haven't heard of yet might have made the same discovery and might be working on a paper, and if he gets published first then you've lost out on your patent and your place in history.

The "discovery" in this case would have been a principle that lets you get stupendous amounts of power into and out of a battery of relatively tiny size. That would have had the world tied in knots, should they be able to prove it.

So to come up with an entire production-ready car before word gets out of this battery, that is a tough pill to swallow.

On top of that, any time someone uses the word "unlimited" (even with "virtually" in front of it) it's cause for alarm and a dead giveaway for a hoax.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, first I am always skeptical and probably more than anyone about a lot of claims, so please spare me the pat on the head "sorry you were wrong" as if I am clueless. I am only providing what is available and yes there are many over unity machines out there. I personally had seen one work over 20 years ago, but the man who invented it was shut down within weeks of trying to get it patented. He shut his mouth ever since and I really never knew what was entailed to make the machine work as it was filled with gears and weights, but there was no batteries connected to the machine. Now, did I suspect something was hidden that I could not see? Sure I did, but when he was forced out of business and not allowed to patent his device in 1985, I had to believe he actually did it and someone didn't want it out on the market. 
I lost touch with him years ago, but he would not talk about it at all. 

Now, for perhaps an automobile that can get even 500 miles per charge is something we can look forward to. I would say, if a car gets even 500 miles per charge, that is suficient as unlimited mileage since a person can only drive so many miles per day without having to take a rest or call it a night in a hotel. New technologies such as nanotechnologies are already here, it is just a matter of price. Everyone wants something that is affordable, sure we all do, but if you had to invest even $5,000 in a set of nanotech batteries that would give you twice or triple the mileage you are getting now, would you be willing to front out the money? Sure, most would that could afford it, but as time goes by the prices will drop and everyone else will be able to afford it. But...the technology is here today and some of which will be used in cars that will be sold within the next year. Even though the batteries will be smaller and have less capacity, the concept and technology is there. 

*EEstor batteries:*
Zenn is an electric company based in Canada that is currently selling EV's across America and now just started selling them in Canada. They will be using the EEstor batteries as they signed a contract with EEstor as did Lockheed a while back. So this is also good news. Figure the weight you have in your vehicle now and if you were to replace your batteries with EEstor batteries with the same volume, you would have increased your mileage quite a lot. (Depends on the vehicle as to how much more.)

You can be negative about everything in life and suspect everyone of hiding something when they make a claim, but between the few that are real and the many that aren't we can at least see what they have before assuming the worse. Ok, even assume the worse and see if they can surprise you by making it work, either way, you are still interested in the facts and if the device really works. So with Fosh, it was a simple "prove it" application, but they turned out to be a fraud, but I will not just dump the entire concept of an unlimited mileage vehicle just because some kiddy hacker group thought it was funny to make a political statement by using a website that had false claims of unlmited mileage. So it does not deter me from looking at others, since it is a world interest to see EV's get greater mileage. 

I will search for the best possible ways to benefit all Ev owners in their conversions to get more mileage and if I stumble across a website that looks interesting, I post it and we can wait to see if it actually has credit and has been officially proven or not. I try to be positive about a lot of things as well. I am the type of person who will listen and then see if the proof comes forth or not. So, I hope this clears up any misunderstanding that so many believe I am gullible to every claim, because I am completely the opposite. I also offer others to share their ideas, theories and what ever they came across and I will listen until it is proven a hoax. 
Then when you look beyond the hoax and even see some details of their false claims such as Fosh with the thermal solar rods, it turns out that the idea may really work to charge a battery to some degree. Odd, even strange, but even a hoax can provide a cool idea. Ironic, but true. 
Can solar thermal rods turn water into steam to run a small generator? Sure it can, but at what cost and output is the key to even finding out if it would be useful or not. If anything, I truly find it fun to keep looking and listening to what others have even as theories, because someday, someone will find something that works and will use it effectively.
So, in regards to that, let the search go on.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey LeTank Check this out: Ain't She something!
[h4]Photo 2 of Super Charged Electric Cars - Ultimate Aero EV from Shelby SuperCars (VIDEO)[/h4]

 < Previous | Next >


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Very cool Beshires1, yea I do like the car and wish I had the extra dough to buy one. 

Also found a Top 5 of Electric Cars website. http://cars.uk.msn.com/greenmotoring/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4691871

Worth checking out. Mostly the Venturi Fetish. 100 mph, 155 miles per charge and charges in 1 hour on an external charger. Now, see there is something that works. That is a chick picker upper, well either one is.


----------



## rfengineers (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm so excited to finally be able to post this! Yes folks, the "laws of physics" are about to be altered! We will all soon be able to drive our unlimited range electric cars!!

Watch this site for updates: http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I was watching Discovery the other day and saw this:
Roger Dobson 
div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } SCIENTISTS have successfully applied the technology used in microwave ovens to beam electricity without the need for unsightly pylons and overhead cables. The power is fired through the air in the form of microwaves and collected in special antennas that reconvert the microwaves into electricity. 
A prototype of the wireless power technology has shown the system works and a full-scale version is now being built to make a remote village on the French-governed island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean the world’s first microwave-powered community. 
According to a report to be published this week, the system is a cheaper way than either solar energy or local generators of supplying remote areas not connected to a grid. 
“(Electricity) network distribution is effective at the centre but the costs increase quickly when you get to the edge,” said Dr Guy Pignolet of CNES, the French space agency, which has conducted the trials. 
“Extending it to remote areas is very costly, but with microwave technology you do not have those costs. You also do not have pylons, which you may not want in sensitive areas.” 
The technology works by converting direct current (DC) electricity into microwave power at the transmitting end in the same way that switching on a microwave oven converts electricity into waves using a device called a magnetron. Residents are unlikely to be baked as the frequencies in the two applications are entirely different. 
Microwaves for the electricity are targeted via antennas and reflectors at a “rectenna” (from the words rectifier and antenna), which absorbs the microwave energy from the beam and converts it back into DC power with diodes. 
In Grand-Bassin on Réunion, which lies at the bottom of a 3,000ft canyon with no road access, electricity is currently provided by solar panels placed on the roofs of the houses. But increasing the amount of electricity solely by using the panels is difficult because of the amount of surface area needed. It is also expensive. 
The researchers have successfully produced a field prototype to illuminate a handful of light bulbs. A second prototype is being finalised and will be in operation in about 10 months, while the whole project to supply the village with power is scheduled to be completed within three years.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23mar_1.htm

Now If I could build me one of those "rectenna" There might be a possibility of a needs charging once in a while vehicle.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beshires1 said:


> I was watching Discovery the other day and saw this:
> <chop>
> Now If I could build me one of those "rectenna" There might be a possibility of a needs charging once in a while vehicle.


Unlike most of the posts in this thread, this one does not talk about a free ride. They only talk about a _relatively_ efficient wireless means of transmitting power over long distances, not a way to get free energy.

However, there are still some problems with it. Tesla's original Wardenclyffe Tower ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_tower ) broadcast power at very low frequencies, and it failed mostly because there was nowhere to put the meter and therefore no way to collect money for the power generated.

This attempt seems to be focussed on microwaves, which need to be very accurately aimed at the transmitter and receiver both or most of the energy is lost. That gets the meter back, but it won't work for your car because your car moves.

One thing that confuses me is how they get that much energy into the microwave band effectively and efficiently.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

*Beshires1*
This is a great idea, since every TV station is converting to Microwaves (digital). Someone may experienment and see if you can use digital waves to convert it into DC power. 
"_Microwaves for the electricity are targeted via antennas and reflectors at a “rectenna” (from the words rectifier and antenna), which absorbs the microwave energy from the beam and converts it back into DC power with diodes."

_It looks like the Chevy Volt is going to be a flop. One charge to get 40 miles? Geez, most people in this forum get at least 50 miles per charge or more. Nice looking car, but they won't sell many with that limited mileage. That is almost a slap in the face to anyone who has been hoping to get an off the shelf EV. I truly would like to know if Chevy is really going to let it go on the streets with a puny 40 miles per charge. Well GM is on its way to bankruptcy for sure, perhaps they deserve it. The EV1 got over 80 miles per charge and the electra got almost a 100 miles per charge in the 1990's. This almost just pisses you off doesn't it? And here it is 2008 and they push out something that gets worse mileage than any other electric car on the market. 

Link to Chevy Volt news.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0809/gallery.gm_volt_reveal/index.html?cnn=yes

I am researching those nanosafe batteries, which it seems more companies are starting to make them. Will post what I find, but I want to make sure what I found is accurate first. Will post it soon.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Unlike most of the posts in this thread, this one does not talk about a free ride. They only talk about a _relatively_ efficient wireless means of transmitting power over long distances, not a way to get free energy.
> 
> However, there are still some problems with it. Tesla's original Wardenclyffe Tower ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_tower ) broadcast power at very low frequencies, and it failed mostly because there was nowhere to put the meter and therefore no way to collect money for the power generated.
> 
> ...


On the program that I watched, The power will be collected by solar pannels with a special collection lens, on a satellite, positioned to collect the suns rays 24-7 . (only 8 to 10 times more efficient than regular solar cells). Any-way, The microwave beam stays concentrated in the vacume of space, but spreads wavelike when it inters our atmosphere.(Which is 60 miles deep). The 60 miles spreads the microwave beam but they were still able to transmit the power the 60 miles. This is also the reason for using a Island to be the "first", because ...cough..Anyone can receive the microwave signal where it is being transmitted. The signal is stronger in the center (island) then receades you get further from center into the ocean.Now get me a rectenna and a ticket to the damn island.


----------



## spidermonkey (Sep 15, 2008)

i was thinking of a extra drop down wheel on a alternator it would have to be small and relly wouldnt provide much only on long down hills would you have a chance to deploy but even then *grabs calculator....* ok they can do up to 400 [email protected] [email protected] scale this up to it would be 66.66amp at 144 volt therereticial the alts are not exessivly heavyand would not drag constantly
perhaps use a solid steel rod inside a E brake handle for dropping

now i would have to figure out if you can frankenstein a 144v internal regulator into it of it would have to be external. and need to figure out the rpm depending on tire size and if the alternator will handle it. oh and most importantly if it will burn up the electrics/electronics

what kind of power will regen braking put out?

or better yet convert a van to HAMPSTER POWER of course you will need caffiene or meth to boost them for hills

AH i have found the ultimate answer... plug it into the neighbors/worklaces power .. FREE POWER i am a genius =D


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

rfengineers said:


> I'm so excited to finally be able to post this! Yes folks, the "laws of physics" are about to be altered! We will all soon be able to drive our unlimited range electric cars!!
> 
> Watch this site for updates: http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/



I wouldn't bet my money on it just yet....

But I will rent out a wheel barrow.....


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Even if they say people are "unlikely" to get baked by the beam, I think anybody standing in a transmission path of enough power to run a 1500W hair dryer is going to get a little toasty. And these beams are supposed to have enough power to run a whole village? I think I'll stick to my copper wires that I can walk around.

I do like the idea of a satellite solar collector beaming power down to earth though. Some supervillian would probably get a hold of the controls and shine the beam at the polar ice caps so he could take credit for destroying the earth.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I can see how easy it can be to get a thread turned around into becoming a fight over over unity, free energy or even to the point of a mental break down.  However, I was just sticking up for ninji because he posted this thread for just increasing mileage, not to make any over unity statement or hopes to create such. So in that, I will bow out of this thread and let you all hash it out from here. I agree with almost everyone's post, but this became a thread where something so simple became a huge misunderstanding. 

I am gong to find some female EV'ers and bring them here so you all can meet your ultimate match.  There is no fire like female fire and they never seem to give up either. haha

I have too much fun in this forum. haha


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> I can see how easy it can be to get a thread turned around into becoming a fight over over unity, free energy or even to the point of a mental break down.  However, I was just sticking up for ninji because he posted this thread for just increasing mileage, not to make any over unity statement or hopes to create such. So in that, I will bow out of this thread and let you all hash it out from here. I agree with almost everyone's post, but this became a thread where something so simple became a huge misunderstanding.
> 
> I am gong to find some female EV'ers and bring them here so you all can meet your ultimate match.  There is no fire like female fire and they never seem to give up either. haha
> 
> I have too much fun in this forum. haha




LeTank,

Even just getting a net gain out of a circular system means you are trying for over unity. Add the windmill and you _will_ lose ground on efficiency.


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

About that "rectenna":
I was wondering what will they call the maintenance tech's main instrument to measure signal strenght.....Rectometer? 
Sorry could not resist. Barna


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



3dplane said:


> About that "rectenna":
> I was wondering what will they call the maintenance tech's main instrument to measure signal strenght.....Rectometer?
> Sorry could not resist. Barna


And what would the unit of measurement be? Rect-something. Lots of dirty brown jokes we can make from this story.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey wait a minute, this is my thread. haha I posted on the wrong thread for goodness sake. Anyway, got the two confused. Geez. 

I don't see any over unity from having a wind generator on the vehicle, I do see there may be some sort of increase if it was done right and the drag was minimal. I am saying that if you had the money for a wind tunnel, increased your aerodynamics and applied a wind generator (perhaps a small one or two in the grill) and went on from there to get a few Amps. It would not be much, but combined with regen braking, some solar panels if you wanted and perhaps even something I haven't thought of to get a few more Amps to just get a few more miles. I would say, if you could get any increase in mileage it would still be worth the time and money to do it. Considering the time the car sits recharging each night, or day if you are charging at work, you would possibly get a few more miles to do what ever you wanted with, even drive out of your way down town to get an espresso and a pie that you could not do before in your EV. What ever the cure is, if it is something you want to try, then try it. I see no harm in that, even arguing about it all day won't change the determined persons mind. 

Now, I am still thinking about this microwave stuff. Hmmm.. You know, if you can take microwaves and turn them into DC power, that would be nice to play with. I was however (a few years ago) able to take a WI-FI and turn the microwaves into a small MASER. Hard to believe? The truth is, I blew out my RV window by accident and it was all a fluke how it happened. I added a 32db gain antennae to my desktop computer WI-FI and added another 25 feet of copper wire wrapped around a coat hanger to reach the hotels wireless a little less than a mile away (line of sight), which I did barely. Then a wind came up and it slipped against the window, which is gas filled and a bright red light suddenly shot through my window and blew it out. This was crazy nuts, till I finally made it home from the trip and played around with it again. I blew another window out and even melted the back of my monitor. Crazy, nuts, whatever you want to call it, I saw it with my big eyes and paid for the window twice. Wonder what else we can do with a microwave from digital TV stations. It may be worth playing around with. haha. Well I won't because they are too far away from me to get, but perhaps someone else will. If anyone finds more info on this microwave to DC energy, please post it. I want to know.

I was using a D-Link AirPlus Extreme G, DWL-G520. Just had it handy, in fact it was laying on my end table.
In case anyone is curious. Be careful, there is no control over this Maser.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

In outer space, the sun always shines brightly. No clouds block the solar rays, and there is no nighttime. Solar collectors mounted on an orbiting satellite would thus generate power 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. If this power could be relayed to earth, then the world's energy problems might be solved forever. 
Solar power satellites ( SPS) were originally proposed as a solution to the oil crises of the 1970s by Czech-American engineer  Peter Glaser, then at Arthur D. Little.  Glaser imagined 50-square-kilometer arrays of solar cells deployed on satellites orbiting 36,000 kilometers above fixed points along the equator. A satellite at that "geosynchronous" altitude takes 24 hours to orbit the earth and thus remains fixed over the same point on earth all the time. 
The idea was elegant. Photovoltaic cells on a satellite would convert sunlight into electrical current, which would, in turn, power an onboard microwave generator. The microwave beam would travel through space and the atmosphere. On the ground, an array of rectifying antennas, or "rectennas," would collect these microwaves and extract electrical power, either for local use or for distribution through conventional utility grids.
The new communications satellites will orbit at an altitude of only a few hundred miles. Instead of hovering above a spot on the equator, low-orbiting satellites zip around the globe in as little as 90 minutes, tracing paths that oscillate about the equator, rising and dipping as many as 86 degrees of latitude. Because they are closer to the earth's surface, the solar collectors on the satellite can be a few hundred meters across rather than 10 kilometers. And because the microwave beams they generate would spread out much less than those from geosynchronous satellites, the ground rectennas could be correspondingly smaller and less expensive as well. By piggybacking onto these fleets of communications satellites--and taking advantage of their microwave transmitters and receivers, ground stations, and control systems--solar power technology can become economically viable. 
Low earth orbit poses its own difficulties, though. Because they whip around the planet so quickly, low-orbiting satellites must possess sophisticated computer- controlled systems for adjusting the aim of the microwave beam so that it lands at the receiving station. These satellites will have to use sophisticated electronic systems, called phased arrays, to continuously retarget the outgoing beam. 
Energy for Development 
The demand for space-based solar power could be extraordinary. By 2050, according to some estimates, 10 billion people will inhabit the globe--more than 85 percent of them in developing countries. The big question: How can we best supply humanity's growing energy needs with the least adverse impact on the environment? 
Solar power satellites would require far less land to generate electricity. Each square meter of land devoted to the task could yield as much as 100 watts of electricity. And the power-receiving  rectenna arrays--a fine metallic mesh--would be visually transparent, so their presence would not interfere with crop growth or cattle grazing. 
Motorola, for example, is putting $3.8 billion into Iridium, a venture comprising 66 communications satellites in low earth orbit. Teledesic Corp.--a joint venture of Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and cellular phone tycoon Craig McCaw of Mobile Telecommunications Technologies--plans to spend $9 billion to deploy 288 satellites. 
Looking for a Cheap Launch 
One important consideration in planning space power is the expense of putting a satellite into orbit. Right now, it costs a thousand times more to put an object into space than to fly it across country by commercial airliner, even though the two jobs require roughly the same amount of energy--about 10 kilowatt-hours per kilogram of payload. Two factors account for the extra cost: the army of engineers and scientists required for a successful space launch, and the practice of discarding much of the launch vehicle after each flight. 
A solar power satellite should quickly pay back the energy needed to put it into orbit. Start with the conservative assumption that solar power satellite technology would produce 0.1 kilowatt of electricity on the ground per kilogram of mass in orbit. In that case, the energy expenditure of 10 kilowatt-hours per kilogram to lift the satellite into orbit would be repaid in electricity after only 100 hours--less than five days. 
Some fear that a network of solar power satellites could turn the atmosphere into one big microwave oven, cooking whatever wanders into the beam's path. In reality, the microwave intensities that we propose would be orders of magnitude below the threshold at which objects begin to heat up. People would be exposed to microwave levels comparable to those from microwave ovens and cellular phones. While some critics speculate that microwaves pose nonthermal threats to human health, there is no reliable epidemiological evidence for adverse effects from microwaves at these low levels. Higher levels of microwave radiation would be found at the rectennas on which the beams are focused, but fences and warning signs could demarcate these areas of possible danger. But according to our calculations, microwave intensities even at the perimeter of the  rectenna would fall within the range now deemed safe by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
Whether solar power satellites become a reality will ultimately depend on the willingness of telecommunications and electric utility companies to enter the space power business. So far, neither industry has shown much interest. But then, they are for the most part unaware of the commercial possibilities. One has to know that an option exists to choose it. Thirty years ago, communications satellites were a novelty. Ten years ago, no one had heard of the Internet.No single piece of this technology poses a fundamental stumbling block. The physics of photovoltaic cells and microwave generation are well understood. To move to the next stage, though, will require a demonstration that all the pieces of this system can work together: the solar panels, the phased-array microwave antennas, the receiving stations that separate the data signals from the power beams, and the computers that tell the satellites where on the ground to aim the beams. NASA could accelerate this development tremendously by placing into orbit a prototype of a solar power satellite. 
The benefits are too large to walk away from. A network of solar power satellites such as what we propose could supply the earth with 10 to 30 trillion watts of electrical power - enough to satisfy the needs of the human race through the next century. Solar power satellites thus offer a vision in which energy production moves off the earth's surface, allowing everyone to live on a "greener" planet. Consider the philosophical implications: no longer need humankind see itself trapped on spaceship earth with limited resources. We could tap the limitless resources of space, with the planet preserved as a priceless resource of biodiversity.


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beshires1 said:


> In outer space, the sun always shines brightly. No clouds block the solar rays, and there is no nighttime. Solar collectors mounted on an orbiting satellite would thus generate power 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.


If the plan is to use geosynchronous orbit satellites then they would be shaded by the earth at night, unless you put them at the poles. If you put the satellites always on the sunny side of earth, they'd be transmitting power to a moving target. Tough challenges to overcome.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Hey wait a minute, this is my thread. haha I posted on the wrong thread for goodness sake. Anyway, got the two confused. Geez.
> 
> I don't see any over unity from having a wind generator on the vehicle, I do see there may be some sort of increase if it was done right and the drag was minimal. I am saying that if you had the money for a wind tunnel, increased your aerodynamics and applied a wind generator (perhaps a small one or two in the grill) and went on from there to get a few Amps. It would not be much, but combined with regen braking, some solar panels if you wanted and perhaps even something I haven't thought of to get a few more Amps to just get a few more miles. I would say, if you could get any increase in mileage it would still be worth the time and money to do it. Considering the time the car sits recharging each night, or day if you are charging at work, you would possibly get a few more miles to do what ever you wanted with, even drive out of your way down town to get an espresso and a pie that you could not do before in your EV. What ever the cure is, if it is something you want to try, then try it. I see no harm in that, even arguing about it all day won't change the determined persons mind.
> 
> ...



LeTank,

Getting gain from reclaiming energy you provided in the first place is called over unity. There is no stage where you get more energy back than you put in, therefore the net sum is negative for the whole system. What is so hard to understand about that?

A windmill on a stationary site is a great idea because you're grabbing wind from the weather, meaning ultimately the sun's heating of the atmosphere caused the wind to blow which turns your windmill, so the energy is free by our standards even though the best windmill only gets a tiny fraction of the wind's energy out as electricity.

A windmill that tries to make use of the wind of your motion is a terrible idea, because you increase the drag coefficient of the car by several times, which causes your motor to work much harder and you only gain a tiny bit back, to a NEGATIVE net effect. You spend a thousand dollars in fuel to get a hundred dollars worth of energy, and that doesn't include the equipment cost.

The Aptera gets the range it gets because, in part, it has the same drag profile as do the windshield wipers on my car. Adding even one "windmill" to that would cause the drag to multiply a thousand times, and you would get very little energy out of it.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

For that matter, if you still don't believe me you can google on a homemade wind tunnel, there are plans for some very inexpensive wind tunnels you can make yourself out of commonly available parts.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Come to think of it, the easiest way for you to realize whether this will work or not is to buy a book on thermodynamics and read it until you understand what it says.

Or, you can take our word for it that the answer is "no."


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Sometimes it's easier to believe that the fringe nutjob "scientists" are somehow tapping into something conspiratorial that "the government doesn't want you to know"... than to trust thousands upon thousands of credible *real* scientists.

After all, every day on the road, I see people whizzing past me at 90+ mph, who obviously do not believe that the laws of physics apply to them...


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



mark1030 said:


> If the plan is to use geosynchronous orbit satellites then they would be shaded by the earth at night, unless you put them at the poles. If you put the satellites always on the sunny side of earth, they'd be transmitting power to a moving target. Tough challenges to overcome.


 "The new communications satellites will orbit at an altitude of only a few hundred miles. Instead of hovering above a spot on the equator, low-orbiting satellites zip around the globe in as little as 90 minutes, tracing paths that oscillate about the equator, rising and dipping as many as 86 degrees of latitude. Because they are closer to the earth's surface, the solar collectors on the satellite can be a few hundred meters across rather than 10 kilometers. And because the microwave beams they generate would spread out much less than those from geosynchronous satellites, the ground rectennas could be correspondingly smaller and less expensive as well. By piggybacking onto these fleets of communications satellites--and taking advantage of their microwave transmitters and receivers, ground stations, and control systems--solar power technology can become economically viable". (end quote). Thars your answer I think.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I need to find a place where they're NOT going to set this stuff up and build my house there.


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beshires1 said:


> "The new communications satellites will orbit at an altitude of only a few hundred miles. Instead of hovering above a spot on the equator, low-orbiting satellites zip around the globe in as little as 90 minutes, tracing paths that oscillate about the equator, rising and dipping as many as 86 degrees of latitude. Because they are closer to the earth's surface, the solar collectors on the satellite can be a few hundred meters across rather than 10 kilometers. And because the microwave beams they generate would spread out much less than those from geosynchronous satellites, the ground rectennas could be correspondingly smaller and less expensive as well. By piggybacking onto these fleets of communications satellites--and taking advantage of their microwave transmitters and receivers, ground stations, and control systems--solar power technology can become economically viable". (end quote). Thars your answer I think.


Not quite, I read that the first time  So, they go with option 2...satellites that are in a non-synchronous orbit in order to always stay on the sunny side. This means they're going to have to beam the power to a moving target, relatively speaking of course  Hence my conclusion that it will be challenging.

At least with the satellites in geo-synchronous orbit, you'd always know where the beams are so you could make sure aircraft avoid them. We're talking megawatts or higher I'm sure, or it wouldn't do us much good. And I wouldn't want my plane to fly through a beam transmitting megawatts of power.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> I need to find a place where they're NOT going to set this stuff up and build my house there.


 "Some fear that a network of solar power satellites could turn the atmosphere into one big microwave oven, cooking whatever wanders into the beam's path. In reality, the microwave intensities that we propose would be orders of magnitude below the threshold at which objects begin to heat up. People would be exposed to microwave levels comparable to those from microwave ovens and cellular phones. While some critics speculate that microwaves pose nonthermal threats to human health, there is no reliable epidemiological evidence for adverse effects from microwaves at these low levels."
If you own a cell phone or are around someone who does the chances are ...YOUR ALLREADY INFECTED!!! So don't get me infected, build your house somewhere, anywhere but next to mine. I bet this stuff is highly contagious! so keep away!!!!! And whatch out for those doctors with the rectometers!


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Of course, a cell phone uses between 0.6 watts and 3 watts. You can't even power a nitelite with that.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



mark1030 said:


> Of course, a cell phone uses between 0.6 watts and 3 watts. You can't even power a nitelite with that.


True, but there are those who think that they are going to spontaneously combust, or that their brain, and other innards will be cooked. fact is it's a different type of microwave, not produced by a magnatron. we all may have to wear these to endure.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Thanks for the info on Microwaves. I may play around with it this winter while driving around the city to see if I can capture microwaves and convert them like some mad scientist wardriving looking for microwaves. haha. 

Oh, hey, I think most of you will be even more happy you are an EV owner. Take a look at these. (After the Hurricane Ike videos and what it is like at the gas pumps.)

Long lines at gas station
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/16/pn.mom.daughter.identity.cnn

Gas troubles, fights over gas, and frustration period from gas. Glad you own an EV?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/16/pn.mom.daughter.identity.cnn

Also in the news:
It also turns out that ZAP has been spinning its wheels giving a bunch of promises and nothing ever comes to market. So far, it has been a lot of twist and turns for the company, but hopefully they will get something solid on the road to sell on the market. 

Would you believe I found a cool video showing a wind generator that spins forward (pulling towards the wind)? Yet, I lost it and can't find it again. There was also a no drag wind generator on the same page, but alas, I lost it also. So, when I dig them up and bring forth their design and proof, I will post it, but this is just a heads up. The wind generator concept has possibilities for future exploration into such on a vehicle. (Not that I would use one.) Referring to Ninji's comments on his wind generator idea on an EV.

Anyone have any new cool news on EV's? Post it here. Comedy is also welcome, we do love those gas pump rage videos.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The next concept is using solar to get more range from your EV. 
(I am still looking for those darn vids on wind generators that were crazy cool, but I will have to dig more later.) Anyway, I found these for now. 

*Solar to charge your vehicle as you drive.* 
Now, something to look at is your daylight hours and what you need to charge your batteries. Even let them charge as you park when you are at work. Either way, getting a charge is the key, no matter how small it is.
Here is a very nice video showing someone who is a retired Mechanical Engineer who made several things run off nothing but solar, one of them was a car. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFYpNrbyKCA&feature=related

Concept solar cars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YUR6iHabSM&feature=related

nanosolar is making thin film solar panels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riNlqZHCTQ&feature=related
Anyway, the thinfilm solar panel only consists of a thin layer of stainless steel and it is covered by silica (silicon) ink..

Something to look at for ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svis_Rt0DOQ&feature=related

Now, this can be used for solar thermal energy running a steam turbine or just for increasing the suns energy on regular solar panels in low light such as in winter, cloudy days, etc. You probably can come up with a ton of ideas from this to help increase the suns energy through a solar panel. (Of course you wouldn't want to focus all the energy on one spot on a standard solar panel, but just use the fresnel lens respectfully.) Or use a convex lens. Anyway, these are just ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RUF_g9nrTY&feature=related

University students electric car..having fun; and it is silly. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CPQs4aHYDo
And another University added an ejection seat to their electric car. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mFgU_3R_AQ

Here is another electric car I thought I would add. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5a17FFd1l8&feature=related

Anyway, hope you enjoyed those vids.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well we have talked about a variety of things to get unlimited mileage (or a days drive from one charge in the batteries), but as we look at the ups and downs of each, there may be something to all of these put together. 

*Solar
*Solar is useful in many aspects and when it can be used on an electric car, it has a great interest. As it turns out, the ThinFilm technology has a broad interest from the Military to basic consumers. Now, ThinFilm consists of a silica spray covering a metal, which it is believed that one can paint an electric vehicle to get a nice charge to the batteries during daylight hours.
http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/pub/74164-spray-solar-panels.html

It also has the ability to provide less drag since it is lightweight and forms to the car. 
If we wanted to add something that will give more charging power, we could be dramatic and add a Fresnel lens on the trunk which heats water and turns it into energy as it turns a motor. Ok, maybe some won't go that far, but who knows. 

*Regen braking
*This has been a nice topic as it does provide some juice back to the batteries, but at what cost for those who don't want to spend a lot of money in regen braking? Perhaps the investment is well worth the investment. 
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/bmw_introduces_.html

*Alternators (or used as regen braking or with coasting downhills)
*Well, a company in South Carolina that builds electric cars (converts ICE's into electric) uses an alternator to charge one single battery to be used for windshield wipers, radio and the heater. Not a bad idea, but if the alternator was too big, it would cause more than wanted drag. Smaller alternators could be useful in helping keep a nice charge, say 10 Amp. (There will still be drag present unless you made it more like regen braking and the alternator only turns on while coasting or braking. A switch would be needed to turn the alternator on and off.)
He didn't list what size alternator was used, but I am assuming it was just small enough to keep a constant charge in that single battery. 

Or you can use a small engine (HHO, propane, biofuel, etc.) to run your alternator. Here is a smart regulator. 
http://www.green-trust.org/wordpress/2008/06/18/smart-regulators-for-car-alternators/

*Wind power (optional)
*Now this is touchy to some, but it can have its uses. Perhaps used while the car sits when you are in the store or at home and it can be placed somewhere on the car to charge the batteries, but it seems to only really be affective while driving. Now, drag could be a problem unless you are going to use a zero drag wind generator (very small, perhaps two in the grill). Ok, now I know what will be said about this and its drag, but if someone wants to try it out, there is no harm in a simple test. I think the solar may be well enough without it. 

A nice concept electric geo. (Doesn't have anything to do with wind)
*A $672 electric car, built by two DIYers*


http://ecomodder.com/blog/2008/01/30/a-672-electric-car/

So as it turns out, the best yet to be useful are solar and regen braking, but if someone wanted to add the rest, perhaps they will let us know their results. 

If something else looks promising, post it.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,

Oddly enough I found not much to disagree with you about in that post.

I haven't looked into thin film solar, not because I'm not interested but because there are so many other things to look at first. The only real comment here is that the best universities can get at best 45 mph or so out of a solar car, and that's a car built for a solar car race, so it's made just for that. Not something you could go to the grocery store in. That said, if the film can be sprayed onto a car then it would no doubt help you charge the batteries during the day. The little bit I understood though was that the building of the panel was a lot tricker than that.

Regenerative braking is a mature technology, but as you said it's expensive. I think that, if you have the cash to put down for it, it will more than pay for itself especially if you get a super large bank of capacitors to capture more energy. As with anything else EV, the cost is up front rather than as-you-go. So the more you spend, the more you get back later.

Alternators: They take energy to spin even if the coils aren't activated. I don't necessarily object to them being used as a partial regenerative braking idea if they can be disconnected from the drive train under non-braking conditions, but you would get a minuscule amount of charge back that way. You would need an alternator the same size as your traction motor, which means you should just use the traction motor IMO.

Using an alternator to "charge back" while you run, though, is going back to filling the bucket by dipping out of the same bucket.

Wind: As awesome as this idea is in a stationary installation, I can't imagine anyone wanting one on a car for any reason whatsoever. The risk inherent in an open, spinning impeller in a publicly accessible area should turn you off that idea even if the physics don't. Every greasy lawyer will smell you coming from miles away, and follow you around for days looking for an opportunity to make money.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Solar ideas: The only other way to get more for less is by stacking thinfilm solar panels and align each cell so when the sun passes through the first cell, the second will catch it and so forth. By the looks of the thinfilm, it would only be less than half an inch thick by the time you were done stacking. This type of concept of a stacked cell has been used before with various companies, but not with the thinfilm. If 20 thinfilm panels (5 feet long) were stacked, it may at least provide some decent charge to a single battery that was used for the radio or wipers. Would have to see what exactly the output was on such a concept before really trying to put it to good use. It is an idea anyway. Not new, but at least it would be thin enough to put on the roof of a car.
Here is the 3D solar cell which is using thinfilm and nano-technology to create a very small stacked solar cell. http://www.freshpatents.com/Stacked...t20071018ptan20070240759.php?type=description

Another version with iron oxide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JAP....56..874I http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080219409

So many are already on the concept of stacking thinfilm cells to get more energy in a small amount of space.


----------



## judebert (Apr 16, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Microwave transmission is an awesome idea, so far as I'm concerned. Obviously my home microwave can prevent damaging leakage while still allowing me to see through the window; surely the rectenna at the power station can do the same thing. I imagine a moving satellite network that wouldn't require a lot of aiming:

Put a fleet of little satellites in low orbit. Each satellite has a solar panel array, an optional storage bank, a microwave converter, and a laser detector.

Put a few stationary power stations on the ground, in the satellites' paths. Each power station has a rectenna tuned to the satellites' microwave frequency and a laser pointing straight up.

The power station turns on its laser. (For added safety, I'd modulate the laser to provide a unique identification, and only turn it on when I know a satellite is supposed to be above.) As the satellite passes over the laser, it detects and verifies the signal. The satellite turns on its microwave converter and beams power down to the station.

As the satellite passes off the power station grounds, it loses the laser signal, so it turns off its microwave converter. If it's got a storage bank, it starts saving up the solar energy. If not, it just coasts along, waiting to pass over the next station.

More satellites results in more continuous power. More stations results in more frequent utilization of the satellite output.

The only aiming required is making sure the satellite points straight down, and that's required for any variation of power satellite (not to mention communication satellites). You could even make the satellite align to the laser beam. 

You could replace the laser with a radio or microwave signal. If something goes wrong, the power station just cuts off its laser, and the satellite stops beaming.

Planes never fly over the power stations (because they're stationary, and their locations are well known), so they never get exposed at all.

Want it even SAFER? Put the power stations out in the ocean. Even a floating platform could collect power, and be replaced whenever necessary. Better than a drilling rig.

Come to think of it, the atmosphere absorbs many microwave frequencies. Why not make the thing a big RADIO transmitter/receiver?

Safe, easy, cheap, current technology. Surely I must be missing something, or nations would be doing this already. Perhaps it's just the lack of a working model, and the high price barrier involved in putting something in orbit.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well I know its mostly because oil companies are paying off corrupt politicians to keep oil the main power source for cars on the roads today. 

If someone did come up with such a device to run their car, they would be offered a ton of money like stanley meyers did and if they didn't sell something bad usually happens to them. So it would have to happen in an underground atmosphere where eventually you secretly get thousands of people using the device then open it up for the open market. Then nothng can be done to stop it. 

Satellite Television offers a nice source of microwaves, which if captured could do the job well since it is everywhere. Regular television stations are also going to digital (microwave) in feb. 2009, which would also be a nice benefit to such a device. 
I would dig around the patent office for anything that relates to capturing microwaves and see if you can create something from it to charge a battery. 
Using a simple Satellite TV dish mounted in a position to capture the signals as you would align any other dish may provide the best signal strength. Larger older dishes would work even better. 
Something to play with though.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Here is my plan for my 2009 project. Feel free to add anything I may miss or what you have tried on your own EV that worked in regards to my updated project. 

The main goal is to reach 200 miles per charge and still have my 10 percent remaining. Just a goal, but it will take some work.

My Toyota Celica did have a 15 hp electric (GM) AC motor, which I ran with a 10,000 watt inverter. I used 6 MegaTron batteries rated at 450 Amp each, but they were old and expensive to replace. I then added 6 340 Amp Optima Batteries, which did ok, but I want more than a few miles of charge so I did some digging. Currently, I already plan on getting 1 BatCap Xstatic 12volt/9600 Amp battery which is supposed to be used for Car Audio, but I am working on getting 3 more over the winter. 

Here is a list of BatCaps for sale and their expensive! But may be worth every cent. 
http://www.lightav.com/car/batcap/batcap.html

There are other sources that may be cheaper. Still looking around.
To control the Capacitors I will have to create my own Var (since I am using more than one and this helps control them in a more feasible fashion), temp, voltage, reactive and Amp control station. Much like power companies use to control their large power (via capacitor) systems, but at a much smaller scale. So I will have to dig out my old proto boards and get to work on that this winter. 

Next, Solar on top of the car. Since Caps have a high rate of recharging, I will try to get as much sun to energy as possible by using available sources. I am going to try to recreate the thin film concept by several methods to see which works best and use the best solution to stack the thin film solar arrays so that I can obtain the most energy as possible from such. Or I can go with a trusty solar panel from another source, but it will be more expensive. 
I figure if a 12 year old boy can recreate the thin film concept; goodness, I should be able to. 

Regen Braking is probably the biggest project of all. Recreating it to work on my vehicle so I can get the most out of it to actually be feasible. Of course, again I can probably buy some sort of set up and convert it to fit my vehicle, but I like the cheaper although longer route. Well it is suppose to be cheaper, but sometimes it costs more in the end by doing it yourself, but the learning process in itself is priceless. So, what the heck. I got lots of time to waste.
 What else can retired people do, right?

If all goes horrible in trying to make my regen braking, I guess I can always try to find a wrecked hybrid in the junkyard somewhere and rip it out and convert it to fit my car. 

Next, I will repace the AC motor with a DC 8" motor. Unless I find something else in the junk yard that looks like a great motor to try out. AC or DC. If I could find a 20hp hummingbird motor, but they are hard to find. The require less Amps to use and put out the same hp as other motors twice their size. 

In that, I will try to get as much wasted heavy junk out of the vehicle as possible without losing its safety in structure. (Remove the back seat, put aside that stupid dummy spare tire, and anything else I can find that doesn't have to be on or in the car.) The less weight, the better. 

Well, in hopes to get to my goal, this will be a nice project, but will hopefully be done by the end of next spring or mid summer. Till then, I can't wait to get behind the wheel of my Toyota once again. 

If there is anything that I may have missed and you think it will help, please let me know. As for wind turbines on the car, well the one I ordered I building into a wind generator to feed more juice to my home batteries for this winter and I don't think I will try it out on the car. I just have no place to put it and it was quite larger than I expected it to be. haha. 

What else am I missing? Let me know. Your feedback is welcome.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Here is my plan for my 2009 project.


LeTank, I applaud your initiative, and I wish you every possible success.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, I should have added I will try and add some sort of small generator for a nice charge while on the go, modified so the exhaust can port through somewhere out the rear fo the trunk. Now there are several options to this. 

I can go with bio-fuel if want a larger unit, but also can just use ethanol made in my own Moonshine still (not used for drinking because I don't drink alcohol). Then there is HHO which still has to be fully tested and converted to run small generators. Which may or may not work, but on the news tonight some company has been working with HHO enough to make it actually run a vehicle efficiently. HHO would be nice and I already started an HHO conversion for my older generator, but didn't finish it yet. (That is still in its testing phase.) Used a 14 inch water filter case and added the positive and negative terminals by using stainless steel rods that are 5 cm in distance from each other along the length of the container. Should work, but haven't fired it up yet. 

So testing my 1850 watt generator, I can push out 50 Amps with my battery charger which is a 10/30/50 amp battery charger from ACE hardware. (was on sale for $49,95) This is good since it would provide some nice amps to the BatCaps to help get to a place to recharge the BatCaps. 

If I can find a viable source as fuel that doesn't cost much, the generator idea would be nice to add to my 2009 project. Propane is another alternative, but I can't see spening that kind of money just to convert it to propane when propane is expensive here. (About $3.50 a pound)

From doing a large profile of calculations (drag, drive train, gear ratio, tire size, weight, etc.), if I used the four xstaticx4 batteries which each has 38500 amps, minus my 20% for losses, I should be able to get 1420 miles on one charge. If I went with the standard (four) xstatic BatCaps, I calculated about 345 miles on one charge. Well, the difference is where the tires meet the road and the testing won't happen until it is all installed and running, so we will have to wait and see what the results are next year. 

Any ideas on a generator concept for the trunk is welcome. My space is limited, but if you have an alternative idea for fuel or other, let me know.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

_ Holy Screaming Fajitas! _ In all this talk about over-unity, I completely forgot that I had devised a way to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy! 

No, really!  

I've written an essay, which you can read here, if you're interested.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Astronomer:
If you are refering to the Generator I mentioned, it was for emergency (even though I loosely noted it at the beginning of my post as "on the go"), used only to be run at a way stop or beside the road to charge the batteries. (Looking at the fact I can get about 6 hours on one gallon of ethanol, if I used such as a fuel source.). Other than that, I don't see any over-unity going on from what I listed. 

If I were to use a magnetic propulsion generator to charge the batteries as I go down the road, then it is over-unity. 
I am still waiting for radio shack or wallyworld (walmart) to sell them. So far, no luck. haha


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Astronomer:
> If you are refering to the Generator I mentioned...


No, I wasn't referring to that. I simply remembered something I wrote some time ago that was relevant to the overall topic of this thread. 

If you follow my recipe, you'll be able to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy one time in the history of a universe, but you won't be able to apply that to extending your EV's range.


----------



## Gary Sconce (Oct 4, 2008)

It would be nice to have such a thing exist, but it never can without the ability to pull energy from some other source. _All systems move to an increasing state of disorder, referred in physics as *Entropy*._ To overcome the static friction and start an alternator moving and keep it going requires more energy than it can produce. In the universe, there is no free lunch. Dang friction! 

So, energy must come into the system from an outside source to power the alternator, to charge the battery pack, to power the electric motor, to overcome tire/bearing/air friction, to move the electric car. 

Entropy is the law. (The 2nd law of Thermodynamics.) Unless you can warp space and time or initiate control of and a master the use of theoretical dark energy, you won't ever have perpetual motion in this space/time continuum. Too bad.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I have been seriously pondering the thought of starting an EV Cannonball Run from Coast to Coast non-stop. Kind of like the X-Prize. Even if it required the use of generators, solar, steam engines or what ever crazy idea to get from point A to point B non-stop as long as you had the fuel source on board to run the generator(s). I wonder how many would be interested in such a festive non-stop balls the wall EV run. 

Now, I do know quite a few people from my travels that may provide the funds for the Prize. What the sum may be will have to be worked up, but if I can find a ton of sponsors (heck even Budweiser ), it would be kind of fun to do. Perhaps, even start it from this forum as a "Who would be interested" kind of thing. 

The goal behind this is to spring up more ideas how to increase our mileage, perhaps even with another internal power source (HHO generator, Solar, Thermal solar, steam generator, or what ever works to get the job done.) 
Perhaps someone will use just Capacitors, who knows, but at least it will bring forth new ideas from a lot of people using the trial and error method. 
Perhaps if enough are interested and sponsors are found, it could happen around 2010 or sooner. 

What is your take on this idea?


----------



## Gary Sconce (Oct 4, 2008)

weelliott said:


> It is generaly accepted that 200 Watts is about the most a person can put out for more than a few seconds, and even then 200W is something that a fit person can put out, not the average person. If you're just an average Joe that hasn't run a mile since they made you do it in high school , but you can still climb a few flights of stairs, I think 125 to 150 watts might be a good estimation of the energy you can put into a machine.
> 
> I had the idea a few years back to create a pedal powered generator to augment my electricity at home. However, once I did the math I found that the 200 bucks that I estimated it would cost to build it would likely never be earned back. Even if I could do 200 Watts, that is five hours to produce one kilowatt hour, or about 15 cents worth of electricity. So since 200.00 is 1333 times as much it would take 6667 hours of pedaling to break even. The odds of everything lasting that long was pretty slim. To put that many hours into perspective, a car traveling at an average speed of just 40 mph would cover over 250,000 miles in that amount of time. Most cars are dead by then, or at least have undergone a major repair. The odds of my bike lasting that long without need for repair are pretty slim.
> 
> It's kind of surprising how cheap electricity is, and how little energy a person can produce.


So true. I have done my share of military PT and can tell all that no matter how much you run, push up, sit up, and leg lift to burn calories you can eat three big meals a day and still get fat. The human body respiration system, the burning of sugar in the mitochondria of the cells only can account for so many joules of energy burned in a day. 

Makes you really appreciate other sources of energy besides just our body.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

How many miles is it from coast to coast? I would think that this would be quite a feat in any vehicle (except, of course, a fuel tanker) no matter what kind of power source.


----------



## Gary Sconce (Oct 4, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> I have been seriously pondering the thought of starting an EV Cannonball Run from Coast to Coast non-stop. Kind of like the X-Prize. Even if it required the use of generators, solar, steam engines or what ever crazy idea to get from point A to point B non-stop as long as you had the fuel source on board to run the generator(s). I wonder how many would be interested in such a festive non-stop balls the wall EV run.
> 
> Now, I do know quite a few people from my travels that may provide the funds for the Prize. What the sum may be will have to be worked up, but if I can find a ton of sponsors (heck even Budweiser ), it would be kind of fun to do. Perhaps, even start it from this forum as a "Who would be interested" kind of thing.
> 
> ...


Sail car! Ha. I would love to do a challenge like this. The problem is getting the time. Summer would surely be very hot, but probably best for the trip. Rubber bands! Mouse traps!


----------



## Gary Sconce (Oct 4, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

There could be different categories too. You could have truck, different auto sizes, bike and experimental categories.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

True, I think it would be with any catagory of EV, whether it be a bike, car, truck or other. As long as it drove down the road. 

Well the Solar EV challenge in Canada was over 2500 miles and most of the cars made it in a few days. 
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/solarcar.html

So it is possible, but the challenge would be who could get to the finish line the fastest by using all available or new methods to run an EV. 

If Tesla and the SSC Aero cars were to test their cars out on this sort of Cannonball Run, I think it would be worth the run. However, the ZAP has been saying it has a 1000 mile range car in the past, but then put out one that only got a fraction of the mileage. (Sort of like IBM having the 1Gig CPU back in the early 90's, but only sold slower models to make more money as it produced faster speeds as time went by.) 

Then there is the gosh aweful looking pyramid thing that is supposed to get 1000 miles per charge (or will have once it is fully tested), but who knows what could come out of this. I would like to see every Auto Company enter its own vehicle in the competition, but would be more interested in what the average person can come up with. 
(Just using the odd looking car for example, not saying it actually gets anything close to that, it was just hear say.) 

Now wouldn't it be funny if some average person beat all the Auto Companies to the finish line? That is what I would like to see.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I want to shake things up a bit. I expect nothing less from Astronomer and others than rejection of such claims by what I am about to say. 

I keep stumbling across some inventors (four different inventors to be exact from Australia) that have created free energy machines. One is selling theirs to the hghest bidder, the other is trying to get theirs marketed at around $4000.00 a piece. Of all the crazy things we have talked about, how is it these folks were able to produce and in fact have proven their machines defy physics? They both work off the same pulsed magnetic design, only one is smaller than the other. 
They both have been on Television and both have had independent testing done to prove their machine works as they claim. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvB3PiPBozU

This was what the other one looked like, but can't find the original video yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjP_sz0lDoI

Just another vid on free energy, but what the heck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLVAjgwy3a8
Fill me in with what I am missing, becasue if this is true, then EV's may just have the backing to get Unlimited Mileage. 

So if they can make it, why can't anyone else? (Without creating a whole new universe ilke Astronomer believes..haha..you are cool Astronomer..I like the thread about over unity.)


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

They are all "selling" BS......


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Lexus said:


> If you go to the web link and watch the Videos I would not say they are selling BS ....


I can't believe you are buying the BS? 


Yes I watched the vids. Arrrrrrg. More and more BS.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Lexus said:


> Do not know about US Laws .. but if this is fake the Australian Federal Police would be all over it like a rabid dog on heat.
> 
> 
> I am trying to find out more information on it ....



Fakery, Trickery, Liars, Scammers and the like are world wide and if you think your government is free from that you are sadly mistaken. They just don't happen to be wasting their time. Bigger cookies to crack than quacks. Just thinking it's possible is insane. To think your government would be all over it in a heart beat is just as nuts as thinking this stuff really works as stated. Sorry to say but Scammers are world wide. What they want is not your money but mine. If I send money I have no recourse and they have effectively stole my money. They have no intention of producing a product. They put on a good show and you buy it and you loose. That easy. If you sent me money you'd be taking a risk of loosing it all and your local government can't touch me and vice versa. That is the money they want. Mine not yours. 

: )

Now do you understand? I truly hope so.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Actually, I think Lexus has a good point. If it was a scam, I think many would have reported it and it was probably investigated several times by now. So maybe I will search on the Net for complaints about the companies or about the machines inventors to see if anyone was ripped off; or had there been and foul play in the whole project. I would think even the media would have reported it as well since they covered the first story when it first came out.

Be back with some results later..


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I did some tippity tap on the keyboard and found this.

*Results*:: A lot of "naw, it can't be done, must be a fraud" notations, but not one person has actually proved it was a fake as of yet by any testing. So, to add, there is no criminal record that I could find on either inventor, nor was there any State investigation into their company by any complaints.
Interesting to say the least.

About the Lutec, patents, added comments, history, etc. 
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Lutec1000/index.html#Counter Indication

Well, I can't find anything that seems fraud by any "proven" means for this LEA 1000 device.
Seems it was tested and even recreated by another group of people who successfullly ran lights with it and had 6x times more power output. hmmmm..Now I am curious.
Now they list some US companies are obtaining the license to sell these, but I cannot find out who exactly is supposed to be the "US companies". Even the European companies seem to be like a shadow with no name. 

So far, I cannot find any scam report in the AU Police reports (just those listed on the Net) or within the media about Lutec. 
So far so good. 

Doing some more searching, but my eyes are having trouble staying open. 
if you see a bunch of qw3qohgioqhgioqhgoq80rgyoqihgioahgo;hao;ghao;ishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshdgohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
That means I feel asleep. haha


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Lexus said:


> If it hit the Press like it did and it is bullshit trust me the OZ media, OZ coppers both state or feds would be on to it .... but if you think it is a scam .. then file a complaint with the Australia Federal Police ...


Trust me, gottdi, Myself, and many others on this forum dont _think_ its a scam, we _know_ its a scam. I havent looked at the videos, and dont need to. (Though i might do when i get home purely for entertainment purposes - They had better be funny!) Anyone who thinks otherwise really does need to go and do a basic physics course.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Lexus said:


> http://www.lutec.com.au/
> 
> Email them now to see if the are selling ... if they are I want one shipped to Japan


 
If this is such a hot idea how come the only thing less than a year old on the site are the "investment opportunities". 

If it looks like a duck...........


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> I expect nothing less from Astronomer and others than rejection of such claims by what I am about to say.


LeTank, though skeptical, I'm always willing to be convinced I'm wrong. All it takes is evidence.

And, no, dog-and-pony show videos are not evidence.  Show me a peer review from an independent laboratory (heck, I'll even accept the word of Consumer Reports), and I'll happily be the last on my block to own one.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,

Remember how you were on this one like hot butter on toast! FoshElectricAuto

Well history has a real good habit of repeating it's self. Hate to tank your idea but those videos are nothing but good parlor tricks on camera. Anything can be done on camera. You will always find some sort of box in these that hide all sorts of goodies. Makes it look mysterious but it only sports a battery or hidden extension cord to power the thing. Video quality is always poor as per normal with youtube and that just increases the parlor trickery to a more believable level. like I said scammers want money from folks outside their country so they have no recourse to get it back. Bet you can't even contact these guys. Have you actually given it a try? Do you personally know these guys? 

Trickery.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Regardless of one's beliefs regarding overunity, this is a fascinating, entertaining, and educational site: 

The Museum of Unworkable Devices 

It's a cyber-warehouse of perpetual motion machines. 

LeTank, if you enjoyed my recipe for violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, you should read my essays on how to build a time machine and how to communicate with aliens in real time. I think you'd enjoy them, though not nearly as much as the site I've linked above.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,

If you're so convinced, then do us all a favor: Sell everything you own, buy stock in any or all of these companies, leverage yourself up to your eyebrows and get all the profits you can out of it.

Without having watched any of these videos, I can tell you with 100% reliability that if you do so you will be bankrupt. If you believe so much, then prove me wrong by selling everything and bet it all on this one thing. I'll be more than happy to eat crow if I'm wrong, but you know what? I'm not wrong.

Question: Have you seen Star Wars? How about Star Trek?

The Starship Enterprise obviously works, because we've been watching it on TV for years. The transporter works, because Bones always complains that scattering your molecules all over creation "isn't natural" but they always get back the main characters even if they lose a few red shirts.

Have you got your own LandSpeeder? They're cool, so they must be all over.

If you want my guess, then nobody who understands physics would believe that any human would be so stupid as to be taken by one of these "inventions" so they haven't bothered to disprove them.

You know what it takes to get on TV? A working product has absolutely nothing to do with it. You need to either have an interesting story that someone else is willing to foot the bill for, OR you need money. If you have the money for the program then you can put absolutely anything on there.

You know how many of these inventions have been published in a reputable scientific journal? *Zero*. You know what would happen if they _were_ published? They would be disproved.


There are lots of people out there selling snake oil. We've all probably bought into one scheme or the other. Hopefully most of us didn't lose out too much on them.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Wow, thanks, Lexus. 

One thing that bothers me, though:


> The LEA does not run itself, (self perpetuating) it is not a perpetual motion machine; it requires a pulse of electricity in every cycle to remain in motion.


 Presumably, they have a source of electricity that they have regulated and pulsed for the device's input. If it's an overunity device (which they claim outright), then they should be able to put a voltage regulator and a pulse circuit on the output to feed the input and still have enough energy to do useful work. 

So if all it takes to run is electricity, and it produces more electricity than it consumes, then why can't it supply its own electricity? Electrons are electrons. It shouldn't matter whether they come from boiling puppy blood or from the device's own output. 

They say it isn't a perpetual motion device in order to maintain some credibility, yet they claim overunity. But an overunity device is a perpetual motion device by definition.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Lexus, no need to THINK it's a scam. You know it is. Call them.

Pete : )



> Will look in to this more after this email ... and if I think it is a SCAM then I will contact the Australia Feds and the Securities Commision and forward on all information ...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Truly, I take everything with a grain of salt, that is why I always research their product and dig around for the "truth". I always (as many times before) posted things to see if anyone else would help do the finger work and look these things up to see if they are a scam, running off of some other source, or actually something concrete. The first thing I always did was say, no it can't be done. 

It is kind of like saying, "Can you move a boulder with a small rock?" Of course you can. Until someone sees how it is actually done, they won't believe it. 

I have looked at many claims on free energy, mostly because another engineer mentioned the videos on youtube.com. So I was bored one night and started to look at some videos. Some were actually cathing my eye and I began to see what was behind their invention. Trickery, scam, money fraud, you name it each video was saying to me in so many ways. Then I started to do some research on one particular invention. Patent number 60/645,674 which the person in the video was not the name on the patent itself. Independent tests were done in America and in Europe, which over 100 other scientists were also testing the device in their own labs. It was proven it worked. Anyway, a lot of money was spent by the inventor to create larger units and even had several different things patented. Which after 2003 you have to prove that your invention works in the patent office when it is listed as a free energy device. His invention was patented in 2006. (Remember Steven Marks? Well he was not the inventor, it was someone else.) The patent was sold for a ton of money and shelved. Guess who bought it? An oil company. 

So if the invention was a fake, I think it would have never been bought up by an oil company. Instead of spending millions for the patent, they simply could have sued the inventor for fraud and made money instead. Doesn't make any sense to buy a patent that doesn't work. 

Since then, I have kept my eyes open and an open mind to the slight possible fact, that if the research says it works and it has been tested by outside sources and works, then it adds a little more credit to the invention. 
Still, am I a skeptic? Sure, till I see the invention for sale where everyone can buy one and it comes with a warrantee, then I will just keep hoping. 

I cannot say if these inventions actually work, but they were tested by outside sources. I cannot believe even what they say because they may have been buddies with the inventor to create a bigger investor market for themselves. I just hope for the best. Do I wish these claims were true? Well everybody does. So it is a wait and see game, scam is most likely, but what if..

The mechanical engineer said the same thing. Hey, what if they actually work? So it stirs an interest, but there is always the skeptic in me that (like others) will believe it actually works when I can play with it myself. 

So let us keep hoping for the best. Why not, nothing is lost and we never spent a dime out of our pocket waiting for the results.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh, I almost forgot, I wanted to know if anyone has ever looked into the solar panels the Prius was using. 

Refering back now to my 2009 project with the solar panels to help give some what of a charge. (How much, I don't know yet, but it probably won't be much.) I thought at one time someone said here they worked for toyota once and may have inside information, or perhsps it is public knowledge. I don't know.

Just looking at options for which solar cell, type of panel(s), or will still try the thinfilm concept. Need more to go by. Any information is welcome.

If you know of any type of solar panel that puts out a great amount of energy for its size, please post the name or link where I can find it. Thnks


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Lexus said:


> Mate, no offence, but I do not need some *Yank* telling me what do to  .... I like to INVESTIGATE things before I start making any reports to any AUTHORITY, as if you start making FALSE reports people lives and business can be turned upside down on FALSE information ...
> 
> 
> BTW : When the Light Globe was invented I bet a lot of people claimed that was a scam also ....


Well I am most likely sure you won't even bother to investigate either so they will never get reported. Never figured that would happen anyway. Most are smart enough to KNOW it's a scam. I am also sure you wont' be able to talk to them or contact them to do any investigation anyway. So why bother even saying you would do that if and when YOU THINK it's a scam. So until you think it's a scam it will remain legit! Hows that? 

Yea how can I forget about WMD when my SON served 3 tours in over there risking his life for ours. These Assholes attacked our soil and I could care less about WMD. I wanted to go the day it happened. I was to old. Already did my time there too. Been fighting there since before the Nam. WMD was a made up excuse to go. Never had anything to do with that. NEVER. That was for the public only. 

Had the public been aware of the work OL Edison was doing I would dare say loads of rumors would have been flying. However much of what was being done was not public knowledge and I can assure you he was working within the confines of REALITY. No matter what you think or how hard you try you can't get beyond the laws of thermal dynamics or create unlimited energy. What these guys are saying is that they can create more energy and that will never happen. You can't get something for nothing. Edison used energy and did not try to make you believe he could make it. He just wanted a light globe that would last. He knew what it took to make electricity. 

Your VID guys make a convincing argument but it is not true. That is the joy of a parlor trick. To make one believe is the mark of a good magician. 

You done been tricked. : )

I will be here to tell you so. : )


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I am glad you did that Lexus, it saved me from emailing them. 
Well, at least they are responsive and not avoiding any emails. I did read they were already signing contracts with various companies worldwide, but there is no name to those companies. So, I just hope it is something the average person can buy directly from one of those companies later on, because it would be nice to have a LEA if it actually works to its claimed performance. 

I can see ghotti's point, we all have a bit of a skeptic in us. Sometimes it just seems almost unreal, but with tests backing it up, it helps to make the concept more solid. Now, they say it is not overunity, but they are getting more out than what they put in, which is loosely called free energy. I have seen similar ideas (patents), but one was just a coil that put out 7 amps when 2 amps were put into it. (Didn't know if it actually was proven to work, may have just been patented upon the idea alone.) Ok, that patent may be lacking its claims, but when LEA has some proven tests on a device that is using electricity to run it, but does not run itself, that makes more sense.

Great work Lexus, glad you went through the foot work to get a response from LEA. Hopefully there will be more about their device coming about in the near future that we can all look at in a new light.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Just because they say does not mean squat. Neither do the so called tests. Don't forget what this thread was originally about. A hoax/scam what ever you want to call it. All with a bunch of believable information and talk. What happened is that a bunch of folks here and elsewhere took the bait hook line and sinker. That is how easy it truly is to pull off a parlor trick. Add a bit more and it really makes it look believable. My thing is if you truly want to continue to believe it then that is your choice but if you happen to invest then you have no room to bitch. Not one peep will be allowed. 

I can take 12 volts and 2 amps and reduce the voltage to 6 and get 4 amps! Well maybe not exactly but I did take my 36 volt 30 amp charger and made it a 72 volt 15 amp charger. Hows that for doubling my power. 

Believe I doubled my power and I have a bridge to sell to who ever wants it. Easy assembly too. Just pay a small toll fee and shipping. 



LeTank said:


> I am glad you did that Lexus, it saved me from emailing them.
> Well, at least they are responsive and not avoiding any emails. I did read they were already signing contracts with various companies worldwide, but there is no name to those companies. So, I just hope it is something the average person can buy directly from one of those companies later on, because it would be nice to have a LEA if it actually works to its claimed performance.
> 
> I can see ghotti's point, we all have a bit of a skeptic in us. Sometimes it just seems almost unreal, but with tests backing it up, it helps to make the concept more solid. Now, they say it is not overunity, but they are getting more out than what they put in, which is loosely called free energy. I have seen similar ideas (patents), but one was just a coil that put out 7 amps when 2 amps were put into it. (Didn't know if it actually was proven to work, may have just been patented upon the idea alone.) Ok, that patent may be lacking its claims, but when LEA has some proven tests on a device that is using electricity to run it, but does not run itself, that makes more sense.
> ...


It is not creating power just changing how its produced. Step down transformer or step up transformer. Easy to do. But you don't see voltage in the equation. You will be told one or the other but not both. I stated both. 


Don't expect new information on the device. Really. I have been around the block so to speak to many times to buy the bull. 



> I have seen similar ideas (patents), but one was just a coil that put out 7 amps when 2 amps were put into it.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Sometimes it just seems almost unreal, but with tests backing it up, it helps to make the concept more solid.


Solid? There is NO evidence that this device has been tested and verified by anybody, much less by an independent lab. Unsubstantiated claims by the inventor (or by a EE willing to appear in a video with the inventor) that the device has been independently tested don't mean anything. 

Until this device is submitted for peer review in an independently published scientific journal and verified by scientists who have nothing to gain by its promotion, the device is 

Moreover, the fact that the device has yet to be submitted for peer review -- more than a year after its alleged proof of concept -- indicates that the inventor seeks to conceal its inner workings from the world in general, and from scientists, licensees, and investors in particular. 

Also, having a patent doesn't mean anything. The patent isn't for an overunity device or even for an energy producing (or "amplifying") device. The patent is (essentially) just for the sequencing of events that occur in the device, so the inventor didn't have to prove a thing to get the patent.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*








Astronomer said:


> Solid? There is NO evidence that this device has been tested and verified by anybody, much less by an independent lab. Unsubstantiated claims by the inventor (or by a EE willing to appear in a video with the inventor) that the device has been independently tested don't mean anything.
> 
> Until this device is submitted for peer review in an independently published scientific journal and verified by scientists who have nothing to gain by its promotion, the device is
> 
> ...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I can see your skepticism and I can't blame you. I still want to see the product to test it myself. (Probably won't happen.) 

Lexus, I would be glad to hear from you, just PM me anytime. I am always open on the concept of LEA. It would be nice to dig deeper in what their claim is exactly and what is transversed by their defense in their product. Hopefully between us both we can find some viable information on the LEA and more about Lutec. 

I was digging through some of my old files and found a video about the Impact EV that was created in 1990, which is now on youtube.com.
Truly worth watching. GM Impact was supposed to be a production EV that got over 100 miles per charge, which it did everything it was supposed to do, but GM killed that car too. (Before the EV1, which the Impact brought about.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_A98NOWmUw

Some good ideas come from this video. Now, I am going to dig around and see what they used for their small motor in their air condition unit among other things. It was noted the Impact had a drag of about 1.4. Interesting. I haven't really dug around to see if there were any surviving Impacts still around, but it may be worth a shot. Now the reason I say this is because, perhaps some of those kit car companies would be interested in recreating its body structure in one of their molds to sell as a kit car. Maybe we can get kit car manufactorers interested in a kit car EV idea. 

The more people and companies we get invovled in EV's the better for all of us. 

Well watch the video and listen carefully. Some ideas within that car (Impact) can be handy even today to use. Now there has to be some patents from GM on the Impact laying around somewhere in the patent office. I will have a looksie. 

As for the rest about the LEA, we are just throwing things up in the air and see what turns out to be real. No harm done. No reason to assume anyone is believing the entire LEA story until we have done our research (Lexus is doing his too) and we find the facts. Calm down a bit and give us time to find the facts. Instead, help us dig up anything about LEA that proves it is a step up converter and as they say it was not any type of overunity device or free energy machine. (Or if it is something else.) I want facts..so do you. Either help us or wait patiently for the results. haha

Back to Impact, who has heard about this car before? Why was it killed? Is it a ditto of the EV1 story?


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Either help us or wait patiently for the results. haha





LeTank said:


> (Probably won't happen.)


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> I want facts..so do you. Either help us [dig for facts] or wait patiently for the results. haha


"Facts" from Lutec or its spokespeople are useless since they can't be corroborated. And since there are no facts forthcoming from any other independent sources, digging for more facts is a pretty useless endeavor. 

(And, no, press releases, news footage, commentary, blog postings, and forum discussions do not qualify as independent sources of facts, or even as corroboration of facts Lutec dispenses.) 

Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is wait until the device is written up in a peer review journal. Before that happens, no fact you'll be able to dig up will be worth anything. 

It's not that skeptics are closed-minded and refuse to believe anything that offends their fragile sensibilities. It's just that skeptics go where the data leads when choosing what to believe, and they recognize that unsubstantiated claims do not rise to the level of data. 

And in the case of the LEA device, there simply is no data whatsoever.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Lexus, 

I am assuming this means Electric (電気)

Am I correct? I was looking for a translation on the web and found electric. I just wanted to be sure. 

: )


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Lexus, 

I am assuming this means Electric (電気)

Am I correct? I was looking for a translation on the web and found electric. I just wanted to be sure. 

: )


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,
I've been digging up info on the Ed Gray, EV Motor. This motor has 3 coils on the rotor and has a 3 coil stator (unique). It also reportedly produced 100 HP. It is brushless, using high voltage capacitor discharge pulses from low voltage source. and ..... It recharged a Extra set of batteries giving it unlimited range. 

*The Engine that Runs Itself - 02/24/00*Developed by EvGray Enterprises, an independent research and development firm, the unique engine runs on the principle of electro-magnetic transformation. In terms more meaningful to the layman, the EMA motor requires no fossil fuel, recycles its own energy, creates no waste and is extremely quiet. Its size, weight and horsepower ratios are comparable to motors and turbines now in use. The EMA's only external power source consists of four 6-volt batteries which never need recharging and which have the same life expectancy as the standard automobile battery. EvGray claims the motor duplicates the power and torque characteristics of internal combustion engines of similar size and weight, and the Federal and State Air Resources Board has granted the inventors a permit to further prove this claim by installing the EMA in test vehicles. Edwin Gray, Sr., president of EvGray, predicts production costs of the EMA will be comparable to present motors and maintenance costs will be far less. Richard B. Hackenberger, Sr., vice-president in engineering for EvGray, explains how the EMA motor system operates.In short, the principle of the engine is to create electricity and recycle energy by the fact that every time magnets are energized off the peak of transients, a charge goes back into the battery. It's not a constant charge, but a pulse charge of 60 amps or better; thus, the battery must be of high quality. LONG-RANGE AND POWERFUL Electric-powered vehicles are not new, of course, but the poor energy-storage factor of batteries and their heavy, large size have thus far made them impractical for use in any vehicles requiring a long-range capacity. This drawback has restricted the market for electric power to small limited performance vehicles. The maximum range of these vehicles when driven at 40 miles per hour has been approximately 150 miles. Range is affected by the number of stops and starts, grades traversed, and acceleration demands. The EMA motor needs only to run at 500 rpm for the normal recharging system to work. In fact, its recharging capabilities are such that the EvGray's next version of the engine won't have an alternator or air pump. The air pump will be replaced by blades on the rotor. "The idea of a self-sustaining electric motor," says Gray, "at first appears to go against much of the theory of electricity and conservation of energy. The EMA motor does not, however, violate the basic laws of physics, but rather utilizes them in a unique integration in a system in order to maximize upon the characteristics and interrelationships between electrical, magnetic, and physical components. The EMA prototype motor has had considerable operating test time and has been adapted to standard and automatic automobile transmissions." Dynamometer tests have recorded the rpm's of EvGray's motor at 2550 constant, the torque at 66 pounds constant. Brake horsepower is 32.5 After a test run of 21 1/2 minutes, the battery voltage reading was 25.7. Only three surfaces make physical contact with the motor a feature which dramatically limits friction and increases efficiency. "An internal combustion engine is only 30 percent efficient," says Gray. "Our engine is 90 percent efficient." A prime factor in friction control is the so-called "magnetic vacuum," created in the drum, which literally takes the pressure off of the end bearings and allows the rotor to float within the drum. "Our motor creates power surges-one behind the other-in microseconds," says Gray. "By doing this, we are able to direct the magnetic flux field. The magnetic flux is a coolant source, so we need no cooling system." (this sounds like a reference to the use of swept magnetic fields to remove heat, referred to as  'magnetocalorics'.) Gray says the engine is not affected by rain, heat, cold any other type of inclement weather, or by driving through tunnels. "All this motor needs is oxygen. The only external magnetic effect is that another field system cannot operate within this same battery system. The magnetic field orientation is 360 degrees in all directions." The new EMA prototype will weigh about 320 pounds, less than most present internal combustion engines. It will measure 12 inches in diameter, 18 inches in length. (Size is linear to horsepower required.) According to Gray, further research should make it possible to reduce the size and weight through the use of lighter metals and more sophisticated circuitry. Gray says most of the motor's components can be built in a machine shop with a mill and lathe.

RPM 2550 RPM constant.

Torque 66 lbs. / constant.

Horsepower 100 HP

Brake Horsepower 32.05

Foot-pounds/minute 1.057.650

Foot-pounds/second 755 lbs. (includes 110 lbs for four 6-volt
batteries).

Volume 42" long x 18" wide x 22" high. (This is
overall geometry. including control unit, etc.
- The basic motor is a 16" dia. x 24"
cylinder, which can be repackaged into a 9"
dia. x 12" cylinder).

Test Run Time 21.5 minutes.

Battery Voltage 25.7 volts.
Reading at test
completion

Ambient Temperature 84 degrees constant.

Humidity 51%

Fuel Consumption None (other than air).

Cooling Conduction / 1/2 pound (flow through) air
pressure.

Magnetic Field 360 degrees-all directions during motor
Orientation operation.

Lubrication High temperature bearing grease (2 bearings).

Vibration Negligible

Noise Level No direct reading taken - without shielding,
no louder than small kitchen appliance, e.g.,
fan, etc.

Power Hazard Fully secure - full design safety features.
Start Mode Simple push button - standard 12V starter
motor.

Operating Mode Rheostat principle with switchable RPM
range(500-1300-1950-2550-3350-4100 RPM's)

Physical Condition Motor mounted on wheeled test stand - no
external connections to stand.

*EMA - 4 MOTOR BLOCK DIAGRAM







*

BLOCK DIAGRAM OF THE EMA-4 shows how energy is transmitted from the four 6-volt batteries (power supply) to the various stages of the engine and returned. Both the air pump (A) and the alternator (B) are optional equipment. The air pump prevents condensation around the drum and provides added assurance of air in some environments. The alternator is not needed for most applications, including use in vehicles, but may be desirable in heavy generator rigs. The electric pulsators (C), which are contained in the regeneration-recycle unit, are capable of pulsing at 200,000 times per minute, and the pulsation at 60-to-120 amps is fed back to the batteries.[/h4]








*Here are five pictures of the outer cylinder of the EVGRAY motor showing the placement of the inner repulsor coils.   
  Click on the first one below to see the full image of the very fine laminations used to intensify the field of the custom made high voltage repulsor coils on the rotor.   *


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I know of a long bridge that you can rent and then use my wheelbarrow to get yourself across it............


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I'll flip a quarter down to ya as I cross Coley.(I'll pay the fare) No need for yer wheelbarrow, Thank you for the offer. I got me a dump truck.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

With the story behind Ed Grays claim, it was that he could not get funding to keep the EvGray Enterprises going and his motors soon sat near his home rusting away. In 2004, a group who believed it worked obtained all his previous test motors and were rebuilding them to their original condition.
So far, I have not heard that they successfully were able to complete the restoration and have any tests done on the motors.

I looked at many of his patents, he had a few that were relatiing to his EV Motor. It still had a drain of power that eventually took the batteries down to nothing over a period of time, depending on how much of a drain it was. If it ran nothing and just sat there, it went for many hours, but with a drain on the motor, the batteries didn't have enough power replacing the power that was used. Unless they came up with a solution to that problem and it was hidden from the public, I am guessing they are still trying to figure it out. 

Ed Gray did have a great idea, but I can't see using such a motor when Lithium Ion batteries give about the same distance. (Even if they are expensive at the moment.) But it is nice to see Ed Grays name and motor come up again to refresh my memory. Perhaps there is more to it than I know and there is a possible use for it in the EV future. I don't know. 
Could be, maybe, will have to see if they ever get it working again.

I have seen many were trying to recreate Ed Grays motor, maybe one of them got it to work properly. If there was a viable source and someone did actually get the motor to work, it could be that it would be worth looking into more. Still waiting for results to come forth on their replica machines.

Good point though, there are alternatives. It may not be unlimited energy to make unlimited mileage, but if a few batteries are able to get 150 miles per charge, that is a good start.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Nothings come of it since the mid 70's. I wonder why. Told Ya All. Or you go right ahead and spend your money and build your world changing motor/generator. 











: )


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Point missed.......my wheelbarrow, run by yourself will = the Gray motor.....


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank, I think Peter Lindemann may have procured one of the motors.And wrote a book_ The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity, in which the Ed Gray motor is explained in detail. Then again it could be his theory on how he thinks it worked. So he can sell another $30.00 book.

Update: As it turned out the Book of _Lindemann's was a crop. But the motors and tech are not.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beshires1:
I didn't see the book for sale, but I was reading different things on overunity.com about Ed Gray's machine. Seems a few are still interested in his motor and are in the process of recreating it. Others have noted they did and it worked to some degree. (They didn't give details on their own websites how far along it was or what it was they tested exactly.)

So the Ed Gray motor is still up in the air and hopefully some information will be found whether it is truly reliable, but... the LEA seems to be in its first marketing stages. That is a good sign. Thanks for the info Lexus about what you found. Good news to hear.

ghotti: 
As an adult we leave childish things behind. Back up your no-proof, it didn't work and you told us so with some links that it was proven it was a fake and tests showed that it didn't provide the same technical data that it was supposed to put out. Any "I told you so" outbursts without bringing forth proof of an idea that didn't or can't work will be deleted.
Your ok ghotti and I like your spirit, but just saying it doesn't work doesn't prove it will not work or has not worked. Back it up. If we or I am wrong in this forum, you can praise yourself silently or slap us in the face with some proof of such.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

New Solar Technologies that may seem promising for EV's. 

ww.enn.com/pollution/article/31736

www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/nsolcel.htm

A description of the thinfilm solar cell: 

http://www.njit.edu/features/innovations/som-mitra.php


I think there is a future of possible solar panels really giving EV's a decent range during the daytime. 

I will dig more into these types of solar panels.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim it works. You show the proof. If you say later then that just solidifies my statement. It is a childish thing to keep beating a dead horse.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Again it is childish to keep on with this sort of nonsense. 

Well this is a big red flag and the site looks like the garbage junk sites that pop up all the time. If you don't see that yet you need to take a step back. 
(Plastic solar panels Could be ready for commercial use in two to three years.)


Come on, get real. Science is not well it goes something like this. Science is a systematic set of events to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Garbage goes something like this. 
(The science goes something like this


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

???? ghotti, you lost me. Anyway...

This thread is about finding resources that help us *all* obatain more mileage than just 40-60 miles. It is not about overunity, even though it sometimes comes up. If talking about such things bothers you, then why do you keep reading this thread? haha

To boot, this thread has had a ton of great ideas, from Solar and wind on your home to charge your EV to using Solar on the EV itself. Regen braking has also come up, but most of all the ideas that come forth in any combination may provide any of us to get over 100 miles per charge if we find the right combination. Whether it be BatCap batteries with a Var or the combination of EEstor batteries and solar panels. If we can get 30-40 more miles eliminating drag, using better batteries or Caps, heck even using solar or regen braking with a back up generator or push generator on a trailer it is all worthwhile to find a solution. 

That is what this thread is about. It is not garbage, even if it is your opinion.

I respect your opinion and you, just don't get so upset when someone posts an idea and it is not in your realm of ideas or logic. I am willing to listen to anything that may help, even if it is nano-nuclear. If it may work, I want to know about it and so do many others. 

Extended range is the goal.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> The burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim it works. You show the proof. If you say later then that just solidifies my statement. It is a childish thing to keep beating a dead horse.


[I









Here is a more realistic picture of a Gray motor.Gotee did you think the patent drawing was a joke? Admittedly, it does look a little funny, but it was drawn based on the real deal.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I Thought I should tell you about inventions. Ed Gray, Stan Meyer and many, many other inventors, all face the same thing. Quite simply public skepticism.The greatest inventions in the world can and will go unnoticed. Introducing a product that goes against the grain of "the norm" 
is daunting. In Ed Grey and Stan's case they had to not only convince the people (Customers), but they also had the Automobile Industry and the Big Oil Companies and our own government agencies blocking their paths. The patent Office has to issue a patent for new items "to the prior art" as long as the items work as described in the patent.
I once patented a Bow Sight (as in archery). http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6519859.html I knew it worked better than the old (norm) way of sighting a bow. The problem was that the Archery World didn't want to change the way they have been doing it since the beginning of time. I took it to the Archery Manufactures Trade Show in Indianapolis, IN . Big name manufactures from all over the world came by looked proclaimed it a Novelty and walked on. The last day of the show, a distributor came by with a contract, for 43,000, To be produced and in their hands, in three months. The contract stated that the entire 43,000 must be in their hands in three months or the order would be canceled. I didn't sign because it was impossible. Anyway at the time the Archery World couldn,t be convinced. To make a long story short, the patented bow sight was stolen from me by a family member, who still sells the bow sight http://www.extremeop.com/ .
Most inventors will have stories like this to tell. I went against the Archery Industry, I Lost. Ed Gray, Stan Meyer and many other inventors who may have world changing patents, had a hellava-lot more opposition and suppression than I did. ​


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ideas are great but if you post them as fact you are doing all of us a disservice. 



> Gotee did you think the patent drawing was a joke?


 Not at all. I know it was build but it never produced the expected results. It was a good idea but it did not work. That is all. No big deal. So why redo something that was proved not to work. 



> or the combination of EEstor batteries and solar panels


 Back to EEstor batteries again I see. They are bunk and you know it. It's old garbage anyway. 



> heck even using solar or regen braking with a back up generator or push generator on a trailer it is all worthwhile to find a solution.


 Well solar so far is only good enough to recharge a small amount and you'd have to have a system that produces enough voltage to match your pack. You can't charge a 144 volt pack off a 12 volt solar panel. You only get so much power per sq foot anyway and you just don't have enough room on your vehicle to provide that. Regen already works so nothing new there. Pusher trailers work too so nothing new there. Just how good depends upon your skills of building one. Like building an EV but as a trailer. DoooH!



> That is what this thread is about. It is not garbage, even if it is your opinion.
> I respect your opinion and you, just don't get so upset when someone posts an idea and it is not in your realm of ideas or logic.


 The original aspect of this thread was Fosh. Oooops. Nothing but garbage. 
I also respect others opinions but will hit pretty hard if it is touted as truth. Who says I am upset? I don't mind ideas being posted but don't tout as truth. Truth beats out logic. Many things seem to be quite logical but are not. Logic is subjective. : )




> the patented bow sight was stolen from me by a family member


Sorry to hear about that. Sucks. But the invention worked and did what it was expected to do. That is far different than stuff that is claimed to work. You showed it did work. If you only claimed it to work you'd not have to worry. Your family member would not have been able to sell it.

I can claim anything. But I can't prove every thing. Some ideas just don't work. That is my position. No proof then don't make it public until it is working. Real things that make it to market are usually done in private until you have a valid working model. Valid being the key. One that will do what it is designed to do. I would never tell any one about an invention or product until I had a working model and all the paperwork in order. Then I'd bring out the product. 

I love ideas but realistic expectations are in order. Far fetched claims are a no go. Claims are a no go. Actual is good. Then you can make it better.


----------



## seekinfo (Oct 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I am a total newbie and just started gianing knowledge on the electric car technlogy. I really wonder about the mileage of electric cars. I mean... what does it give if I convert my car to electric and have to charge the battery every 50 miles?
Does anyone know about the so called diy electric car conversion kits like the one described at:
http://www.squidoo.com/electriccarconversionkits
Are they worth a try? Does it make any sense to convert my car to electric using such a kit?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



seekinfo said:


> I am a total newbie and just started gianing knowledge on the electric car technlogy. I really wonder about the mileage of electric cars. I mean... what does it give if I convert my car to electric and have to charge the battery every 50 miles?
> Does anyone know about the so called diy electric car conversion kits like the one described at:
> http://www.squidoo.com/electriccarconversionkits
> Are they worth a try? Does it make any sense to convert my car to electric using such a kit?


Seekinfo, I honestly think that you can learn A LOT more about converting your car to electric reading through this forum than you will with that scam. Anyone who sells information on how to get 100mile range and 50mph top speed for $300 is scamming you. 

Back to your regular overunity progamming


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well the Ed Gray motor is a good idea, however, without spending years trying to build and perfect the machine and with an "ify" working unit, I would say it would probably be something I wouldn't use unless I could buy it as a working unit. However, it may work. Possible future endeavor for the larger companies. 

I am leaning more towards the thinfilm solar cell concept to charge my EV. I figure most of the time it will be sitting and charging during daylight hours. Using BatCaps with the Var control box, the car will still get around 340 miles per charge. That is if I used the BatCap Xstatic 9600 amp batteries, but if I used the BatCap X4 Xstatic batteries, I would get around 1300 miles per charge. (They have 38500 amps per battery). Read my profile under 2009 Project for what I intend to do. 

So, yes the most important thing inside an EV are the batteries. But, reducing drag, weight, and even going with thinner tires with aluminum alloy wheels will help the range even more. Which I intend to do. As EV DIY'ers we are trying to take an everyday ICE automobile and turn it into a reliable EV that gets as good or better mileage. This thread was about solely getting further distances between charges, no matter what you use to do it. Ghotti seems to believe this thread was based upon Fosh and overunity alone. Which is NOT what this thread was about. 

I went down to the local electric motor shop where I live and asked the man there what he had for motors. He asked me what I was going to use it for and I told him it was for an Electric Vehicle. He flat out said, "You will never make an Electric Vehicle, because it is impossible." There are still some people out there who think making an EV yourself is impossible. Until they see it and drive it, they will argue with you about the whole blasted thing. Well, he believes now, but at the time he was convinced it would never be possible for any single person convert their own car into electric. 

To make a point about ideas and acceptance:
Now on this thread, there will be those who cannot fathom sunlight running a vehicle. (Even though it has been done for around 20 years and the solar challenge is still ongoing with many Universities entering every year.) 

http://web.mit.edu/evt/contact.html

So, with that said, let any idea be worth looking into to find that extra mile. 
The quest continues.

Ghotti:
You are pretty negative about everything to get an extra mile out of an EV. SO what would you do to extend your range? Let us hear your ideas.
By the way, it was a little late in the thread to give me a bad Rep for posting about Fosh, when Fosh was proven a fraud a few months ago, but the rest of the post after talking about Fosh was all about finding a solution to get more range out of an EV. Think before you act next time. 
This thread is about finding a solution to the limited range problem. 
By the way, Chit Chat is all about just posting ideas. ANY ideas.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, I changed the first page of this thread and deleted all FOSH info from it.
That should help keep ghotti happy.
Now this thread is for finding solutions to limited ranges on our EV's.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

     Woo Hoo! 




LeTank said:


> Ok, I changed the first page of this thread and deleted all FOSH info from it.
> That should help keep ghotti happy.
> Now this thread is for finding solutions to limited ranges on our EV's.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well I'd say the statement it may work is beating a dead horse. If it can't even make it to a reasonable sellable state within 30 years then I'd say it's moot for this particular idea. 



LeTank said:


> Well the Ed Gray motor is a good idea, however, without spending years trying to build and perfect the machine and with an "ify" working unit, I would say it would probably be something I wouldn't use unless I could buy it as a working unit. However, it may work. Possible future endeavor for the larger companies.


I'd really like to see the vehicle you plan on driving that will get 340 miles per charge. Are you talking a solar racer style vehicle or a real hard core commuter car that weighs in at a cool 2000 lbs there abouts. Kinda like what folks are already using. Or are you talking about a super light weight kevlar/carbon fiber bodied car that weighs in under 1000 lbs? (BatCap X4 Xstatic batteries, I would get around 1300 miles per charge.) Hows that? Are these available or is this something for me and others to bash? Seems way too far fetched. It does not sound realistic nor possible. So far nothing to date has done this. Sounds like ..........



> I am leaning more towards the thinfilm solar cell concept to charge my EV. I figure most of the time it will be sitting and charging during daylight hours. Using BatCaps with the Var control box, the car will still get around 340 miles per charge. That is if I used the BatCap Xstatic 9600 amp batteries, but if I used the BatCap X4 Xstatic batteries, I would get around 1300 miles per charge. (They have 38500 amps per battery). Read my profile under 2009 Project for what I intend to do.


Well when you post ranges of 1300 miles per charge I am thinking overunity or some outlandish claims that there is no way it could be for real. Well the original post was about the outlandish claims of Fosh and how you all took the bait. Sure it was a hoax but just as soon as it was shown to be a hoax you all started right back up with outlandish claims on making an EV go further. Realistic claims within reality are fine. Lighten the load, LRR tires, Narrow tires, lighter rims, and lighter batteries. However the cost of light weight batteries are usually out of the range of most cost wise. Again it's gottdi. Like Got Milk. It's Got TDI? Not Ghotti. This always gives me a chuckle because I always think of Van Gogh. 



> So, yes the most important thing inside an EV are the batteries. But, reducing drag, weight, and even going with thinner tires with aluminum alloy wheels will help the range even more. Which I intend to do. As EV DIY'ers we are trying to take an everyday ICE automobile and turn it into a reliable EV that gets as good or better mileage. This thread was about solely getting further distances between charges, no matter what you use to do it. Ghotti seems to believe this thread was based upon Fosh and overunity alone. Which is NOT what this thread was about.


Did you make mention that you could also get 350 miles per charge? Did you mention you were going to get that range? Do you claim 1300 miles per charge? If so I understand his reaction. If not then he just needed to be shown. 



> I went down to the local electric motor shop where I live and asked the man there what he had for motors. He asked me what I was going to use it for and I told him it was for an Electric Vehicle. He flat out said, "You will never make an Electric Vehicle, because it is impossible." There are still some people out there who think making an EV yourself is impossible. Until they see it and drive it, they will argue with you about the whole blasted thing. Well, he believes now, but at the time he was convinced it would never be possible for any single person convert their own car into electric.


I understand about solar charged vehicles. Small lightweight solar racers are fine. I understand using solar to power these types of vehicles. They have been proven to work but if you needed to move a 2600 pound vehicle then you have a big problem. Even with the best solar to date there is not enough on board space to mount panels that will power a daily commuter style vehicle. Solar to date has only so much recoverable power per square foot of space. Period. For small light weight no problem. For fat and heavy, big problems. The EV-1 is proof that a decent commuter EV can be mass produced. I have no doubt. I do however doubt that you can get 1300 miles per charge. If someday you perfect that system I will be on your door step if you can do it within an affordable range. But please don't go boasting and claiming until you have a working model that can come at least close to your goal. 

I'd love to have my little EV go 300 plus miles per charge. With the money I'd say it can be done. 1300 miles per charge is still in the unreasonable category. 

The quest does continue and so does the problem of bull claims. All I am saying about this kind of stuff is to really look at what it is. Be reasonable.



> To make a point about ideas and acceptance:
> Now on this thread, there will be those who cannot fathom sunlight running a vehicle. (Even though it has been done for around 20 years and the solar challenge is still ongoing with many Universities entering every year.)
> 
> http://web.mit.edu/evt/contact.html
> ...


Actually I am not at all. What I am negative about is farout claims that have been circulating on the web for years still being brought up as fact even from folks that really should know better. 

My ideas. Well they are not ideas at all but proven methods of increasing mileage. 

1st. Was a shit load of digging for real information on what is required and what is not. What is good and what is not. That was the most difficult. Still is.

2nd. I had to choose a vehicle to convert. My choice was not just because I like VW's. I chose it because I know VW's can handle loads of weight where other vehicles can't. I chose my body style because it is small, has a small frontal area and has the most simple of electrical systems. 

3rd. Was the motor. I did choose a motor adaptor kit that was not the best but does work just fine for the VW Ghia and Bug. The Kaylor set up is decent but not the best. My second choice was the 9" GE motor I now have. It is a series motor but has a higher rpm rating than the ADC 9". It is also set up for 144 volts. I am currently using only 72 and the other part of the system was the controller. It is like an early curtis and is epoxy sealed and 72 volts and 550 amp limit. It is totally silent and does not heat up under extreme loads. 

4th. I have narrow tires with stock light weight steel rims. I have the tires pumped their max but they are not LRR tires. Not yet anyway. So far they are holding up well. 

Most EV's that use 72 volts are only getting about 50 mph and I am getting 65 mph. Max distance is still an unknown. Max amps from the batteries has been 400 but only for a few seconds. Mostly under 200 during normal acceleration. I have not taken it for a ride with the motor amp gauge hooked up. That will come in about a week.

5th. I have removed as many parts as possible to lighten the load. I don't think I can remove anymore. 

5th. If I can get NiMH batteries or lithium I will. That will make for a much lighter car and greater distance and speed. I do plan on changing my voltage to 144 when I can. That can help my amp usage on acceleration. 

6th. I could install my 11" kostov and incorporate regeneration into my set up. That would give me more distance. Not a bunch but some. I can also include flex solar panels on the car but that is already proven to not give much extra back for the trouble. It can be done if cost is not a factor. If I get some flex panels I will install them. Even if it only adds an extra mile per day. Hey one mile extra is better than none. Every bit helps.

Battery/Caps do work but the caps are for regen capture and acceleration only. They are used in fuel cell cars so they can recapture better. They do have batteries but a couple do have the bat/cap setup. As for getting 1300 miles per charge. Na! 

Those are the things I have done and can do. 

One more thing is that the VW already has a flat bottom for better air flow. 




> Ghotti:
> You are pretty negative about everything to get an extra mile out of an EV. SO what would you do to extend your range? Let us hear your ideas.
> By the way, it was a little late in the thread to give me a bad Rep for posting about Fosh, when Fosh was proven a fraud a few months ago, but the rest of the post after talking about Fosh was all about finding a solution to get more range out of an EV. Think before you act next time.
> This thread is about finding a solution to the limited range problem.
> By the way, Chit Chat is all about just posting ideas. ANY ideas.


Ideas are great but bogus junk has not business here. 

Pete : )


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

BatCap Xtreem X400. Best go have a look again. These are caps to help boost quick power to an amplifier. I don't think these would be useful for an EV. Except to put these in line with your regen setup to take the high power. These are not long deep cycle batcaps. These are chemical caps placed inline with a battery. The battery charges the cap and the cap provides the quick discharge power requirements of the amp. They could have a place in an EV but not like you may think. 

Pete : )


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I may have to resort to putting another 72 volt pack in my EV, as I just put my Mom in a nursing home (22 miles round trip) and it sure would save on gas.

I don't go everyday, but do have to take her things on a regular basis. This will make some 32 mile days.

Pulled the MAXX29 out and sold it at a flea market today for $50.00.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

gottdi:
Sorry about the typo in spelling your nick name. 

I think the VW bug was a good choice too. Thought about it myself, but most people keep them going here and are in good shape, which they mostly don't want to part with them either. So I chose another small car, the celica which was in excellent shape for the price. $350.00.

As for ideas and garbage. No idea is garbage. We post it, think about it, do some research to see if it is viable to use or not and decide. A nice post saying "ya" or "na" is suficient with something to back up the reason why. But..all ideas are welcome here. No matter how crazy they sound. Something may come from it that may lead to another idea.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

No real problem but wanted to point it out. I think your Celica is a fine choice and you should have good parts availability too. Can't beat that price. I would have said to leave the posting part out until you did some hard core research first. Then post it with a na or ya. But saying it could lead to better ideas is good. With that then go ahead and post but do some research first before posting. Some ideas are good but failed not because it did not work but because it did not hold up. Many things actually work but need to be able to hold up under real world use. That is where many ideas fail. Some fail because of stupidity but most fail under while testing like the light bulb. It worked but took a very long time to make one that held up enough to market. They still don't last a real long time. But they are still sold. Like the lead battery. I't claim to fame is that it holds up pretty darn good and has a decent life. I bet some of the Eestor ideas are failing under testing. Just not quite able to last good enough for market. So with that they are useless. If we have folks actually building them and if they need ideas on how to make it work properly then I'd say lets brain storm but we'd need to know what does not work first. Don't want to go there as it's a waste of time. 

Pete : )



LeTank said:


> gottdi:
> Sorry about the typo in spelling your nick name.
> 
> I think the VW bug was a good choice too. Thought about it myself, but most people keep them going here and are in good shape, which they mostly don't want to part with them either. So I chose another small car, the celica which was in excellent shape for the price. $350.00.
> ...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

*The concept or recreation of the magnetic propulstion alternator idea:*
(From a friend in Montana who is working on this device based upon a 70's patent.)

Taking any auto alternator and adding magnets to the fan unit on top. The fan, housing and opposite sides of the magnets will be shielded by magnetic shielding to prevent cogging. Then two magnets are placed at 40 degree angles from the side mounting holes on the alternator near the fan, which will cause the magnets on the fan to spin freely in one direction. He is using 125# (capable lifting) magnets. The alternator is suggested to spin around 600 rpm, which may give +/-5 at about 10 amps, which may be even 15 amps. Sounds good to me and I am anxious to see the results. 
Others are working on the same type of unit in many different areas, but are not so easily tempted to blurt out their results as of yet, or what exactly they are using in their design.

It will be placed in the trunk and will have to charge as the car is stationary, but it is still charging 24 hours a day. (Will not give enough to cover the amps used while traveling down the road, but will be nice to have a free charge during the night time when the car sits or is at your work place.) 
Was supposed to be recreated in Germany in 2006 as well with great results. Still it was not enough amps to use for recovering lost current while going down the road, but it was a nice charger for while the car is not being used.

Anyway, let us see what comes about. i am supposed to get diagrams from him this week on the unit. Which will be simple enough for anyone to understand and build. Free too!! haha. Well he can't sell any of the design or patent it since it was already patented. Sounds great..I am hoping for the best.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

1970s? patent...and nobody has one for sale yet.?!!!

Don't put much stock in this one.

Just another magnetic motor that won't/can't work....


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

ALL the Laws of Physics are in effect til further notice. The Physics stuff is Non Negotiable.

The 39 year old idea is dead my friend. Be reasonable. You can work within it the laws. Working on the fence line or outside is not possible. Non Negotiable. I can't control that and neither can anyone else. 

I am thankful there is a force beyond me that has control of these stupid ideas. Non Negotiable. 

Pete : )


----------



## Weird Harold (Oct 4, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Perpetual motion machines,and other scams have been around longer than I have. They aren't anything new, or exclusive to our current energy crisis. Every few years another pie in the sky idea comes along. I have no idea what the "inventors" get out it. Fame? Does some idiot invest in it?

I do however have a problem with "the laws of physics". Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. That sounds reasonable. If you answered anything but that, on a test in school, you would get an F. 500 or so years ago it was accepted that the world is flat. Today a kid in 3rd grade hears that, and shakes his head, and wonders how the people back then could be so stupid. What I'm wondering is what generally accepted laws will be disproved 100 years from now.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, in this case the laws of physics apply. One force is moving another object and energy is transfered. There is no 100 percent gain and at best it is about 1/3 of the power that will be useable from one force pushing another with resistance. Now, I know from Astrophysics that one force can be equal or greater in space, which does not apply down here on the planets surface because of gravity. So, in this concept, physics is not being overrun, rewritten or anything else you are currently thinking about. It is a gravity that is pushing/pulling to create another force of less value, which is not equal to nor greater than the equation of the first force used to create motion. 

So, it will be much less, but it will be something from the concept. How much will have to be determined by the size of the magnets (guass) and the amount of resistance from the alternator. 

Hope that helps. As to describe it further, I have posted an example in my albums under my profile. (A mockup photo as well. Quick, sloppy, but works.)

As for the man from Montana. He is not anyone that would do something if he didn't think it through and with his mind, I am sure it works. He has worked for the DOD, NASA, and other agencies in his lifetime and he is a very down to earth kind of guy. He is also retired. He was good friends with Roger Moore -retired from NASA-(not the actor in 007), who worked with Chrysler (and the DOD were funding the program) on the first missile program which became NASA. Chrysler called NASA a bunch of seagulls in those days, when the guys as NASA would sit and squack like birds when it was Chrysler who knew what they were doing. 

So if he says it will work, I wouldn't put it past him that it actually works. 
As for why the idea/concept was scraped in the 70's may have been due to cogging, which now it is easier to obtain flexible magnetic shielding that works great with magnets that have extreme guass rates. As we mentioned before, with new technology there is always a new solution to an old problem. 

I believe one of the concepts came from a man name Brown and another from Townsend. I will try to find something in the Patent office that may portray the patents and ideas behind it, if I recall right. Can't promise anything, but will look. They may have been sold by now to someone else. 
(Which happens to patents all the time.)


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Truly hope you have more luck than the countless folks trying so many different concepts of the same thing. I'd put my money into the California Lottery, better chances of actually seeing a win of any size than these things actually doing what is claimed. 

You really think it will charge your battery pack in a day while you slumber? You think it will actually pump out 72 volts or more at 15 amps or even 5 amps? That is what it would take to charge my pack. Actually 80 some volts would be needed. Plus it has to have enough power to power it's self and the resistance required to make the power to charge the batteries. You really think a few small but powerful magnets can do that? I know the power of magnets and some are so strong they can take your hand off it you get caught in between them. But yet they are not going to provide the consistent power required to charge up your pack. 

But I commend you if you really are going to spend the money to try once again on something that other have already failed to do. Why go backwards. Take that and move forward. Learn from others mistakes. 

Physics still apply in space dude. No way to get more out than in. Sorry. Gravity still exists in space. : )

So you going to ask why the moon stays put!


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

It may not put out enough amps for some people, but for my own personal use it would work fine. I only need 10 amps continous to run my house at the moment from an outside source, which the MPA would come in handy. I have another solar system that is suficient to run my fridge 24 hours a day. Mostly I just would want it to keep a charge to run my computer and sat system without having to run out 8 hours later like I currently do to start the generator. 

All I need is ten amps continous. That should be feasible. 

It will work for my purposes. If 10 of the units would have to be built to charge an EV over night, it would still be worth every cent. It would pay for itself in a few months time. (that is figuring electric bills that add up in that amount of time.)


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey, found some cool reading material about electric motors (not charging), but may be actually a future concept for EV's. Smaller and lighter than current AC/DC motors. 
http://www.lynxmotiontechnology.com/introtosema1.htm

More nice reading material. 
http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/229/1/Magnetic-Power-Inc/Page1.html

I like that the DODAR is researching ZPE (zero point energy). I have heard about it in the past, over 20 years ago that this was going on. But, we will never know what they find.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The first link is 3 years old but motors like these are available. They are just motors. Nothing like self running generators. 

The second link is bunk. Why waste your time. Please, I read that some old working design was destroyed in the bombing in the 40's. Please, get real. I can claim that kind of garbage too because there is no way to prove its real or not. 

I built a small 7 magnet generator back in 73 and was in the process of checking the output of the generator and we had a grease fire in the kitchen and the house was burned to the ground with all our work. It was a working model. It did produce power but it was not recorded before we lost everything. We since gave up and decided not to spend our money on any further research. 

Pete : )



LeTank said:


> Hey, found some cool reading material about electric motors (not charging), but may be actually a future concept for EV's. Smaller and lighter than current AC/DC motors.
> http://www.lynxmotiontechnology.com/introtosema1.htm
> 
> More nice reading material.
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

(zero point energy)

Now who is it that perfected that! Oh yea, Syndrome. : )


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I never expected ghottdi to believe anything, in fact, ghottdi I want you to be negative about everything, you cannot be positive in any fashion, I just want you to be negative 100 percent of the time. haha 

Those who cannot believe it can be done will never try. Gullible in thinking that it was already tried and failed. Those who are followers and not leaders will never attempt to do anything greater in life, they will just exist. 

Most of what you read in books today, your physics, math, and science are still young in its early stages. They still have many unanswered questions and much is to be added to each area. I think physics will be completely rewritten in many areas a hundred years from now. 

Two years ago, my friend had a cancer that was untreatable and he had a month to live. Today, he is completely healed. The doctors and specialists are still stumped, but as it turns out we did our research and found that if your body is alkaline, you cannot get cancer and any cancer in your body will die off. It worked. He lives.  

Do you know how long we argued with those doctors about this issue? Years. We found our information out from a Doctor in Sweden. 

Well, the magnets and shielding will be here this week. I will post my results, which ghottdi still won't believe, and will try to get some photos up that shows a nice working unit. 

Ghottdi is a good hearted person, but he just is pissed off all the time. haha


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I never expected ghottdi to believe anything, in fact, ghottdi I want you to be negative about everything, you cannot be positive in any fashion, I just want you to be negative 100 percent of the time. haha 

Those who cannot believe it can be done will never try. Gullible in thinking that it was already tried and failed. Those who are followers and not leaders will never attempt to do anything greater in life, they will just exist. 

Most of what you read in books today, your physics, math, and science are still young in its early stages. They still have many unanswered questions and much is to be added to each area. I think physics will be completely rewritten in many areas a hundred years from now. 

Two years ago, my friend had a cancer that was untreatable and he had a month to live. Today, he is comletely healed. The doctors and specialists are still stumped, but as it turns out we did our research and found that if your body is alkaline, you cannot get cancer and any cancer in your body will die off. It worked. He lives.  

Do you how long we argued with those doctors about this issue? We found our information out from a Doctor in Sweden. 

Well, the magnets and shielding will be here this week. I will post my results, which ghottdi still won't believe, and will try to get some photos up that shows a nice working unit. 

Ghottdi is a good hearted person, but he just is pissed off all the time. haha


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, don't know what happened, but it posted it twice..better get Robert to look into that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Ghottdi is a good hearted person, but he just is pissed off all the time. haha



Why do you keep thinking I am pissed all the time? Hardly. I actually get a good laugh at these Zero Point Energy ideas. What always gets me is how many folks actually think these ideas are plausible. Think transporters are plausible? Think time travel is plausible? 

I have never had a problem with perm magnet motors but I do have a problem with building one that you say can produce enough power to power itself and charge a bank of batteries. It has been proven impossible. 

Cancer has not been proven impossible to cure or to get rid of. Some sorts of cancer still have 100% death rate. Some have 100% survivable rate. But none will say it's a cure but just stop. Even if you get rid of it in one may not mean you can get rid of it in another. Depends upon the stage of progression. Don't confuse cancer and zero point energy.


Zero point assumes you get something from nothing. Good Luck. Hope your the one who proves science wrong. That will be world changing. You will become the most famous person of all. 


All batteries take more energy in than you can ever get out. 
All motors take more energy just to run than they could generate as a generator. 
All water dams used to produce power have way more energy in than we could ever get out.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Zero point assumes you get something from nothing. Good Luck. Hope your the one who proves science wrong. That will be world changing. You will become the most famous person of all.
> 
> 
> All batteries take more energy in than you can ever get out.
> ...


Damn, I guess I should sell my solar cell battery charger and forget that wind mill generator.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Maybe I was wrong about you being upset all the time. haha

Glad you are getting a laugh out of the thread. It is entertaining as well. 


I wanted to point out that the magnetic motor was not zero point energy, it is not over unity, and it is not a space transporter. haha

First, the magnets have their own energy. A portion of that energy is transfered to the motor rotor, which spins. A portion of that is lost due to resistance within the motor itself. A small portion is left that is turned into energy, so just like your water dam, the energy in is greater than the energy coming out. 
The energy out is a very small fraction of what was going in. 

So using even 250# (rated) magnets at (117,000 guass) you have a nice source of energy potential. But, when the energy is transfered by motion into an alternator and the resistance drops the energy of motion by more than 3/4, you end up with only a fraction of the energy coming out. But...you still have some energy coming out, no matter how small it is. 2 amps is something, if it was 2 amps. I am hoping for more, like around 7 amps would be great. I can only wait and see. 

I will use a 20 amp alternator first. Since if I set it up for 90 amps the resistance will be greater since it will demand more amps. So, I may even take it down to 10 amps to test it with later. First, I will safetly go with 20 amps. I will use a newly drained power65 Napa battery, which is junk, but will work for the test. I am actually excited about trying it out.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well I hate to burst your bubble but the solar cell and wind generator require more energy in than you get out. It takes more photon energy hitting your solar panel than what you actually get back from it. I wish I could convert all that photon energy to electrons. As for your wind machine, you must blow past your windmill far more energy that what those blade can gather and then what energy is captured must then be converted in a generator to electricity. So again you need way more energy input than you will ever get out. You are sadly mistaken if you think otherwise. No different than a water wheel attached to a generator. Only part of that energy is captured and only some of that is converted. So again more in than out. It does not matter how large or small you scale it. More in is always required. 

Nah! Keep your solar battery charger and windmill. At least you can capture some energy and make use of it. 

Pete : ) 




Beshires1 said:


> Damn, I guess I should sell my solar cell battery charger and forget that wind mill generator.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Maybe I was wrong about you being upset all the time. haha
> 
> Glad you are getting a laugh out of the thread. It is entertaining as well.
> 
> ...


That is exactly what this is doing. Capturing *some* energy and making use of it, no matter how small it is to charge with.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Well I hate to burst your bubble but the solar cell and wind generator require more energy in than you get out. It takes more photon energy hitting your solar panel than what you actually get back from it. I wish I could convert all that photon energy to electrons. As for your wind machine, you must blow past your windmill far more energy that what those blade can gather and then what energy is captured must then be converted in a generator to electricity. So again you need way more energy input than you will ever get out. You are sadly mistaken if you think otherwise. No different than a water wheel attached to a generator. Only part of that energy is captured and only some of that is converted. So again more in than out. It does not matter how large or small you scale it. More in is always required.
> 
> Nah! Keep your solar battery charger and windmill. At least you can capture some energy and make use of it.
> 
> Pete : )


Recon how much I owe the planet for tha sunshine and wind I've used up?


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

How much? Just your good stewardship should be just fine. 



Beshires1 said:


> Recon how much I owe the planet for tha sunshine and wind I've used up?


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

That assumes that your magnet motor can power itself plus the alternator under even a small load. 

Remember that magnets are not rated in kW. Magnets have both push and pull. In other words, equal and opposite reactions. So for your motor to run itself it has to create more energy than what the magnets provide. For ever push the magnet makes it also produces and equal pull. So that 250 pound pull is also 250 pound push. That is why magnet motors stop. I understand that magnets are offset but that still does not stop the push/pull effect. I can pick up 250 pounds of metal with a big magnet but to use it in a motor for both the armature and field you will have the problem of one force countering the the other. Like Dr. Doolittle's Pushme Pullyou it can go nowhere. One cancels the other. However the magnet makes and excellent source for fields in an electric motor. It saves weight and makes a pretty efficient motor. Still not one that can run itself and charge a bank of batteries. 

Again magnets do not generate kW's.




LeTank said:


> That is exactly what this is doing. Capturing *some* energy and making use of it, no matter how small it is to charge with.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Back top news and new ideas..

Future News - Cars will get 400-500 miles per charge
https://priuschat.com/forums/prius-...id-car-tinkerers-scoff-no-plug-in-rule-2.html
Trying to get these peeps over here to our forum. haha
They have some good ideas too.

GM making waves?? 400-500 miles per charge and life changing hybrids?
http://finance.google.com/group/goo...hread/1dd49f2260ca7d35/f9f3071273c89e7f?hl=hy

We must have missed this one.. A "claimed" 500 miles per charge car called Six50.
http://www.gridcrasher.com/index.php/2008/06/24/car-porn-mindset-six50-hybrid

The European Six50 to come out in 2009.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> That assumes that your magnet motor can power itself plus the alternator under even a small load.
> 
> Magnets have both push and pull. In other words, equal and opposite reactions.


Ack..you missed the reason why there is shielding being used. With shielding there is no pull, only push. The housing of the alternator and opposite sides of the magnets are shielded with magnetic shielding.

The magnets are not on a seperate motor, they look like this on the rotor which is on the alternator.


----------



## Nielmo (Oct 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

It's really sad to see all these wizzes everywhere looking for the graal of energy. It would seem they actually believe their own stories. And when one fool fools another fool, can that really be called a scam.

Anyways gottdi, you're doing a great job, but some people do not want to be educated. Keep building your machines and you'll get more mileage then they will ever do.

LeTank I seriously doubt you believe these crap stories, but you're doing a good job of keeping your thread alive. 

As for the actual topic:
True unlimited mileage is not possible. Because you need an unlimited supply, and we live in a finite world.
Practical limitlessness though... One charge per year or per lifetime might be possible in the future.

About the Shelby statement:


Note that the statement does not say how far you drive per charge. It just says "_several years between charging_". So if you drive less than a mile per year that statement may be very true.
Possible explanations I have heard so far is:


*Nuclear reactor*. The problem with nuclear power is that it is not something you charge. Hence it does not need charging. And since it does not need charging it can not have "_several years between charging_".
*Continuous solar cell charging*. The problem with continuous charging is that it is continuous. Hence, not single charges with years between them.
Though it does not explicitly say so we could honor the notion that the statement most probably refer to *charging from the grid* when it says *charging*. Then it may possibly hold true that they can get away with "_several years between charging_" (from the main grid).
It's all about how you define the word *charging*. Maybe the PR department got a little carried away to bother with the precise technical term, and used the more practical meaning of charge.
When you actually need to plug a cable into the socket.
My own (and others) ideas on extended mileage.


Regenerative breaking (already exists in several production cars)
Continuous charging from solar cell. (Not impossible)
Recycling heat energy from power circuits. Maybe a peltier element could be of some help here.
That's my two _SEK_ as the saying goes...


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Ack..you missed the reason why there is shielding being used. With shielding there is no pull, only push. The housing of the alternator and opposite sides of the magnets are shielded with magnetic shielding.
> 
> The magnets are not on a seperate motor, they look like this on the rotor which is on the alternator.


LeTank, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you turning this alternator with only the attached magnets? If that is the case, and assuming that it was in any way possible, why don't you just build a magnet motor big enough to power the vehicle? After all you have the weight of and the space for the now unnecessary battery pack to work with. 

Convince me that you are not talking about overunity here - what is turning this alternator?

Later,
Keith


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Magnets have potential energy. The energy is transfered into the rotor, the rotor spins and energy is created by the alternator and transfered into the battery. It won't be much, but it will at least be something.

I am not trying to sell this idea. haha. I just posted it to have others post their ideas. I believe in "Free information to the world". Kind of like the hacker manifesto. haha

I like the thermo-electric charging system idea. 

Yes regen is out, but I believe it can be made better. Something more will always come from it to capture more heat. (Different components and or materials) But, it does add something back to the batteries that once was not being put back to begin with. Then the solar panels to charge a vehicle are also great. Even with the technology we have today, we can at least put a few more amps back into the batteries while the car sits in the sun. 

I like the ideas, keep them coming. We need that extra super combo of ideas to get the range we need. (want) However it fits you all.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Keith, 

I think all those little yellow sticky thingies are what are turning this alternator. Woooo hooo. 

I think they are talking somewhere in between reality and outerlimits. 

You can not build a magnet motor that solely runs on magnet power to motivate your vehicle. That means you have never ending power to take you to work and back. Oh wait, hows that! If I perfected the never ending power motor I would never need to work another day in my life. I'd be a trillionaire. 

Yes the proponent of this alternator is to power it with only magnets to provide a small but sustainable output to trickle charge a pack of batteries. If it worked then you could put these in series until you came up with the proper voltage and just run your car on that.  



kek_63 said:


> LeTank, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you turning this alternator with only the attached magnets? If that is the case, and assuming that it was in any way possible, why don't you just build a magnet motor big enough to power the vehicle? After all you have the weight of and the space for the now unnecessary battery pack to work with.
> 
> Convince me that you are not talking about overunity here - what is turning this alternator?
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Jeeze, you can't shield out only half from a magnet. You can't shield push from pull because both are the same. Dooooh! You shield you get nothing. Is this shield some magic potion applied to some transparent aluminum?




LeTank said:


> Ack..you missed the reason why there is shielding being used. With shielding there is no pull, only push. The housing of the alternator and opposite sides of the magnets are shielded with magnetic shielding.
> 
> The magnets are not on a seperate motor, they look like this on the rotor which is on the alternator.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well you actually are selling the idea because you keep posting the same thing but in a different cover. I too like the idea of posting about possible ways to increase our charge distance for our ev's but lets work with what is already available for others to actually incorporate into their design. Remember it must be something that will not interfere with the normal operation of the EV but will help keep the battery pack charged or to help reduce friction. Solar is limited due to space but is the most practical but expensive way to trickle charge a pack. Some can do better than others. I could put my 4 spare panels on the back of my VW Single Cab and have a decent charge durning the day. Not perfect but decent. My 4 panels produce over 80 volts but not at a high amperage. Still it could charge up my pack some. I could even have a tracing device on my VW and make better use of good daylight. My parking space is perfect south facing for my panels and I can mount all 4 within the bed space and even on a tracking rack. : )

As for other forms of trickle charging I am not aware that any really truly exist. 

Thermo electric? I will go have a look. Until then please post realistic things we can use today. 20 or 30 years from now is of no use to use today. 




LeTank said:


> I am not trying to sell this idea. haha. I just posted it to have others post their ideas. I believe in "Free information to the world". Kind of like the hacker manifesto. haha
> 
> I like the thermo-electric charging system idea.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh! Please. The first one is old news that never came to light. Dude that deadline came and went with nothing. It was bunk. As are the other two links. I am so glad its late and I have some time to waste here. Otherwise I would not even bother. 

Sanyo just released a battery that will enter the market in 2006 that can fully recharge in 6 minutes and charge to 80% in one minute. after 1000 charge cycles, the capacity is reduced 1%. 80% of it's capacity is available down to -40 degrees.




LeTank said:


> Back top news and new ideas..
> 
> Future News - Cars will get 400-500 miles per charge
> https://priuschat.com/forums/prius-...id-car-tinkerers-scoff-no-plug-in-rule-2.html
> ...


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Quote:
" Magnets have potential energy. The energy is transfered into the rotor, the rotor spins and energy is created by the alternator and transfered into the battery. It won't be much, but it will at least be something."

No, you have nothing as this concept doesn't work.....

Nobody has ever made one and there are no designs that work.....


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Here are a list of my links I found. 
Some are great, others are nice ideas to look at.
These are a mix of normal people making their own creation and a few that are now hoping to get their products on the market, like Cyclone.
Hope you enjoy.

These links are from youtube.com, which there were so many pages of videos I had to just select a few of the better ones.

Cyclone.com (magnetic motors) Australian magmotor company that is trying to bring their motor to market.
http://www.cycclone.com/

Magnetic propulsion motor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9rbysrv24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zXya2gNyFc&feature=related

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

Brian Leonard Marshall Magnetic motor idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI4NDrPQ2rA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs_pszg03f8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5P1b-t7qps&feature=related

College students having trouble with their machine..haha, lots of resistance and no shielding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw&NR=1
Not a bad idea though.

Steorn motors
http://www.steorn.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jze97j7M1xo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNBYnqDfBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnYUKBEPO8I&feature=related

Searl motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CvjBQkYE8U

German inventor and his magnetic motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k37KrwN4RmM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsektK46rA

Neat little mag motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAPDP_LwGa0

idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XntP0ChoHM

Newman motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fr4YuCDY9M

AWESOME VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPgX7oSYWrI

Good example of working magnetic motor with coils for charging batteries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eigGK71i3VA

Now, we can go onto solar panels and research which would work best in a small space that puts out a reasonable amount of power. 
I don't want to argue about if these magmotors actually work, how much they can put out with a load on them or what not. So, on to other things.
I would also like to dig around for more about new technologies that enable regen braking to give back more of a charge than it currently does.

I am willing to work with things that are on the market that can be obtainable to be used on our EV's today. We can put the magmotor on hold until any testing has actually been done by myself later this month, if it doesn't work, I will gladly post my results.

First, solar and regen and any new advances that may have come to market.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> We can put the magmotor on hold until any testing has actually been done by myself later this month, if it doesn't work, I will gladly post my results.


Why waste your time. The results were in long ago and still others want to do the same thing over and over and over and over in hopes of something miraculous happening and some new result will rear its head. That is actually a good definition of insanity. Same thing over and over and over and over and still expecting something different but only getting the same damn result. Just because it sounds like it should does not always mean it can. 

: )


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> We can put the magmotor on hold until any testing has actually been done by myself later this month, if it doesn't work, I will gladly post my results.


Why waste your time. The results were in long ago and still others want to do the same thing over and over and over and over in hopes of something miraculous happening and some new result will rear its head. That is actually a good definition of insanity. Same thing over and over and over and over and still expecting something different but only getting the same damn result. Just because it sounds like it should does not always mean it can. 

: )


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The results were in long ago? haha Back in 1880? They didn't have magnetic shielding then. But, it wouldn't matter if it worked and videos were taken, witnesses signed sworn statements and even if you had seen it work with your own eyes, you would still not believe it worked. So, I will still post my results for those who are still interested. 

So what is new with solar technology? Anyone know? Is there anything useful for putting on our EV's that would make it worthwhile?


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yup! You said it. IF it worked. Plain truth is it did not and still does not. Again. you can't shield a magnet. If you shield a magnet you can't do anything. Shielding blocks the magnetic field. Sounds useful to me!

Witnesses still sign statements and those statements are false. A signed piece of paper means nothing. If you show me a working model where I can inspect the internals and where there are no hidden wires and gadgets and I can pick it up in my hands while it runs and where I can attach a load (not you) and see that it will produce electricity and stay running then I will believe. I will even come out at my own expense to witness it. If it is in some obscure rundown garage with tons of garbage around to hide things then I won't bother. All the videos links you have sent and all the others I have seen either don't show everything or have a box or some sort of device around that does have wires attached or some other hidden object. It is a parlor scam and a very profitable one to boot since so many believe it to be true but yet no one can come up with a true working model. All only speculate. Spin a magnet motor with a starter motor and watch it spin and take a photo and say it works. However it will stop on its own and if you put a load on it it will halt. That is what was done on the first link you posted earlier. No information except some sales pitches to get your money and some machined thing a ma bob that any machinist can make. I await your true official results. No hokey poor quality video either. If you do video don't leave anything out and make sure you actually are putting a load on the magnet motor. I'd also love to see your magnet shield and would love to see how it actually works. Remember if it pushes it pulls also. You can't separate the two. I'd love to see this parlor trick. Bet you can't pull it off. I bet your motor does not perform as you expect it to either and we will get some excuse as to why you could not make a high quality video and that something else was amiss. We will get an excuse as all before you have done. Either an excuse or one hell of a parlor trick. Just be sure to bring those transparent aluminum wires with you as you will need them. Quality video will show much. 

Hammer time. 

Pete : )



LeTank said:


> The results were in long ago? haha Back in 1880? They didn't have magnetic shielding then. But, it wouldn't matter if it worked and videos were taken, witnesses signed sworn statements and even if you had seen it work with your own eyes, you would still not believe it worked. So, I will still post my results for those who are still interested.
> 
> So what is new with solar technology? Anyone know? Is there anything useful for putting on our EV's that would make it worthwhile?


Solar is not much further along than it was years ago. Solars problem is energy per sq foot of space. There is only so much to harvest and solar is not good enough to harvest much more than it does so far. It's pretty damn good but still it is hard to harvest the energy from all those photons. Just remember I have a roof full of photon catchers. It fully powers my home with a tad to spare. : )

Pete : )


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> I don't want to argue about if these magmotors actually work, how much they can put out with a load on them or what not.


No need to argue, they dont work. Period.

The design is nothing new. Heck I even remember trying to make one when i was 10. Guess what? It didnt work. Then i went to school and found out why it didnt work.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The power of SCHOOL. I think some more here need to do that too. 




Gavin1977 said:


> No need to argue, they dont work. Period.
> 
> The design is nothing new. Heck I even remember trying to make one when i was 10. Guess what? It didnt work. Then i went to school and found out why it didnt work.


----------



## Nielmo (Oct 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> The results were in long ago? haha Back in 1880? They didn't have magnetic shielding then. But, it wouldn't matter if it worked and videos were taken, witnesses signed sworn statements and even if you had seen it work with your own eyes, you would still not believe it worked. So, I will still post my results for those who are still interested.
> 
> So what is new with solar technology? Anyone know? Is there anything useful for putting on our EV's that would make it worthwhile?


The only way I know to stop a magnetic flow is by a superconductor. This is thanks to the Meissner effect. But that shield comes at a price. Moving either the magnet or the shield creates a drag, ie you loose energy. 

Another cool magnetic phenomenon is magnetic refrigeration. You can make some stuff release their heat by applying a magnetic field. 

The hype in solar cell technology right now is the Grätzel cell. It mimics photosynthesis. You could possibly build them from toothpaste and raspberries.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Nielmo said:


> The only way I know to stop a magnetic flow is by a superconductor. This is thanks to the Meissner effect. But that shield comes at a price. Moving either the magnet or the shield creates a drag, ie you loose energy.
> 
> Another cool magnetic phenomenon is magnetic refrigeration. You can make some stuff release their heat by applying a magnetic field.
> 
> The hype in solar cell technology right now is the Grätzel cell. It mimics photosynthesis. You could possibly build them from toothpaste and raspberries.


This is actually not new hype. They have actually made these and they can be made at home. They are very low powered and have a short life span. I also made a solar cell using the copperous method. Again it is very low power and not the best life. But they do work. These are the things that move industry to make better ones that are more stable and longer life and more power. But they are things that actually work and do what they are expected to do. Now we refine them. I don't think solar is at it's limit but they have come a long way. Most new solar was a step backwards for power output but miles ahead in applications and cost. Flexible panels that can be mounted anywhere and are cheap to make. So you need more panels but for the same power out put like I have I'd still pay way less. Now to get the word out that you can afford solar. I'd buy the new flex panels but I had these before they became cheaper. I also like the new solar glass panes that produce electricity but you can see through them. They are not high power but in a tall building that is covered in window space it is one way to provide power to the building. Nice. : )

For cars, Oh well we still don't have much except the flex panels. We could use solar windows and flex all over the vehicle and get some power back no matter what direction the vehicle was in as long as it was parked in the sun. 


Pete : )


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

They found that on a Thinfilm solar cell, by making a rough surface with silicon, they gained another 20 percent more power. The solar cell was able to absorb more sunlight by having a rough surface. 

As for which solar panel would work best on an EV, if we just keep our eyes open and watch those major companies exploring such concepts and doing all the hard research for us, we may be able to find a solution quicker to use ourselves. Flexible solar panels are great, such as the Thinfilm solar panels which also are very flexible. I am still digging through some different panels that are around 2000 watt (4 ft x 3 ft.) from China on their websites. Prices are very reasonable too. So the smallest and more powerful is what of course we all want, so I will dig around and see what I can find. 

If anyone finds another link that has reasonably priced solar cells please list them if you think they would work great on an EV.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

In conversations concerning Science vs. Other Stuff (in particular, with regard to overunity and perpetual motion devices), the same objections always seem to come up. I'd like to address those objections here, but I do so with the emphatic disclaimer that I am not characterizing anybody in this thread in particular. One or two of these may have been raised in this discussion, but I am by no means presuming to portray anyone's state of mind. The following peradventurous objections are purely fictitious, and any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental. 


So with that, here are my responses to some common objections brought up during many Science vs. Other Stuff discussions:


*You don't know everything. Our understanding of the Universe is always changing.* Indeed, the Universe is a wondrous place, and new discoveries are made on a daily basis. But while this may be true, there are also some characteristics of the Universe that are well-known, well-tested, and understood through generations of empirical data gathering to be inviolate. Depending on these inviolate properties of nature is what enables us to transform our scientific discoveries into technology. If we couldn't depend on these inviolate properties of nature, nothing would work. Besides, just because we don't yet understand everything about the Universe, that doesn't automatically mean the Universe will somehow accommodate whatever device or theory you have in mind.


*They laughed at Einstein at first, too.* Yes, Einstein's revolutionary theories were not taken seriously at first. But it does not logically follow that, just because Einstein wasn't taken seriously, some other nutjob's laughable theory is just as good. If laughter were an accurate gauge of scientific understanding, we'd have circus clowns winning Nobel Prizes.


*Science is often wrong. Scientists once thought the Earth was flat.* Well, first of all, just to set the record straight, no scientist ever proclaimed that the Earth was flat. The Scientific Method wasn't even invented until Galileo (making him the first true scientist), long after a round Earth was the predominant belief. Be that as it may, I concede it is quite true that scientists often concoct completely incorrect (and even silly) theories about the Universe. The Scientific Method, however, is designed to eventually and ultimately weed out these incorrect theories from the body of scientific knowledge. Moreover, the Scientific Method makes the progress of science dependent on a universally-applied process, not on the will of a single individual with a pet theory to promote. This self-correcting nature of the Scientific Method is a strength, not a weakness, which invariably leads to a deeper understanding of the Universe with each experiment performed, and with each theory tested (and possibly debunked). It also does not logically follow that, just because Science was once wrong about something in the past, it is now wrong about whatever pet theory you're currently embracing.


*How can you not believe it unless you try it for yourself?* Seeing things with your own eyes, performing your own experiments, and putting theories to the test in your own garage is NEVER a bad thing to do. I will never discourage anyone from performing any experiment he or she thinks is worthwhile. But at the same time, if we all rely on nothing but directly-observed, first-principle experiments and first-hand derivations, we'd never make any scientific or technological progress from one generation to the next. At some point, we have to trust the empirical data of those who came before us so we can build on their work and make new discoveries. Even Newton, who developed the laws of motion, described gravity, revolutionized optics, and single-handedly invented calculus, said that his achievements wouldn't have been remotely within reach had he not been “standing on the shoulders of giants” who came before him in the fields of science and mathematics. We ignore the confirmed, corroborated empirical data of past scientists' work at our own peril.


*Who's to say that today's “laws of nature” won't be overturned tomorrow?* Well, nobody, really. But, conversely, who's to say that today's Laws of Nature WILL be overturned tomorrow? The arrogance implied in this question goes both ways. Indeed, it could be argued that the more arrogant person is the one refuting generations of scientific work, claiming that past volumes of data endorsing the reliability of the “laws of nature” are unfounded and unreliable. When you've violated a Law of Nature, present your corroborated, reproducible data to the scientific community, and you WILL be taken seriously. But until you do that, don't be making unsubstantiated claims that Laws of Nature are not inviolate, because all the evidence so far suggests otherwise.


*You can't prove it (whatever it is) doesn't work.* I don't have to. If you have a device, and you claim it works, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. Until then, what I can or cannot prove is of no consequence, since I'm not the one making the claim. This has more to do with logic than science. Logically, absence of proof that your device doesn't work is not the same as proof that it does work. Only the most gullible people (investors?) will fall for that logical fallacy.  


*I can figure it out on my own without taking any science classes.* I must concede that this may actually be true. People are amazingly clever, and a great number of us have done world-changing things in our humble garages with little or no college education. But if you take a couple of science courses, you'll at least be able to keep your units straight. Discussing overunity and perpetual motion with someone who doesn't know the difference between force, energy, work, and power is not only frustrating – it's futile. The merits of tinkering are not to be diminished, but neither are the merits of course study, which can only help. If this is more than a hobby to you, invest in a course or two related to your interest. Not only will it not close your mind to new ideas, it will give you some of the tools you need to better develop your current ideas, and to come up with altogether new ideas down the road. Knowledge truly is power, and it can be had for a reasonable price at your local community college.


*Scientists are an elite bunch of snobs who think they know everything, and who wouldn't believe in overunity if it bit them in the butt.* Hey! Now you've gone too far! Them's fightin' words!  Okay, seriously, I can honestly see why people would say this. Because scientists are obligated to go where the data leads, they can appear to be closed-minded to those not fully acquainted with the data that they've been following. It's not that scientists aren't open to new ideas or theories. In fact, any scientist worth his spit should always be willing to be convinced he's wrong about anything. But you must have the data. If you don't have the data, you won't be able to convince a scientist of anything. And don't forget that this closed-minded thing is also a two-way street. To the scientist who is open-minded enough to go wherever the data leads, regardless of his preconceptions, someone who refuses to let go of a notion completely unsupported by data appears to be just as closed-minded.


Okay, I've had my say. Thanks for listening.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Great points Astronomer. Well said. 

By the way, I saw the soalr panel you made (looked great), did you make any more since then? I can't remember the power you obtained from it though.

What is your take on solar and what type would you use for a solar cell on an EV? 

Your ideas?


----------



## Weird Harold (Oct 4, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

*Science is often wrong. Scientists once thought the Earth was flat.* Well, first of all, just to set the record straight, no scientist ever proclaimed that the Earth was flat. The Scientific Method wasn't even invented until Galileo (making him the first true scientist), long after a round Earth was the predominant belief. Be that as it may, I concede it is quite true that scientists often concoct completely incorrect (and even silly) theories about the Universe. The Scientific Method, however, is designed to eventually and ultimately weed out these incorrect theories from the body of scientific knowledge. Moreover, the Scientific Method makes the progress of science dependent on a universally-applied process, not on the will of a single individual with a pet theory to promote. This self-correcting nature of the Scientific Method is a strength, not a weakness, which invariably leads to a deeper understanding of the Universe with each experiment performed, and with each theory tested (and possibly debunked). It also does not logically follow that, just because Science was once wrong about something in the past, it is now wrong about whatever pet theory you're currently embracing.

I just think the mind set, that we know something with such​ certainty is holding us back. I enjoyed your post.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Astronomer, you missed one.

*Over a few beers, a friend/colleague/random stranger told me about this obscure company that has a device, and was about to reveal its magical properties, when an oil company bought the idea off them!*
Always makes me laugh, its the ideal get-out clause for them, and simply adds to the conspiracy of those who believe


----------



## vgslimo (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Ioku*  
_You might be able to use one of these generators http://cgi.ebay.com/HighAmp-PMA-Perm...QQcmdZViewItem
they say it can produce up to 14,000 watts and only weighs 10 pound, I'm not sure if thats a continuous rating though._

this is my first post so if i do anything wrong let me know.
I am new to the entire ev process but really want to build a hybrid jeep. this link seems to be the answer to properly run a small c.a.r.b. diesel type generator setup. but i have a question of any qualified person on electric in general. judging from the material provided by the seller their graph shows more rpm= higher voltage and amperage but not quite enough to charge a 144v system. my question is if you conected two of them to half the battery pack and spun them to proper rpm for a little more than 72v ea. would they interfer with ea. other or would they properly charge the whole pack? also would they self regulate and not overcharge the battery's just like a standard 12v alternator? my idea is to install some kind of switching unit that would cause the diesel( to be powered by veggie oil ) to come on at 70% dod and shut off at or approaching 100% charge.


----------



## WattUp (Oct 22, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



vgslimo said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ioku*
> _You might be able to use one of these generators http://cgi.ebay.com/HighAmp-PMA-Perm...QQcmdZViewItem
> they say it can produce up to 14,000 watts and only weighs 10 pound, I'm not sure if thats a continuous rating though._
> ...


==============

Hi, All... I, too, am new to this forum and have read ALL the posts in this forum... I have about 40 yrs in all areas of electrical field, from motor rebuild to industrial electronics (Chrysler) to computers, etc... I'm NOT an expert in any one area but have broad experience... I'm new to EV stuff but am learning quickly!!

to *vgslimo*: you probably cannot split your battery pack and charge each seperately unless you wanted to devise some exotic switching set-up... most info I've gathered indicates trying to add a charger that would supply enough output to keep your pack up while driving will not work because of added weight (although some use pusher trailers) and, if you are concerned with going "green" at all, the pollution from such a set up would be enormous....

On this thread: As I said earlier, I have read ALL the posts in this thread and have spent much time laughing my ass off at some of your "thoughts"...their is a fine line between exploring the outer reachs of technology and following completely insane, impractical leads... granted, although many of the "world changing" breakthrouhs were thought of as impossible at the time they were introduced, they were still within certain constraints of immutable laws of physics, even if those laws were known at the time. Today, while there is some research being done on the "edge" of accepted technology, most brekthroughs will come in area of improving the efficiency of present technology. Besides, any significant breakthroughs will be VERY expensive for the DIYer until it reaches mass production. So, we are stuck with incremental improvements and our own ingenuity in improving the cost\efficency\range\etc of the vehicles we design. It will save you a tremendous amount of time (and money) if you understand the practical limits inherint in this process...

That being said, I applaud everyone's desires and efforts to explore this field... who knows what new or "impractical" theory will spark an idea in someone's imagination that will lead to a real quantum leap.

So, here I am to add my comments, thoughts, suggestions, etc to this important discussion (for whatever that is worth!)... ONWARD & UPWARD!!


----------



## vgslimo (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



WattUp said:


> ==============
> 
> 
> to *vgslimo*: you probably cannot split your battery pack and charge each seperately unless you wanted to devise some exotic switching set-up... most info I've gathered indicates trying to add a charger that would supply enough output to keep your pack up while driving will not work because of added weight (although some use pusher trailers) and, if you are concerned with going "green" at all, the pollution from such a set up would be enormous....
> ...


i'm convinced this is a mostly false statement when i plan on using a california rated motor number one, number two it will be on less than half the time i currently drive now so even if double the emissions i still break even. and third i wont be burning any fossil fuels at all. some of the small diiesel car motors might even work. i'm still reasearching what motor to use and emissions is one area i am looking at. if you can buy it in california it probably spits the least in its field, but i will look for lowest emiting diesel before purchase. and thanks for the tip on splitting the alternators. these pma's i referenced are for windmills so there must be a way to series them at least. more research...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

For getting your 72volt to 144volt, you can use a step up converter. It increases your voltage, but not the amps, but at least you can get to 144votls. These can be in the higher price ranges, so I would call around (or google search) converters. (They vary widely in range of voltages, but you may find something that will come very close, or have one designed specifically for your purpose.) 

The onboard generator idea is good as well. Bio-fuel is the best option instead of diesel, unless you have an unleaded fueled generator that you can make and use the ethanol (Moonshine) yourself. Kits are sold on the net for this too.

It is added extra weight, but at least you can charge anywhere you go. 

The other idea is nice as well. Will have to look into that more.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

hmmm. I like those PMA's from Hornet Power Systems.

For a place to read more about those PMA's, here is a website.
http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/powerpmas.html


----------



## vgslimo (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

thanks le tank. very useful info!


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You are welcome. Also dug up another Low rpm/Low Resistance generator alternator. Their newest one is up to 20Kw. (Coming soon) 

http://www.ginlong.com/wind-turbine-pmg-pma-permanent-magnet-generator-alternator-GL-PMG-1800.htm

But..these are seemingly being sold in Europe atm, but perhaps there is some company in America carrying these as well. Still in the research stage on these units and where to get them. If I find any other links, I will post them all.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

While searching for low resistance alternators, I came across these links.
Yea, I know, more wonderful entertainment. The wild thing is, they are actually selling these magmotors, but for a price. Have a look.

Oh this first one is just a good article about Howard the magmotor man. 

Howard Johnson 
Magnetic motor website
http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm#scimech

Magmotors For Sale that already exist. 
http://www.perendev-power.com/home.htm

They have a 100KW magmotor for sale or lease. 100 euro a month to lease.

http://www.perendev-power.com/emot100.htm

Price $24,700 euro plus tax and delivery. 

Or check out their products list.
http://www.perendev-power.com/products.htm

100KW auto pac, for cars. Plug your home into your car for power. 
http://www.perendev-power.com/autopack.htm

How in the world? Your guess is as good as mine. Crazy stuff.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I see you found someone who took your bait. 

Perm magnet motors are everywhere but what you proposed with those little yellow stickers representing magnets is total bunk. A perm magnet motor is nothing but a motor that uses magnets for the field. No big deal and no ground breaking changes. They are a bit lighter in weight and can be a bit better of a motor compared to the standard brushed and electromagnet field motor. I'd love to see some of these claimed things others say they are selling. I'd bet none have sold a damn thing. They will say but I bet they can't provide real world cases where you could call and go visit and check out the setup. : )






LeTank said:


> You are welcome. Also dug up another Low rpm/Low Resistance generator alternator. Their newest one is up to 20Kw. (Coming soon)
> 
> http://www.ginlong.com/wind-turbine-pmg-pma-permanent-magnet-generator-alternator-GL-PMG-1800.htm
> 
> But..these are seemingly being sold in Europe atm, but perhaps there is some company in America carrying these as well. Still in the research stage on these units and where to get them. If I find any other links, I will post them all.


----------



## vgslimo (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

so are you saying that you don't think this, http://cgi.ebay.com/HighAmp-PMA-Perm...QQcmdZViewItem perm. mag. alternator would work to charge a battery pack? if not please tell me why.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

vgslimo. No reason at all why that wouldnt work. Not sure if I would want to draw 15kw out of it continuosly though. Looking at the cooling requirements, im assuming it gets a little warm.

The step-up converter that letank suggested would work, though a 15kw stepup would be extremely expensive. Keeping with the KISS approach, it would probably be best to see if you could get one of those PMA's rewound so it output the voltage that you were after. Or as you suggested, use two of them an just series them together.


----------



## vgslimo (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

thanks. i agree with you and le tank obviously. but the question i have is if i series two of them together do i have to worry about sending too much current through the "second" alternator? or am i overthinking the issue. as regards cooling my plan is to mount them in front of the "hole" in front that used to need a radiator, also my plan is to only use charging from 30%-100% and then shut off so roughly less than half the time of driving will it run. thanks for the help.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

If they are reasonably matched, and are both spun at the same speed, then they should work fine. Remember putting two in series will double your voltage, but both alternators will see the same current flowing, which will depend on what load you draw from them.


----------



## vgslimo (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

thanks. i knew i was missing somethiing.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Here is how it was done once before.......to run a electric motor EV and recharge the batteries http://radiant.100free.com/zpe_gray_sparktube.html


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

This is if anyone has looked at any of Ed Grey's motor technology how his motor worked. His secret power conversion tube is just a.... sparkplug. Look at this page and imagine the motors field coils and rotor coils in place of D. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ignition-system4.htm This motor that ran off of two sets of battery packs 2 six volt batteries each, was designed by a close friend "Boot" Mallory of the MALLORY IGNITIONS. Also compare Ed Grey's power conversion tube Drawings with a picture of a spark plug. He basically merged the automobile industries's ignition technology with an electric motor then added some of Telsa's ideas to recharge the batteries and WA-LAA . The Electric EV that could get 300 miles to a charge. And the Automobile industry dosn't want it Back.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Update:
Got "some" of the magnetic shielding, but not all today. Hope the rest will be here next week sometimes. Always something slowing progress. 

I keep finding things about the X-Prize for a long distance EV contest. I will dig up what it is all about and post it here for those who are interested and perhaps may even want to enter. Heck, if 10 million is up for grabs again, why not take the chance. I wonder if they have restrictions on what can and can't be used to charge the batteries such as a generator.

Will keep you up to date.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

X-Prize update:
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, good news. If anyone wants to enter the X-Prize you have until Jan. 2009 to do it. You can enter your company, club, University, or get a group together with a local company to enter with. 

Great way to build your EV and get some sponsors. Perhaps, I just may enter my EV and use my company, who knows. Will put in my registration and see what happens. 

If you want to register. Here is the link.
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/prize-details/registration

You may want to back track and read all the requirements for those applying for the X-prize.

Good luck and hope you all enter.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I would like to know more about this fella and his invention. Anyone have any information that would be helpful to us all, post it. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE

His EV has only one battery. Let's see what may come of this. I am interested, aren't you?


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yeah it looks good but this guy is a PROVEN fraud.
Run surge technology through googal and all will be revealed. He even has an entry in wikipedia.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Thanks, just curious.
About a year ago I found a video that showed his magmotor in the trunk of the same car and only one battery in front. If it was a scam it was a great one.
I read on CNN that his wife was half owner of the company and VP. She was scamming money on different programs with her boyfriend whom her husband didn't know about. I think he found out and decided he would rather die with his invenion than give her any of the money from it. She moved to Costa Rica with her boyfriend after the divorce and all his projects have been missing since he died in 2006. Dennis Weaver even said he saw the magmotor running the car and it went over 20 miles on a test run. The only video now that I can find is the partial video of Troy Reeds car, which is missing the part about where he shows his invention (magmotor) in the back. 
Today, there are so many fragments of the whole story that it is hard to say what is true and what is false. The blueprints his son Mark showed is missing a lot of details. His son Mark is also trying to get the new MarkII magmotor his dad invented going, but that is just hearsay and not fact. 

So it is hard to say. I guess it is a dead stick unless the other video can be found, the motors tested if they can be found and a full set of blueprints ever come to light. Was hoping someone saved the old video or had more info on Troy Reed and his invention. Well, it was worth a try. 

The other onboard charging system that interests me is the one used in this car:
http://www.usaelectriccars.com/x.html

This page shows the hood and trunk open, which shows the charging system. They have entered the XPrize contest. Interesting. 
http://www.usaelectriccars.com/x.html

It only looks like six (maybe 8) batteries in the car and it is suppsed to get over 200 miles. (This is said due to the entry of XPrize and the qualifications for an EV that it has to go over 200 miles.) 
Can batteries give you 200 miles per charge? Or do they have something that works for onboard charging? I notice also they have an alternator hooked up as well. The motor in back looks interesting. 
Wonder what we can find out about their "charger" in the trunk.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

edit:
The question in the above post that was a typo was::
Can 6-8 batteries give you 200 miles per charge? They look like lead acid.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I emailed USA Electric cars and still waiting for their reply. It was a few days ago. Hopefully, they will join our forum (I invited them) and will give some ideas of their own to help get a little more range out of our EV's.

Would be super duper if they give us any info on that Carter Charging system they are using onboard their EV for extended range.

Hoping for the best. Will dig around and see what I can find on the Carter Charging system. Perhaps, they have a patent listed. 

Onwards to having extended range EV's.....


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

No response from USA electric cars in NY. Guess they want their carter charger to be more secretive for the X-prize. Can't blame them really. Had no luck finding anything about the charger.

Well, to add to my list for my 2009 project, I am going to add a Low Rpm, low resistance PMA. Pretty nice unit, but still waiting for a reply from them on cost.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, back to EV's. 
I found some nice reading material, but they are claiming EV's won't get more than 50 miles per charge for at least the next 5 years. I hope we can prove them wrong and there are EV's out there that already are getting three tmies that..even if they are higher in the price ranges.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7649656.stm

Again, here is another car that only gets 40 miles. Truly, I think making such a car with such low miles per charge is a waste of time and money. Let us hope they wake up sooner than later before all these new EV makers go out of business as fast as they came into business.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7691723.stm

However, when we are talking about 300 miles per charge, now we are getting somewhere.
http://www.evfinder.com/full_sized_evs.htm


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

A little update on the Magmotor:
After finally getting the order of MuMetal (magnetic shielding) in, I realized they sent me the wrong blasted shielding. So, instead of sending it back and waiting another few weeks, I decided to use it. It took some work to make it at least be beneficial to the project, but some success at last.
After trying to use the same rotor assembly on the alternator, I ended up tweaking the rotor to be about 20 degrees angle for each magnet to get the guass to be redirected, even though it was minimal, but enough to cause a small cogging. (Had to also drop the amp rating to 15 amps on the alternator as well.) This worked well enough to get the unit to work, well other than the small out of balance vibration, which didn't help much. (Working on a new rotor made of plastic.) Finally, the testing was done and even with its vibration and ackward square magnets with a half inch of shielding, I was able to get 4.12 amps continuous. Not bad, but not good either. The rotor was so badly tweaked that I am revamping the whole project by using round button magnets, proper shielding (which I wanted in the first place) and a little bigger and more balanced rotor made of 1 inch think plastic that will be 8 inches across center. Should work nicely, but won't know until it is completed in a few more weeks. 

Right now, I could probably start a new Red Green show with all the duct tape I used up just doing trial and error testing. haha

Small success, but at least it is working to some degree. 
Just thought you should know..for those who were interested.
There are others building different types of the magmotor at the moment. One fella is going with the axial flux type of magmotor, in which the resistiance is far less. Others are just going with an alternator idea and using much larger wheels and larger magnets, with a ton of shielding. I wish them luck as well.

*EV News on Think EV's*
http://www.think.no/

The Think car from Norway. You gotta love those Vikings. 

This car is absolutely a great EV. It is almost completely recyclable and the new version is looking at getting over 300 miles per charge, but may be getting as much as 400 miles. That is one I will be watching and seeing what they use for batteries and for a drivetrain. 
I have not seen any ads as of yet, but hoping to see something to get this car known to the world. Advertising Idea: Swedish Swimsuit team driving these cars around...in bikinis. haha


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank;
I also have been looking at different alternatives for recharging an EV, even if it is just overnight without plugging it into any outside source. I am going with solar with my new EV conversion as a test-trail and error concept, but am seriously thinking of trying "other" alternatives. 
I have been reading a lot about "free energy" to just getting excessive energy out any motor to work as an alternative as well, been reading about such for several years now. Just too lazy to build anything as of yet. 

Lots of great ideas, perhaps something will work that will benefit me in my future project with my alternative energy ideas, but for now it is all just good reading material until I can decide on what I want to do. I have also read a lot about HHO as a fuel, which I am finding is a workable solution to the current fuel prices, though it does need battery power to run. If thinfilm is coming about more to be a reliable source of energy, that may work to charge a single battery to run the HHO ..that would run a generator. 

I like the ideas..keep them coming.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> If thinfilm is coming about more to be a reliable source of energy, that may work to charge a single battery to run the HHO ..that would run a generator.


Oh, my, where to even begin... 

You see, the thinfilm is already produ-


Ow. I have to quit. My irony gland is killing me.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Astronomer
Please explain. If I am wrong or my idea plainly lacks any logic fill me in.
I could use propane to run the generator, but the conversion costs more than the generator would cost so let me know if you have another idea.
I am all ears


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

sssshhh! Don't say the word "free energy" here....many get a little touchy about the term. Excessive energy is ok. Glad you like the info, but I hope still others will join in on the effort. I am kind of the black sheep of the EV family here now. haha

(Personally, I think I am on ignore by some on this forum and they refuse to read anything I say anymore.) 
But hey, I was always trying to bring something into the light, discuss it and then research it more to see if it was feasible to use in our EV world. I guess my world is a little further out than mars from their point of view. 
Well, take it as it is, just information and if something comes about to be "proven" I will post it and hopefully others will too. Lexus did a great job on the LEA and bringing out some "proof of concept" that the LEA device did work and was in production. Anyway, without creating a huge stir of who was right and wrong, what was garbage and what was actually worth looking into more, I will just keep posting things I find are possibly useful and people can file the information as they want. 

Astronomer is pretty savy about a lot of things, but even so he is even a skeptic about most things on this thread, but maybe I am wrong. 
I can't speak for him, but I can assume that if he doesn't post back, it was that the Thinfilm technology was reviewed here and it does work very well. A nanotech thinfilm technology is still being developed, but the existing thinfilm solar is not exacly new, but does work well.
HHO is not a bad idea, I have looked into it and started-not finished my own HHO project for my little 1500 watt generator. Will post those as I get time to work on my various projects. So far, HHO does seem to be a workable solution.as you put it..but then finding the right way to get HHO without spending a ton of money is the other problem. 
It is still in the air and which way it falls nobody knows.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

well free energy to me is energy I don't have to pay for once it is running. 
or if I can just use water to make HHO that is free energy to me. 

I saw that in the previous posts some were getting extremely upset at the idea of free energy. I find it actually funny to be blunt.
I did go back and see the thinfilm link was posted and yea it does look like it is great to use, but there is nothing to say where you can buy it. 
Do you know where one can buy this stuff at?


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> Astronomer
> Please explain.


Fair enough. Your request is reasonable, and I appreciate inquisitivosity (is that a word?) more than you can possibly know. 


> If thinfilm is coming about more to be a reliable source of energy, that may work to charge a single battery to run the HHO ..that would run a generator


What you're proposing (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is taking a thin-film solar panel to produce electricity, then using that electricity to charge a battery, then using that battery to produce hydrogen, then using that hydrogen to run a generator, then using that generator to produce electricity.

What you have is a method of converting electricity to electricity in multiple steps. Each conversion step will cost you energy. 

Converting the thin-film solar panel's electricity to hydrogen will use more energy than the hydrogen can ever give back. Using the hydrogen to run the generator will convert much of the hydrogen's energy to heat instead of rotary motion, so that energy is gone as well. And using a generator to convert rotary motion to electricity just isn't that efficient, so you lose a lot of energy there, too.

With all these conversion losses, you would be far better off just using the electricity from the thin-film solar cells directly, because the electrical energy you will get from the generator after all those conversion losses will be but a tiny fraction of what the thin-film solar panel is producing.

And since your goal is to have electricity in the end (from the generator), and since you're starting with electricity at the beginning (from the thin-film solar panels), then why convert at all? It's like going around the world just to visit the house next door. If what you have from the thin-film solar panels is electricity, and if what you want is electricity, then doing nothing is by far your best option. Just use the electricity straight from the thin-film solar panels. as-is.


> sssshhh! Don't say the word "free energy" here....many get a little touchy about the term.


As LeTank's playful jab indicates, it's all in good fun.  I honestly enjoy such topics (far more than discussing politics!) and sometimes let my enthusiasm get the better of me. Although ideas are fair game, I regard LeTank to be a gracious, golden-rule kind of guy (or gal), with optimism to spare, and I would never impugn his (or her) good nature. I can't fault his standing advice to "Just try it!" (which is, after all, the basis of all knowledge and science), but sometimes I feel the need to speak up and temper that with a little applied knowledge.

Welcome to the forum, HighTech. You and your ideas are always welcome here. (But, like I said, ideas are fair game.)

Yeah, sometimes I'm just a grump.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Free Energy is Synonymous with Over Unity. Don't be fooled by either term. Can't have over unity and you can't have FREE energy. Even solar is not free unless you get your panels for free : )


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

: ) Hit the nail on the head. 

(Personally, I think I am on ignore by some on this forum and they refuse to read anything I say anymore.)


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Astronomer
Good point, well said. I just think the solar itself would not be enough to keep the batteries charged. Say if I were at work and I noticed my batteries were low and no place to plug into, i could start the generator to recharge the batteries for the trip home. I am speaking in terms of several hours of charging time by using HHO as the fuel source. The battery would just be charged to make the HHO and the HHO would run the generator. if that makes any sense. if I could get a thinfilm solar cell to charge my car while I was at work and keep it fully charged I would be truly up for putting out the money, if it was reasonable.
I know you have thought this through and solar may just be the trick without the generator, but is the generator still a good idea for a cloudy day emergency kind of thing? If so, would HHO still work for this or is it worth the money to spend for a propane conversion or just use gasoline?
what is the best route to go to ensure a way to have an emergency charging system when there is no place to plug in?


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

HHO is still not a viable form of energy and it is not free energy. It's not overunity but it's not free and as put it won't work as stated. No know system exists of producing on demand HHO to run a vehicle or to even make a significant dent in fuel mileage.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

An HHO powered generator would need to provide enough on demand HHO to power the engine and to power the generator at charging load to work. Don't kid your self in thinking it will work. Just run the things that need to happen in order and you will see it won't work. Pretty simple to see that. No know system of this kind exists and you won't build one that works either. You can try but you will see exactly what happens. : )

It is not that I don't believe. I believe that one can get good efficiency but not something that will run it's self and charge a bank of batteries. If you use a diesel engine running VO or WVO and then couple that to a generator and charge your batteries you have a good carbon neutral system that will work. : )

No free lunch. Don't believe it and don't ever expect it. What you propose IS an over unity set up. Won't work.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Thin film solar panels are actually less efficient but because they are much cheaper to build you can afford more to do the same job but you will need more Square footage space to mount them than with the older style panels. They are not considered free energy. Energy in is always more than energy out. Always. I also like thinfilm because it can be mounted in places where normal panels would be difficult to mount. I like thinfilm because they can be mounted on flexible panels or roofing panels and make a nice smooth install. Good life for these or normal panels. Guaranteed for at least 25 years. They also work better when hotter which is not the same for the type of panels I have. My panels work in high heat but not as well as the thin film panels. Oh well. I still pay no utility bills. I still have a few years yet before they are at the break even point and paid off. After that I won't pay another bill except for repairs if ever needed.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ghottdi, I think he means to charge the battery (one battery) to make the HHO with and then have that as a backup to run the generator, which in turn will charge the batteries for a trip home. It kinda makes sense, except if it is a cloudy day and there would still be a hard time charging anything really.

HHO seems to be somewhat of a question mark as to if it really works without spending a ton of money. Stanley Meyers got his to work very well, but he put a lot of money into it and the conversion process alone was a long drawn out process. So HHO is for those who want to spend a ton of money, tinker around with a lot of time and perhaps make it work. I am just working on a small version for my generator, which I don't know if it will work, but have high hopes. haha. Ghottdi is probably thinking I should hope in one hand and poop in the other, which will come first kind of thing, but who knows. It is a trial kind of idea and I don't want to say "just do it" on the HHO unless you are really determined to make it work with a pocket full of cash.

As for the emergency charge, the best quick fix is to use gasoline unless you want to invest in a small moonshine stil and make your own fuel (ethanol) to burn. Perhaps the best choice. I also looked into propane conversions for a generator and the cost was horribly expensive. So, just look into small generators and see what you can do about fuel costs, since if you only have a gallon fuel tank it should not be much to just do an emergency charge, but you will have to figure on charging for more than just a few hours to get your battery pack up to par to get home. Best keep an extra gas can of gas along just in case. However, solar is good to use even during a cloudy day, even if you get half the usual charge from solar, it helps and will slowly bring up your batteries during an 8 hour work day. 

The other way to get a faster charge is by using expensive batcap, eestor, or 123?? capacitor batteries which take only minutes to recharge. But......It takes money.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

On second thought, let me change my plea to guilty. err. I mean, just use gasoline because the price of sugar and yeast to make ethanol is only a fraction less (not including the cost of the moonshine stil). I have two different generators, well more, but two that I use. The 1850 watt coleman generator goes for 6 hours on one gallon of gas. The 1500 watt Amico generator goes for 8 hours on one gallon of gas. That is running almost at max amps drawn from the generators without over powering them.
Both have a 12 volt charging system built in, but no controller to automatcally shut off the charging unit onboard the generator. So, best to use a battery charger from Napa that runs off 110volt and I can draw 30 amps with my battery charger to charge my batteries with on the 1850 watt generator. Makes it grunt a little, but it survives yet still.

So, unless you want to plant an acre of sugar beets (which will give you 1600 gallons of ethanol with a moonshine stil) and wait till next spring to reap the harvest of sugar beets, best to use gasoline. I would hate to misdirect you this early. haha Gas is affordable to some extent and a gallon or two won't cause you to go broke. Although the whole idea to use an EV is to get away from gas, but when our choices are limited and we have to use a generator, there is no other alternative.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> but is the generator still a good idea for a cloudy day emergency kind of thing?


A generator is a great idea for a range-extender (at least, GM seems to think so ) in any weather, but it will likely have to be conventionally fueled. On-demand HHO production just isn't even in the cards. The GM Volt, by design, requires that the generator (gasoline engine) produce enough electricity (over 50KW) to keep the car running indefinitely. But a much smaller generator (say, 500 watts) that you could run while the car is in a parking lot while you're at work or mall shopping could be almost as useful. Such a system can't run the car indefinitely (as long as you keep the generator fueled, I mean), since the smaller generator won't produce enough energy to keep the wheels running, but it would serve to help top off the batteries if you could run it while the car is sitting in a parking lot.

But if you're running a charging generator unattended, it would be best if it were quiet, so it doesn't look like you've left your car's engine running in the parking lot. Perhaps it would be better to go with a propane tank and a small fuel cell or thermal generator. I'm not sure what the DOT rules on that would be, however.

The great thing about this kind of design is that it's a much simpler form of a Plug-In Electric Hybrid, where you use the range extender only on days when you need it (provided you'll be parking the car sometime during the day, giving the generator an opportunity to charge). I've been involved in a few discussions about using generators as range extenders, and the consensus seems to be that if it doesn't produce 50KW, it's not worthwhile. But if your car lives in a parking lot for much of the time it's away from home, (and you find a way to legally run a generator unattended in a vehicle) you can do with far less than 50KW.



I recently read about a patent given to someone who developed a thin-film PV liquid that you just spray onto a surface. I'll try to look up the info. I don't know how efficient it is, but even if it's less than conventional solar panels, what could be cooler than thin-film solar PV in a can?


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> well free energy to me is energy I don't have to pay for once it is running.
> or if I can just use water to make HHO that is free energy to me.
> 
> I saw that in the previous posts some were getting extremely upset at the idea of free energy. I find it actually funny to be blunt.
> ...


Here is from a quick search to give you an idea. Prices vary on the thinfilm and you may want to google more to find better prices or compare.
http://www.atensolar.com/1.html?m5:cat=/A-Si Panels&psid=RFOUP9rX9FRQip0t8.66

http://www.energymatters.com.au/solar-panels-amorphous-thin-film-c-148_234.html

This from China..their prices are about $2.25 a watt.
http://b2b.tradeholding.com/default...tname/Thin_film_amorphous_solar_panel_module/

It listed on the china b2b trading that 15watt cost $33.00.

Will do more searching later when I get time.
Astronomer and ghottdi probably know about the thinfilm than I do, I think they will be more helpful than my links with thinfilm.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Lets just call it an Ethanol Still. It is meant for fuel grade Ethanol and from a well built and quality still 195 proof can be made at home. The remaining 5 proof is what takes goobs of extra energy. No need to do that if you plan on just running straight Ethanol. Your engine will run 190 proof just fine. I have in the works enough material for making two 6' tall stills for home fuel grade Ethanol production. I plan on converting my honda lawn mower engine to ethanol. A perfect test bed. Then maybe a VW engine. : ) 

We have here in the summer a very large supply of waste fruit to make excellent fuel grade ethanol for our fuel needs. 

Here is a link to my Ethanol Still information. It is for information only. The risk is yours. I will keep the link up for one week so if you want it to use or pass along to other then take it all and do with it as you will. Some info is sorta cheezy but most is very useful information and some is down right perfect. 

http://inertext.homeunix.com/stillinfo/

Enjoy. It is very useful information that will work. 

Pete




LeTank said:


> Ghottdi, I think he means to charge the battery (one battery) to make the HHO with and then have that as a backup to run the generator, which in turn will charge the batteries for a trip home. It kinda makes sense, except if it is a cloudy day and there would still be a hard time charging anything really.
> 
> HHO seems to be somewhat of a question mark as to if it really works without spending a ton of money. Stanley Meyers got his to work very well, but he put a lot of money into it and the conversion process alone was a long drawn out process. So HHO is for those who want to spend a ton of money, tinker around with a lot of time and perhaps make it work. I am just working on a small version for my generator, which I don't know if it will work, but have high hopes. haha. Ghottdi is probably thinking I should hope in one hand and poop in the other, which will come first kind of thing, but who knows. It is a trial kind of idea and I don't want to say "just do it" on the HHO unless you are really determined to make it work with a pocket full of cash.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Thin Film is not actually sprayed but rolled on like in a printing press. It is not a printing process but almost. It is used on flexible backing that can be manipulated and bent and it does work. Ovonics has information. They actually perfected it and now they are making it better. I am not sure if you need to google Ovonics but much is being made in Germany (I think) but it is an american invention. Mostly because in Europe they are actually paying customers. Unlike here where many want things for free!. Ouch. Anyway it is becoming more main stream but look towards Europe and not China knockoffs. 

By the way we have a 7.2 KW solar system on our home. : ) Sweet. Looking for a bunch of NiCad or NiFE flooded batteries for our battery back up system we are starting to build. We plan on a small battery back up solar array with 4 extra panels we were given and they still produce 96% of there new rating. These panels are over 25 years old. Sweeter.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ghottdi,
What a great source of information. Fantastic catalog of ethonal still plans and how to make it. Leave it up and I hope you post it in your profile as well. That information is nice to have around for those who want to make it.

Here is that link again folks..just to make sure you are seeing what I am talking about.
http://inertext.homeunix.com/stillinfo/

Thank you Ghottdi, I even will use that information myself.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I see you like it. Good. See, I am not all hot air. I do lots of search and capture on things that will work. Somethings actually net some real good stuff. I am building a catalog like this for DIY solar hot water as well. Not as good as this but it will prove decent. I did this for my VW TDI stuff too and now have enough information to actually start a repair shop for VW TDI cars. It is a boon of information. We are gathering things like this in our wiki here and in our articles section. Things like this need to be made and then provided to the community. 

I will keep it up for awhile but not forever. I am making it all available in one package so as many who want it can grab it and then more than one person will have all that information and if one looses it they have other resources to get it back. I am freely giving this information and it is not meant to resell it. It was found on the web for free and should remain free. I hope it does. 

I fully enjoyed doing the research on this. Time to go build this winter for a summer run of Ethanol. I am going to make a small version of one of these stills and test it for product quality and ease of use. 

My server is not always up so if you don't get through try again later. I am having issues with my provider providing stable access. We are in the process of fixing that issue. : )

Pete : )



LeTank said:


> Ghottdi,
> What a great source of information. Fantastic catalog of ethonal still plans and how to make it. Leave it up and I hope you post it in your profile as well. That information is nice to have around for those who want to make it.
> 
> Here is that link again folks..just to make sure you are seeing what I am talking about.
> ...


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

EV Update:

My new heat sink should be on my controller within a few days and then tested to see how well it works. : )


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> HHO seems to be somewhat of a question mark as to if it really works without spending a ton of money. Stanley Meyers got his to work very well, but he put a lot of money into it and the conversion process alone was a long drawn out process.


 
LeTank,
I have noticed that you quite often bring up Stanley Myers name when HHO is being discussed. Did you know him? What proof is there that his conversion worked? 

Later,
Keith


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Thin Film is not actually sprayed but rolled on like in a printing press.


The patent I referenced was actually for a spray-on PV "paint" rather than a printable substance. The advantage is that you can spray it directly on an existing structure (like a car) without having to print it on a substrate first and then apply that substrate like wallpaper. 

I'll look for more info tonight, but I'd bet even money LeTank will post links about it before I do.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



kek_63 said:


> LeTank,
> I have noticed that you quite often bring up Stanley Myers name when HHO is being discussed. Did you know him? What proof is there that his conversion worked?
> 
> Later,
> Keith


Here is what I found, but I have found tons of information in the past about Stanley Meyers and others who tested and even rebuilt the process that proved it worked. I didn't look for all of those files, but here is a nice set of vids and papers to watch and read through to start.

Stanley Meyer Video Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRE8ghD9Ee0&feature=related

Stanley Meyers Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdnOy6EGu9c

Stanley Meyer Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIXjODu7DIA&feature=related

The Story of Stanley Meyers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3n5Y0hOtz0&feature=related

Stanley Meyers car HHO conversion first test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8F44mrrlbA

Another video of the Stan Meyers car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

A video discussing HHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj5twYOxJaY

Here is a list of videos about other research into HHO. Just for fun.
http://www.nextenergynews.com/hydrogen/hydrogenvideoindex.html

One conversion into HHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k9TwF3_FDU&feature=related

Convert water into energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu_4CjA2x4I&feature=related

A list of information from PesWiki. Patents and papers included as well as independent studies of Stans HHO concept.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Video:Water_as_Fuel_(via_ZPE)

Peter L. discusses Meyers HHO cell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM

Some other lit on studies, how it works, and about Stan.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4110288/R...-resonant-electrolysis-cell-system-collection

Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone it was all true and accurate since I myself did not test it, but I do believe it is a working unit.
It is up to you to how much of it you want to believe and file it where you think it needs to be. G for Garbage or ?

Hope this has helped.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I didn't get to look up anything about the Spray on PV silicon for thinfilm solar, but I will take a look later too.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

There are over a million websites that talk about thin film solar. haha

Well, the best way is to find a compilation of info..wiki is best.
I just looked this one up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film

Astronomer may have better luck with the spray can PV Thin Film search.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The following is a response by Chris M. to the Stanley Meyer story on Autoblog Green. I agree with this guy. My Father-in-law was sold a "Dealership" by Stan Meyer (I couldn't talk him out of it). Stan was a very charismatic man who "invented" a very clever way to extract large amounts of money from gullible environmentalists and dreamers. I think he even may have had a *patent *on that process.






There are always scammers taking advantage of any crisis to bilk people. There is a variety of bogus "free energy" devices being sold by scammers, but all have certain things in common: 

1) Use of bafflegab, a scientific sounding but fictional description of how the device supposedly works. Oddly, the scammer usually has no scientific credentials and is often disdainful of real science and scientists, but wants it to sound scientific. (BTW, Gilleran, nice bit of bafflegab rant!) 

2) They aim their spiel at scientifically illiterate people looking for simple answers to complex problems, and who are eager to pay big bucks to any huckster that sounds "honest". 

3) They do their best to look and sound "honest", often putting on a "good ole boy" act, even quoting bible scriptures, calling on God and Jesus. Avoid anyone who tries to claim God as a busines partner and Jesus as his CEO - it is almost certainly a scam. 

4) They are secretive and don't want anyone closely examining their device. Not suprising, they don't want anyone figuring out how the trick is done, where the hidden fuel is located, what is the real power source. 

5) They promote the notion of dark conspiracies against them. This makes it easy to explain their secretiveness and helps discourage their dupes from talking to authorities. If the scammers do get busted, they accuse the authorities of being part of the conspiracy, and even at the trial the victims still support the crooks and refuse to help the police! 

That fits Stan Meyers. His bafflegab description of using the "natural resonance frequency" of water to split it is nonsense - water does have several natural frequencies but all are much higher than his simple electronics could ever hope to achieve. When struck by a "natural H20 frequency", water does not break apart, it simply absorbs it and heats up. That's how microwave ovens work, they use one of the resonant frequencies of water. The laws of physics still apply, it still takes a lot more energy to "break up" water than can ever be recovered by burning the resulting H2 in any engine. 

It is easy to hide a fuel supply in the rats-nest of hoses and wired in a modern engine. He even could have used a metal that reacts with water or acid to make H2 and metal oxide, hidden in plain sight right there in the electrolyser, producing prodigious amounts of H2, even without any electricity, until the "special electrode" corrodes away. 

I have heard absolutely no evidence that Stan Meyers death was due to any kind of poison, just wild suppositions and unproven accusations. If they did have any proof, why didn't they take it to the DA? Oh, right, the authorities are all part of the "big conspiracy"... Yeah, right... 

Of course, the conspiracy nuts will now accuse me of being "an oil company employee" or "part of the illuminati" or "an evil alien" or "a flunky for Bush" or maybe all of the above. Total nonsense, of course, but nonsense is what these folks deal in.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, if he was a scammer, he had the wool pulled over a lot of peoples eyes, including NATO whom he signed a contract with the day he died. A few hours later he yelled, "I have been poisoned" and ran out to the car by his brother and died. 

Google Stan Meyers and how he died. 
or look at this link and follow some hints off it to lead you to the full story, which I don't remember where it is at the moment.
Autopsy Report:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg14099.html

Kinda wierd I would say if it was a scam. NATO? The same day? Maybe I am wrong.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

or this link, I think I gave the wrong link before. Just grabbed it out of the air.
http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I read once that Stan Meyer had several degrees including a Phd and even taught at a college.
I think his claims were credible, but to make things more interesting is Japan already made a car that runs off water, tea, salt water, and goes 100km on 1 liter of water. That was this spring. Wonder when we will ever never see that on the roads in usa.

I have a big Q. How many ampers can I get out of a 2000 watt generator?
Want to use a generator as a backup with gottdi's plans for ethanel


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

First, assuming you don't know Ohms Law and the equation to get Amps from Watts, I will just make it easy. Since, it does save time and I am lazy at the moment too. haha

Here is a link to help you out with any Watt to Amps, Amps to Watts, Volts to Watts, etc. Just fill in the boxes you know and hit "calculate". 
Saves some headaches as well. Plus you don't have to remember the equation or how to flip flop it around to get either answer.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Bowden/ohmslaw.htm

Hope that helps.

About the Japan H20 car, was just looking at that last night on youtube, but didn't save it or post it. So, I went back and looked it up again.
Here is the link for the Japan H20 car you were mentioning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jivb7lupDNU

HighTech,
Oh, I should add that if you are stating something others may be interested in researching more about, please post the link or a link about the topic in which you are discussing (which I did for you). It just helps the "proof of concept" case much better. Not trying to be mean, just pointing that out. It helps a ton on this thread.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> or this link, I think I gave the wrong link before. Just grabbed it out of the air.
> http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm


LeTank,
Do you read through the links that you post? Both of the links you posted (and their sub links) contain articles that support my theory as much as your's.

Do you honestly believe that a car that was proven to run on only water, would only be featured in one local, small town news story?

If you do believe, why don't you send his brother some money. I'm sure he is only a "couple of months/years" away from success.

Keith


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> I read once that Stan Meyer had several degrees including a Phd and even taught at a college.
> I think his claims were credible,


So are you saying that an educated person can't be a scammer. Or are you saying that it takes an educated person to break the laws of physics?


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I agree to some extent. Good points. It can go both ways, but it takes either someone to prove he was right or prove he was wrong. 

As for the HHO, it can work as there are HHO vehicles out there running off of HHO, even US Auto Companies have developed them, but with HHO fuel cells. However, having an HHO fuel cell to run off was expensive and still was just like putting fuel in the car, money out of your pocket and the same thing we were all trying to get away from each day. Saving money by having an EV is just the way to go. 

As for trying to build a good enough unit to put out enough.."enough" HHO to run a generator is up in the air. Looks like it could be done if you had your own HHO fuel cell setup, which then you would still need to use solar or wind to create the HHO from a home base unit. Probably too much in costs to even tinker with. 

However, there are vids and HHO units you can buy that produce HHO, but they may only be enough to idle your vehicle or maybe they do work better than we all think. I know from Stans version he was using anywhere from 30 amps to 60 amps to get enough HHO. That is a lot of drain on the common battery and a short time to run anything from the unit. Then again, who knows, maybe someone has perfected it in their own garage and it is a great way to go. More research needs to be done on this to prove it works or doesn't work, either way.

The ethanol ghottdi pointed out is sufficient enough for the job and requires less money to invest in to produce ethanol to run a generator. That is probably what I will be looking more towards for a fuel source for my generator. 

Thanks Ghottdi for correcting me on my theory on how much ethanol would cost, since what you provided seems to be cost effective and worthwhile to invest such a small amout into to have a viable fuel source for a generator setup in an EV as a backup.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh, I wanted to add that I found a cool video on getting energy from air. haha
Anway, check it out and tell me what you think. I am going to try it out just for fun since I have all the parts laying around here. Will try to see how many different versions I can create to get a little more amps. Right now they are only getting milliamps from such units. There are several posted on youtube.
Here is one of the links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYYysBEwA6w

Kind of fun to tinker with. Is useful in charging a cell phone anyway.

And another really cool idea to have light in your home in darker areas during the daytime. I have to give the inventor some credit for this idea. Cheap, easy and it works. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS3764DmIP4&feature=related


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well I have to say bunk to the first one and way cool for the second one. I can attach my meter to the ground and to a tree leaf and get some voltage and milliamps. So I guess it is free energy but not enough to do anything with except to say it's free and it's recordable. 

But that sky light idea is pretty sweet. It is a different way to make a skylight and yes skylights work and can help save electric use. Making holes through the roof though is not exactly what I want to do. Maybe some plastic tubes can be used in the same fashion rather than just water in a bottle. Maybe water filled long tubes and have a tube the length of the roof to the floor. Long vertical skylight. : )


Pete : ) 




LeTank said:


> Oh, I wanted to add that I found a cool video on getting energy from air. haha
> Anway, check it out and tell me what you think. I am going to try it out just for fun since I have all the parts laying around here. Will try to see how many different versions I can create to get a little more amps. Right now they are only getting milliamps from such units. There are several posted on youtube.
> Here is one of the links.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYYysBEwA6w
> ...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I found some more links just for fun.
Then I will get back to EV's. haha

I am just posting these for fun only. Just to add some fun to the thread and give ideas to play with since winter is here. 
Nothing serious here, just good fun.

Some wild and fun ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaLcyFg3BXA&NR=1

A cool water to energy idea at MIT. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY1eyLEo8_A&feature=related

A much better video about the neat little free energy from air circuit.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/915226/free_electricity_from_thin_air/

This may be a cool thing to work with a rectennea for capturing microwaves. I can't remember who brought that up on here. Might be fun to play with. 

Ideas may be small, but fun. If anything at least you can charge your phone in your EV and save your batteries...if you don't want to pay for a solar panel. 

Ok, maybe I am proven wrong about the cost of HHO to run a car with.
Here is a short vid of a South Carolina Police department running their vehicles on tap water that is converted to HHO to get an extra few miles per gallon.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1696457/shock_police_uses_water_instead_of_gas_for_all_cars/

GM Hy-wire HHO salt water run vehicle.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1324927/gm_hy_wire_car_that_runs_on_hydrogen/

This mans car Runs only on water. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE68OsG3Vpc

So maybe there is something good to the HHO concept. If they can run a car, we should be able to run a generator for our EV.
I guess I will keep working on my little HHO concept to see if I can get my generator to run.

Show at Las Vegas, hho units that charge laptops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJbI7WIoEyg

Why don't we have these already available? I want one. haha


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Am I missing something in this video or is this man pulling our chain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-mxnCqUTM4

What is your take on this?


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Great video showing nanosafe batteries, charge in 10 minutes and a range of 120 miles per charge on an SUV. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8&feature=related

I was looking for vids on nanosafe batteries, this is short, but nice to see.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I think your looking in the wrong direction LeTank. I've been down this road myself, and honestly its a waste of time. Posting on a site, any website about perpetual motion, or and derivitave of it is pointless. As you've seen you will get numerous arguments against you and very little support for you. 

If your looking to extend the range of your EV, or "possibly" extend it any distance perhaps you should look into thermoelectric modules. I don't know a lot about these, however generally the power generating capacity is approx 10% ( E.G. the 60 watt module in your t-electric cooler should put out approximatly 6 watts ). If a car requires 15 Kw to run 100 KM, you'd require 2500 of these modules to generate enough power to make your EV inlimited mileage. Normally you use a heat sync with these, however I think ( could be wrong ) that the cooling from the air movement over the body of the vehicle should be sufficient. If memory serves a 60 watt module is about 3" by 3" so you'd have to cover a minimum of 52 sqft of your vehicle in these modules. Now I should note I've never tested this idea, I had plans to test a homemade module attacked to the top of a canopy for my truck but it met a snowbank with some nasty rocks last winter...lol. Also by making body panels out of these you wouldn't be increasing any drag. you could also use them as acooling type system around your electric motor, it should work...i read an article a while back that was talking about replacing the current altinators in a ICE scenerio with thermoelectric generators attached to exhaughst. Also this technology is employed in homes, using panels in doors, windows,etc to generate electricity from the temperature difference between outside and inside. IF this is a viable method, why hasn't it been done? The oil industy...here alone I can think of 4 provinces that would be almost bankrupt without the oil industry.

As per perpetual motion, like I said I've done a lot of research into this. Most perpetual motion devices are hoax's, scams,etc like the others here have said. However an arguement for your side here is nature upon itself is perpetual. Essentially the earth is a huge perpetual motion device....but that is an arguement for another day. What I would do is look into hydroelectric dams, they are in essence a perpetual motion device. During hours of low consumption in some locations they use the power they generated from the water to pump it from the lower resevoir back into the upper. IF this was expelling more energy that it created they would not do this. 

Wind power for EV, has anyone here actually done the calculations? A giant wind turbine is out of the question for both legal and safety reasons, however a design simular to a squirl cage under the hood of your vehicle. Someone should overlook the calculations at 100 KM/hr..I think you'll find that the potential power output is much more than the power consumption. Off hand I believe the potential power is 40 to 50 KW/hr. The claims here that it will increase the drag of the vehicle IMO are bogus and unwarrented. If you are using a vehicle and NOT modifing the body in any what soever way then the drag should no change. However, if you are channeling the air ( which passes into the grill with an ICE ) through a chamber and allowing it to escape you should in fact be reducing the amount of drag. And in the event that you DID increase drag, you cant tell me its going to take an extra 67HP electric motor to offset it? The rough equivalent to gas is 1:4 isn't it. That would be saying it would take an additional 268 HP ( with an ICE ) to move the vehicle??? This is highly unlikely. This is why IMO the claims that it will not work are bogus.

As I'm sure I'll get slammed here for what I've said, I'd almost be dissapointed if I didn't...lol. I do not mean to offend anyone and have no intentions of getting into any pointless yes/no arguements. These are my opinions and mine alone. If you wish to challenge them, offer me proof as to why I'm wrong and stay open minded. And please remember that simple flight was once impossible; the "laws of nature" did not allow it anyone claiming they could fly were fanatics!!


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Great video showing nanosafe batteries, charge in 10 minutes and a range of 120 miles per charge on an SUV.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8&feature=related
> 
> I was looking for vids on nanosafe batteries, this is short, but nice to see.



Even if these do work, they wont work for at home. If you want to go 120 miles on a charge and your vehicle consumes 250 w/mile you need to be able to charge 30,000 watts ( 30 Kw ) in 10 minutes. You need....180 Kw/hr service. I don't know about where you live, but here i have a 100 amp service, that's only 24 Kw service. Nowhere the power needed to charge these. You'd have to charge for ever an hour, setting aside the household usage. I think you'd be looking at 2 to 3 hours charge time.

You'd need a 750 amp service, not counting loss's for conversions.To charge those in 10 minutes. Also, the weight of an SUV, I don't know what the watt/mile is but I doubt its as low as 250 w/mile.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> Even if these do work, they wont work for at home. If you want to go 120 miles on a charge and your vehicle consumes 250 w/mile you need to be able to charge 30,000 watts ( 30 Kw ) in 10 minutes. You need....180 Kw/hr service. I don't know about where you live, but here i have a 100 amp service, that's only 24 Kw service. Nowhere the power needed to charge these. You'd have to charge for ever an hour, setting aside the household usage. I think you'd be looking at 2 to 3 hours charge time.
> 
> You'd need a 750 amp service, not counting loss's for conversions.To charge those in 10 minutes. Also, the weight of an SUV, I don't know what the watt/mile is but I doubt its as low as 250 w/mile.


True, they didn't give any hint as to what kind of charging system was used to charge in 10 minutes. But if it was still a few hours to charge, that is still within reason to do a quick charge and head back out on the road again. Would work great with Nationwide charging stations then, but a really relaxed road trip to make it anywhere in a few days time frame. haha

Now I am curious as to what they had for a charging unit and what power consumption was needed. I will research that more. Good point, thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, not much is said about such a charging unit for the nanosafe batteries so it would have to charge with current power grid systems. Give or take a few hours time to charge. Even if it was an overnight charge, it is still worth the extra miles per charge.

Here is altairnano's website. I might beg them to post prices for their 35kwh battery just so we have an idea in price range.

http://www.altairnano.com/profiles/...1&BzID=546&to=cp&Nav=0&LangID=1&s=236&ID=9294


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I looked at there site, I honestly think the quick charge feauture is bullshit. They claim 3 stops for a quick charge using there special high voltage charger. Like I pointed out before, you'd need a 180 KW service to do this. So unless they stopped at 3 small power plants I seriously have my doubts about the quick charge here.

Now that beingsaid I read further :

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/lithium-ion-ele.html

Read down to this,
"
Posted by: domenick | Oct 9, 2007 8:05:25 AM
rick;
I too think that Altairnano batteries have a lot to offer for PHEVs and specially BEVs. Safety + Very fast (10 minutes) multiple (25000+) charge-discharge is exactly what is required.
Let's hope that the current price of about $1000+/KWh will drop to about $300/KWh when mass produced in very large factories in countries with lower labour cost by (2010-2012?) 
Will competition do better? and cheaper? Time will tell"

That being said, these batteries may be a worthy technology, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to want to spend 18 - 24 000.00 on a battery back. I mean the simple deep cycles are running what 150.00 ea from your local RV dealership..they hold a capacity of 2 - 3 KW ea. You could buy 120 of these for the same price. Giving yourself a 360 KW reserve. 

A normal electric vehicle takes 5 - 8 hours to charge right? with a 18Kw pack, your looking at 2 - 2.5 kw/hr. Now if your running 144 volts, theoretically you should be able to pump a "MAX" of 100 amps/hr into these....thats 14.4 Kw ( your cost would only be 1800.00 ). As I pointed out earlier your maximum capacity charging from your house is going to be only 24Kw with a 100 amp service. And if you wanted to match this, you could put 24 batteries and spend 3,600.00 You could charge this completely within say what 1.2 Hrs. You'd need a custom built charger, and I have no idea what the weight would do for the watt/mile ratio there. But you'd have a 28.8 Kw bat bank, you'd have a range ( at 100% depletion ) of 115 miles ( this doesn't take into consideration the difference of the weight of the batteries ). and the same time to charge. 

Even if they drop to 300.00 per KW, to match a 28.8 Kw bat bank its still going to cost you 8,640.00. thats still double conventional batteries.

From the sounds of it you need a vehicle with the range of an ICE. I am in the same predicament...I want a truck, but I have to be able to seat 8. ( yes its going to be custom built...lol ) The point is, you would be better off building a series hybrid. Eliminate the battery bank all togethor...use an ICE as a generator, to run your vacuum for the brakes,etc. There are many possible generators in this scenerio...if your worried about poluting the planet, you could use an ICE converted to run on propane, or if you don't want to pay for fuel you could build a gobar gas generator and run the engine off of that. 

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for a pure electric vehicle that has unlimited mileage, BUT for a vehicle that todays person uses i highly doubt you will see one any time soon, not one the meets the needs of todays person ( e.g. like myself, I need room for 8...lol ).


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/01/12/electric-cars-nanotech-tech-sciences-cz_as_0112nano.html

"Altair's designers say that the key advantage of their battery is that it can in principle be recharged in an unprecedented 10 minutes. Making this a reality, however, depends on building out a network of high-voltage charging stations. That may be easy for one of Phoenix Motor's first customers, namely *Pacific, Gas & Electric* (nyse: PCG - news - people ). PG&E owns its grid. Others, however, may find setting up the logistics for recharging stations more daunting. 
Still, enthusiasm is high within Altair, which raised $40 million from Dubai investment company Al Yousuf in November, even as Altair reported operating losses of $17 million for the first nine months of 2007."

It looks like I was right. They need special charging stations, i honestly dont see how they could have tested this vehicle like they claim when these stations dont even exist.

And a 17 million dollar loss....why would they have this when they supposidly have a proven product?

these points send off the warning bells in my head here....


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yea, the charging would have to be done overnight. If the cost of the batteries or per/kwh was cheaper then it would be worth the money at say $300/kwh. Seems as more auto maker start to use the nanosafe batteries the prices will soon go down. 

I thought RonnMotors had an electric car, perhaps it was just a concept car. I looked up their site and found they made an HHO car instead. (Gas and HHO assisted.) I like the style, but if I remember right the same model was going to be their electric car hit of the year, but they must have scratched it and put in the 450hp gas/hho hybrid instead.
This is kind of heart breaking since the car is a sweet looking car and having it electric would have been a nice starter for their company to go electric.

http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I found a great PDF file that explains HHO, talks about its ups and downs and provides a large amount of DIY plans to build your own. Of course the name on the darn thing is smacks Booster of all crazy things.
Anyway, besides the stupid name, the info is great. Check it out and if you are interested in an HHO run generator for your EV, this looks nice to research.

http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/Smack.pdf


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> Wind power for EV, has anyone here actually done the calculations? A giant wind turbine is out of the question for both legal and safety reasons, however a design simular to a squirl cage under the hood of your vehicle. Someone should overlook the calculations at 100 KM/hr..I think you'll find that the potential power output is much more than the power consumption. Off hand I believe the potential power is 40 to 50 KW/hr. The claims here that it will increase the drag of the vehicle IMO are bogus and unwarrented. If you are using a vehicle and NOT modifing the body in any what soever way then the drag should no change. However, if you are channeling the air ( which passes into the grill with an ICE ) through a chamber and allowing it to escape you should in fact be reducing the amount of drag. And in the event that you DID increase drag, you cant tell me its going to take an extra 67HP electric motor to offset it? The rough equivalent to gas is 1:4 isn't it. That would be saying it would take an additional 268 HP ( with an ICE ) to move the vehicle??? This is highly unlikely. This is why IMO the claims that it will not work are bogus.


Where did you get your numbers from? 50Kw from a turbine mounted behind the grill??? I would suggest you would get more like 50w.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> Most perpetual motion devices are hoax's, scams,etc.


 I think you misspelled the word "All". 


> However an arguement for your side here is nature upon itself is perpetual. Essentially the earth is a huge perpetual motion device....
> 
> What I would do is look into hydroelectric dams, they are in essence a perpetual motion device.
> 
> but that is an arguement for another day.


 How about today?  Though there are things in nature that continue to operate for billions of years (essentially forever), that does not make them perpetual. The reason they're not perpetual because they're not over-unity. No energy is expended to keep a planet in orbit around the sun, and hydro-electric plants are solar powered, requiring massive amounts of energy input from the sun to move tons of water from the oceans to the mountaintops.


> During hours of low consumption in some locations they use the power they generated from the water to pump it from the lower resevoir back into the upper. IF this was expelling more energy that it created they would not do this.


 I'm aware of only three locations where this is done, and it isn't done because doing so creates more energy than it consumes as you suggest. Rather, they are buying energy at a cheap rate at night to pump water into the reservoir, and then allowing it to flow past the turbines during the day, when they can sell the electricity for a higher price than they paid to fill the reservoir the night before. The difference in price between daytime and night-time rates compensates for the fact that filling the reservoir consumes more energy than you get emptying it, and there's money to be made. So it's done for a profit motive (though utilities will do this for load-balancing), not to generate more energy.


> Wind power for EV, has anyone here actually done the calculations?


 Yes.


> I think you'll find that the potential power output is much more than the power consumption.


 And I calculate you'll find that's not the case.


> Off hand I believe the potential power is 40 to 50 KW/hr.


 That's an astounding amout of power (though I'm confused by the per-hour units). A ducted turbine as you describe will give you about 400 watts at 60 mph, which is far less than the energy expended to maintain that speed. 

If your setup could deliver 40 KW as you suggest, then you wouldn't even need a battery. All you would need is a large hill to get you going, and your turbine would generate more than enough electricity to keep you going at 60 mph.  

Your assertion that a wind turbine can be added without increasing a vehicle's drag is predicated on the notion that you first improve the vehicle's aerodynamics (by ducting the air entering the grill, in your example) before adding the turbine. I submit that you're not comparing apples to apples in this analysis. You're comparing a vehicle with improved aerodynamics (a ducted grill) AND a turbine to a vehicle without improved aerodynamics. To asses the value of the turbine, you need to compare identical vehicles (both with a ducted grill for improved aerodynamics), one with, and one without a turbine. What you'll find is that a well designed ducted turbine will contribute an extra 2.1 amps at 60 mph, but the vehicle will require an extra 3.7 amps to maintain speed (assuming 144 volts) due to turbine drag. 

It's logical to think that it is beneficial to add a turbine if the vehicle's aerodynamics can be improved enough to counter the turbine's drag. But the fact is that to any extent you are able to improve a vehicle's aerodynamics, you are far better off leaving it at that and benefiting from improved aerodynamics alone.


> As I'm sure I'll get slammed here for what I've said, I'd almost be dissapointed if I didn't...lol.


 I wouldn't want to disappoint you.  I hope my arguments are cogent and worthwhile, as you (wisely) requested challenges to be. 

And as far as being open-minded goes, I'm always willing to be convinced I'm wrong.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Todays a good day to argue...lol. I have an ice in the middle of being swapped out thats seriously pissing me off...lol.

Ok, hopefully I can explain my point.



> How about today?  Though there are things in nature that continue to operate for billions of years (essentially forever), that does not make them perpetual. The reason they're not perpetual because they're not over-unity. No energy is expended to keep a planet in orbit around the sun, and hydro-electric plants are solar powered, requiring massive amounts of energy input from the sun to move tons of water from the oceans to the mountaintops.


 Well, the suns mass creates gravity which is energy. not electrical, but it is energy. The suns gravitational pull keeps earth in its orbit. Same as the earths gravitational pull holds us down and the moon in orbit. A perfect example is the tides in conjunction to the moons orbit. I dont understand it enough to argue the point, i was quoting a 6th grade text book.

What hydroelectric dams are you refering to? the ones here in canada ( according to the info signs outside them ) "use the extra energy during the off peak hours to pump the water from the lower resevoir to the upper resevoir"



> Yes.
> Quote:
> I think you'll find that the potential power output is much more than the power consumption.
> And I calculate you'll find that's not the case.
> ...


 Hmm...you've lost me..lol. I used the calculations from otherpower.com. I based the turbine idea on a squirl cage from a furnace blower. I used the size based on what a turbine would be if it were the side of a hood. I did the calculations based on 100 KM/hr. the 40 - 50kw was off the top of my head, i don't know exactly what it came out to, it wasa long time ago that i did the math...lol. 
My point that the drag would be no more/no less is the wind is essentially hitting a solid wall in the grill with the ICE and rad sitting there. With them gone and a ducted turbine ( weighing less than the engine/tranny combo ) vented would allow the air to pass through easier essentially reducing the drag. I am curious though, what is the equation you are using to calculate the potential output of a ducted turbine running a perminent magnet altinator? 



> Originally Posted by *Beyonder*
> _Most perpetual motion devices are hoax's, scams,etc._
> I think you misspelled the word "All".


 No, I have to stick with most here. To say all are scams would mean to closed minded. I will go as far to say that ALL of these devices to date are scams, but I would not say ALL are. I hope as I asume you and most others do to that someone might figure it out. Not holding my breath, but it would make things lot simpler. lol.


You seem to be very educated in electric vehicles, I am still learning. I've tinkered with the various aspects in different applications, but never an electric vehicle. What do you think about my idea of making thermoelectic body panels to help with recharging the battery pack using the heat difference between the engine compartment and the outside temperature of the vehicle as it is accelerating? Body panels would be difficult for a DIYer to make, however I was thinking about the ducting...for arguements sake lets say you ducted the air from the grill out the back of the vehicle ( simular to exhaughst ), running thermoelectic modules down the pipe? To counteract the heat loss leading the the back of the vehicle you could use a coil wrapped around the electric motor running glycol to move the heat overtop of the t-electric modules. This should offer sufficient heating on one side and cooling on the other side to make the module generate electricity. The modules are easy enough to get, the pipes are easy enough to get ( you could use copper or exhaughst pipe for trials ). Although I suggested in a previous post that you may be able to offset the power consumption of the motor lets disregard that and go with the idea of range extension  

If I'm right you could generate 96 watts per foot ( per pipe ), the average car would be...16 - 18ft long? so 1536 - 1728 watts per pipe ( per hour ). if these were 4 to 6" pipes, you could run 2, potentially generating 3.072 - 3.456 KW/hr If you running 15 Kw/100km then you could extend your range 20KM ( 10km per pipe ). Does this sound right to you? It shouldn't add any drag since its allowing the air to flow free and there are no moving parts. I don't know a lot about these modules other than i run a small panel made from them that generates 50 watts/hr continous from a wood stove ( Runs my computer for a few hours a day...lol ). 



> I wouldn't want to disappoint you.  I hope my arguments are cogent and worthwhile, as you (wisely) requested challenges to be.
> 
> And as far as being open-minded goes, I'm always willing to be convinced I'm wrong.


 I like the way you argue, plz argue some more


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> I found a great PDF file that explains HHO, talks about its ups and downs and provides a large amount of DIY plans to build your own. Of course the name on the darn thing is smacks Booster of all crazy things.
> Anyway, besides the stupid name, the info is great. Check it out and if you are interested in an HHO run generator for your EV, this looks nice to research.
> 
> http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/Smack.pdf


 
I skimmed the PDF. do you remember a number of years ago the guy in the states that claimed he built a carburator that could run on water? this is it basically. I have a few problems with this booster :

1. I didn't see the MPG increase claimed anywhere ( mind you ionly skimmed it ). But, they are suggesting you use 20 to 30 amps of power. at 13.8 vdc. This is 276 - 414 watts of power. A gas engine uses 1/2 lb of fuel per HP output. 414 watts is .55 HP. If memory serves gas weighs 6lbs per gallon. Therefor 1/2 lb is .6 Litres. your going to consume .3 L to run this device.

2. Its unpressurized. A good comparison is propane, methane, gobar gas, natural gas,etc. they are all pressurized

3. Its unregulated. They are using electrolysis to create hydrogen and then dump it raw and unregulated into the engine.

4. Other than the obvious safety reasons, they suggest you modify the output voltage of the oxygen sensor because the engine will think its running to clean...with the risk of sounding like an ass this is bright flaming bullshit! I don't even know where to start...hmmm. Ok, if this is done and this is if you could get sufficient pressure to inject into the engine to do anything, first off I'd hope there is a regulator on there. without it well..please dont come around my house..lol. The ignition of hydrogen will increase the pressures inside your engine exponentially...heat is heat this doesn't cool the engine at all. Honestly IMO with sufficient pressure your engine is going to explode. Space shuttles use hydrogen because of the stored energy, if gas were enough forthem they would use it. As for the engine running to clean, I dont understand this..the engine wants to run clean. The oxygen sensor calculates the amount of oxygen to fuel ratio, sends a voltage back to the computer telling whether it needs more fuel or not. I'm not sure if I can explain this properly, but here goes : If your engine is getting a bigger bang for its buck, your going to reduce throttle. The O2 sensor is going to register more fuel to O2 ratio. therefor its going to send this to the ECU which in turn is going to reduce the fuel its pumping into engine. You would essentially be replacing one fuel for another, and the o2 sensor would be doing its job. Put a circut board in there to "fix the voltage" hell they'd be better off saying "here use this 2 volt power supply and dissconnect your o2 sensor all togethor". 2 volts may not be the ideal voltage but you get the point. This sounds good, but the problem is your vehicle wont run. It'll start, but it'll idle rough, it'll spit it'll sputter and as a result its slowly self destruct itself ( that is if the hydrgen leave anything attached to the frame ). 

5. How does hydrogen cool the engine? it explodes...they are confused here. Notrious oxide cools the engine...water injection will cool the charge...hydrogen will blow up in your face. 

Hydrogen is a wonderful chemical, the thing stopping mass production of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is safety concerns. The storage tanks required,etc. Even fuel cells produce "hot" water and electricity as a by product, nothing cold there.

I may be wrong in some of what i've said, but I've seen first hand what carelessly playing around with hydrogen can do and I DONT recomend it. It is very dangerous and you could be seriously injured or killed from it. Something to consider however is look for a propane/methane fuel cell. I don't know who sells/manufactures them, but they would produce the electricity and may help your ideas along.

If you want hydrogen tho..I dont recomend it, but you can build a small gobar gas plant, this will produce methane with a mix of gas's...run it througha scrubber to separate the hydrogen and make it more pure methane content. You can use both to run a fuel cell....be careful though...methane WILL kill. Also its a greenhouse gas and does more harm to the environment than burning it. 
A propane fuel cell may be more economical since its widely available.

Just my thaughts tho...I cant stress enough dont screw with hydrogen, it'll kill you...


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

One of the most fascinating ideas I've found that has some credibility, is the work being done to reproduce Stanley Meyer's water injection system utilizing the plasma spark. As A member of various other both private and public forums I can tell you that these people are getting close. Here is a link to a very informative video Pay attention and find out about the Meyers Injection system. and a later spin-off The FireStorm plasma sparkplug. Talk about suppression! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9071695126208320206


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh yea, there are about 30 vids, from these guys. Also here is a vid, on how the Stan Meyer injection system worked. Courtesy of "Energyunderground". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp7hMUXjmI&NR=1


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> I skimmed the PDF.
> 
> 4. Other than the obvious safety reasons, they suggest you modify the output voltage of the oxygen sensor because the engine will think its running to clean...with the risk of sounding like an ass this is bright flaming bullshit! I don't even know where to start...hmmm. Ok, if this is done and this is if you could get sufficient pressure to inject into the engine to do anything, first off I'd hope there is a regulator on there. without it well..please dont come around my house..lol. The ignition of hydrogen will increase the pressures inside your engine exponentially...heat is heat this doesn't cool the engine at all. Honestly IMO with sufficient pressure your engine is going to explode. Space shuttles use hydrogen because of the stored energy, if gas were enough forthem they would use it. As for the engine running to clean, I dont understand this..the engine wants to run clean. The oxygen sensor calculates the amount of oxygen to fuel ratio, sends a voltage back to the computer telling whether it needs more fuel or not. I'm not sure if I can explain this properly, but here goes : If your engine is getting a bigger bang for its buck, your going to reduce throttle. The O2 sensor is going to register more fuel to O2 ratio. therefor its going to send this to the ECU which in turn is going to reduce the fuel its pumping into engine. You would essentially be replacing one fuel for another, and the o2 sensor would be doing its job. Put a circut board in there to "fix the voltage" hell they'd be better off saying "here use this 2 volt power supply and dissconnect your o2 sensor all togethor". 2 volts may not be the ideal voltage but you get the point. This sounds good, but the problem is your vehicle wont run. It'll start, but it'll idle rough, it'll spit it'll sputter and as a result its slowly self destruct itself ( that is if the hydrgen leave anything attached to the frame ).


 You stand corrected. The O2 sensor maintains the air/fuel mixture by sampling the air inside the exhaust system and comparing it to the outside air, makes adjustments to try to maintain the 13.5 or what ever ratio the computer has been programed to as the ideal air/fuel ratio. Hydrogen even as a booster to gasoline causes a more complete burn of fuel in the combustion chamber.(less emissions) the computer sees this clean burn as a lean condition and adjusts the mixture (adding more fuel) until it receives the signal that the fuel mixture is now within its ideal range.[again Programmed] When you first crank the engine the system operates in what is known as open loop mode where the computer does not make any changes to the air fuel mixture. after the sensors warm up the computer starts receiving its signal from the O2 sensor and commences its continual up and down mixture adjustments.(trying to maintain the mixture within this base line). This being said no matter how much fuel the engine is given run wide open or at idle the computer will still receive the signals from the O2 and makes its adjustments. Also auto manufactures design the systems to run rich in the ideal preset area.Thats why tampering or removing a O2 sensor is a no-no. 
There are devices that will trick the computer into thinking its within its designed perimeters. You have to make the computer think a Rich condition exists so it cuts back on the fuel to correct. These are Known as "EFFIE" devices and can most of the time improve your mileage without a hydrogen booster. But without the hydrogen running to lean of a mixture can cause damage to the engine.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about combustion engines to comment on the efficacy of injecting hydrogen. I have an opinion on the usefulness of generating HHO on the fly to burn immediately in an ICE which then turns a generator to generate HHO on the fly, but I've already made my opinion known on that front.


> Well, the suns mass creates gravity which is energy.


I know that both gravity and magnetism appear to be "energetic" due to their mysterious ability to affect objects at great distances. But in reality, gravity (along with magnetism) isn't energy at all. It is just a force. (Not that that is any small thing, mind you.) But, like any force, gravity can be used to convert energy from one form to another, as it does when (for example) converting potential energy to kinetic energy when coasting down a hill, which can be quite useful at times (like, for instance, when going down a hill). But when all forces balance, there is no energy conversion going on. Though it's a little more complicated, a planet in orbit is in a similar, stable balance of forces that, say, a mug sitting on a desk is in. It requires no energy expenditure (or, more precisely, no energy conversion) to maintain that state since the forces are balanced.


> A perfect example is the tides in conjunction to the moons orbit


That is, indeed, a remarkable example! Entire oceans are lifted and dropped again, twice a day! That takes ENORMOUS amounts of energy! That's no stable, steady-state condition. So where does that energy come from if gravity isn't energy?

Actually, what's going on is just energy conversion, facilitated by the force of gravity. The Earth's rotational kinetic energy is converted to rising and falling tides. (Actually, the Moon causes the initial tidal bulge, which would otherwise be steady-state, but the Earth's rotation causes this bulge to move around to make the tides move in and out.) And the rising and falling tides are converted back to kinetic energy as they gravitationally pull on the Moon and speed it up in its orbit. So the Earth is slowing down, making each day slightly longer than the one that preceded it, and the Moon is speeding up, making it creep farther and farther away in its orbit. This is a MASSIVE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TRANSFER from the Earth to the Moon! But gravity, instead of being the source of that energy, merely provides the relentless force that converts that energy and facilitates the transfer. The energy actually comes from (and at the expense of) the kinetic energy of Earth's rotation. Once the Earth slows down enough to match the orbit of the Moon, this energy transfer will stop, steady-state will be achieved, and there will be no more tides moving in and out at the beach. All the rotational kinetic energy available for conversion will be gone, and all the gravity in the universe won't be able to convert any more.


> What hydroelectric dams are you refering to? The ones here in canada [...] "use the extra energy during the off peak hours to pump the water from the lower resevoir to the upper resevoir"


They're not hydro-electric dams, actually. Two are privately-owned facilities that do nothing but fill a mountain reservoir at night, and empty it during the day just to sell electricity to a utility company at a higher price during the day than they pay for it at night to run the pump. They do this for a profit, and it consumes more energy than it produces. The utilities don't mind (and even encourage) this, however, because the practice helps them deal with peak loads during the day (load balancing), and alternatives would cost the utilities more than letting these guys run their pumps at night.

The third was a generation plant (not hydro) that built its own reservoir to do this for load balancing purposes. Though I'm not familiar with the hydro dams in Canada, I'd bet even money that they're doing this for load-balancing reasons.


> You seem to be very educated in electric vehicles


I'm definitely not. That's why I'm here -- to get an education. But thanks to you and others on this forum, I've begun my education in EVs in earnest. Thanks for helping!


> What do you think about my idea of making thermoelectic body panels to help with recharging the battery pack using the heat difference between the engine compartment and the outside temperature of the vehicle as it is accelerating?


I think your idea will work a lot better in Canada than it will in Texas! 

I have considerable doubt about whether the motor/controller will produce enough heat to make capturing worthwhile, even with drag and extra weight minimized or even eliminated. Electric motors are pretty efficient. Some waste only 5% of supplied energy as heat. Even if you could recapture and convert ALL of that 5%, it would improve your range by only 5.26%. (Yeah, you heard that right. 5.26%. Take THAT all you over-unity deniers! ) And you're not going to recapture it all in any case. Also, your watts-per-foot-of-pipe value can't hold true for arbitrary lengths of pipe. At some point, no more heat can be extracted, and adding more pipe will be of no value. I have no idea what that point would be, however.

I will say this: The amount of heat to be captured and converted will be the same whether you capture it at the body panels, or in a tight enclosure just an inch away from the heat source (motor). It's like a side serving of distasteful vegetables. Spreading them out all over the plate to make it look like you've eaten some doesn't really change the actual vegetable mass, and bigger dinner plates are less efficient. (Okay, that analogy didn't go where I wanted it to go, but I think you get the idea. Suffice to say that capturing diffuse heat in a large volume is probably more difficult than capturing the exact same amount of heat concentrated at the source.) 

Though I'm doubtful that it would be worthwhile, I do concede that there is heat energy there that can be captured and converted to some amount of electrical energy. To determine whether that amount is useful, I'm afraid you'll just have to experiment to find out for yourself!  (Just be sure not to overheat the motor if you use an enclosure.)


> plz argue some more


Well, dang! You're easy to please!


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Both Beshires1 and Astronomer had a lot of good points. Great info by the way.

As for the HHO assist, it is merely just enough produced to give a few extra miles and it will not blow up the engine. I could go through a ton of links and post them all here about HHO assist or running a car or generator off pure HHO, which they are doing in Japan. 

Here is the link of the HHO assist on a police vehicle, which they are converting all their vehicles in S. Carolina with HHO. 
Not the best video quality, but it works. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfeBUdARbMU

Japans H20 Car. Think I posted this earlier on a different post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME&feature=related

So it can be done. Stan Meyers version was putting out a large amount of HHO, but he had a way to control how much amps were being used and a relief pressure valve to keep the HHO under control.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Wild and cool at the same time, I found this link to Suppressed Inventions.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/supressed_inventions/suppressed_inventions.htm#Contents

Just for fun.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> You stand corrected. The O2 sensor maintains the air/fuel mixture by sampling the air inside the exhaust system and comparing it to the outside air, makes adjustments to try to maintain the 13.5 or what ever ratio the computer has been programed to as the ideal air/fuel ratio. Hydrogen even as a booster to gasoline causes a more complete burn of fuel in the combustion chamber.(less emissions) the computer sees this clean burn as a lean condition and adjusts the mixture (adding more fuel) until it receives the signal that the fuel mixture is now within its ideal range.[again Programmed] When you first crank the engine the system operates in what is known as open loop mode where the computer does not make any changes to the air fuel mixture. after the sensors warm up the computer starts receiving its signal from the O2 sensor and commences its continual up and down mixture adjustments.(trying to maintain the mixture within this base line). This being said no matter how much fuel the engine is given run wide open or at idle the computer will still receive the signals from the O2 and makes its adjustments. Also auto manufactures design the systems to run rich in the ideal preset area.Thats why tampering or removing a O2 sensor is a no-no.
> There are devices that will trick the computer into thinking its within its designed perimeters. You have to make the computer think a Rich condition exists so it cuts back on the fuel to correct. These are Known as "EFFIE" devices and can most of the time improve your mileage without a hydrogen booster. But without the hydrogen running to lean of a mixture can cause damage to the engine.


Are you sure? I dont have my automotive engineering books here, they're at my other place about 300 km from here so i cant quote them  but, i still think I'm right. If not about the hydrogen making the o2 sensor read false about being able to trick the o2 sensor into operating properly. My reason is here for example, I'm at an altitude of 1900 Metres, my other place sits around 3000metres or something like that. The o2 sensor gives 2 different readings alltogethor due to the altitude. I've seen this myself with a multimeter. If you trick the o2 sensor into a constant voltage its not going to fluctuate with the air density, burn ratio or anything. So although you may be able to trick it and if you were to drive in the exact same conditions at the exact same altitude then yes I agreee it would work...but going from one place to another I seriously have my doubts. I'm unsure if I'm explaining my point point good enough, but thats from personal experience...not to mention vehicles with 2 o2 sensors? hmm...



> They're not hydro-electric dams, actually. Two are privately-owned facilities that do nothing but fill a mountain reservoir at night, and empty it during the day just to sell electricity to a utility company at a higher price during the day than they pay for it at night to run the pump. They do this for a profit, and it consumes more energy than it produces. The utilities don't mind (and even encourage) this, however, because the practice helps them deal with peak loads during the day (load balancing), and alternatives would cost the utilities more than letting these guys run their pumps at night.
> 
> The third was a generation plant (not hydro) that built its own reservoir to do this for load balancing purposes. Though I'm not familiar with the hydro dams in Canada, I'd bet even money that they're doing this for load-balancing reasons.


hmm, interesting. Tho the sign at the info booth (at the dam I visited ) claims they do this for profit. Perhaps it has something to do with the wholesale price of power? we don't pay a fluctuating rate here we pay a steady rate so perhaps thats why? i really have no idea now...lol.



> I think your idea will work a lot better in Canada than it will in Texas!


Why? In a home the thermoelectic generators operate on the difference between indoor and outdoor temperatures. In texas your indoor temperature of your house is still different than outside? With a vehicle this would be greater. I have no idea on how to figure out windchill effect, but I'm pretty sure the temperature difference between the inside of a vehicle ( in the cab or engine compartment ) would be great enough to generate something usefull. 
These modules are very cheap to buy...I seen some 180 watt modules on ebay last week for 9.99 USD. generating capacity should be around 18 watts, not a lot I know, however if your consuming 15 Kw/hr driving 100km/hr ( 70 mph i believe it is ) thats...0.0012% extension in range per module. so a 0.12km increase in range per module? for 10.00. I dont have a way of testing this idea, perhaps someone on here who has some extra thermoelectric modules laying around will make a panel and test this, I'd be really interested to see what the results are. 1 may not be enough, but consider the difference of solar panels...theyre what 1.00 a watt on the low side...these are 0.55 per watt and they could run 24 hrs/day ( presuming you could drive 24 hours a day non stop )...might be worth while for a bus type conversion. 



> Even if you could recapture and convert ALL of that 5%, it would improve your range by only 5.26%. (Yeah, you heard that right. 5.26%. Take THAT all you over-unity deniers! )


5% of 15KW is still 750 watts. thats an extra 3 miles ( at 250 watt/mile ). 3 miles is a big deal with the limited range of an electric vehicle. an extra battery ( 1200 watt reserve ) gives you only 4 - 5 miles extra. 

A better use than extending the range of the vehicle with that potential 750 watts would be to use it to charge the 12 volt aux battery fro runnign lights, radio,etc. This would be a safety benefit as well; e.g. your headlights would not run out of power as long as you were driving.


Now you've got me thinking though, there is another thread on here, I don't know where tho  but they talk about water cooling the motor...this is where i came up with the idea of using the coolant to heat pipes creating a temperature difference.



> To determine whether that amount is useful, I'm afraid you'll just have to experiment to find out for yourself!  (Just be sure not to overheat the motor if you use an enclosure.)


I wish i had a motor to play with already..lol. I'm planning on building one...still waiting for more info on beshires website lol



> Both Beshires1 and Astronomer had a lot of good points. Great info by the way.
> 
> As for the HHO assist, it is merely just enough produced to give a few extra miles and it will not blow up the engine. I could go through a ton of links and post them all here about HHO assist or running a car or generator off pure HHO, which they are doing in Japan.
> 
> ...


hmm...well from my personal experience HHO is not something to experiment with. Not without all the proper safety equipment and ambulance and a fire truck standing by. just my opinion tho...

Giving this some thaught, your getting a few mpg extra right? So in all fairness...your gallon is 4L right? 4.5L to a gallon here...so lets go with 4L, at 3 mpg extra thats .75 miles per L. Your generator is going to consume 414 watts ( 30 amps X 13.8 Volts ). 1/2 Lb gas per HP required, 414 watts is 0.55 HP. 1 Gallon of gas is 6 LBS, thus 1/2 LB of fuel is 0.33 L of fuel. In an average car...lets take a dodge neon for example, they are approximatly 5.7L per 100KM on the highway. This is approximatly..49MPG? the increase of 1/3 of a litre makes it goto 6L per 100 km; 46 MPG so add your 3MPG and your back to 49 MPG....so, IF the system posted previously were able to build sufficient pressure to do anything, what are you gaining? IF i am correct here, all your doing is adding cost to the operations of your vehicle. The 1/3L of fuel extra you need to burn. like I said, IF I am correct.

However I am curious and you've obviously taken the time to research these things so please post the links you have. I am open minded enough to read them  and am happy to be proven wrong...


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> So it can be done. Stan Meyers version was putting out a large amount of HHO, but he had a way to control how much amps were being used and a relief pressure valve to keep the HHO under control.


I have been following alternative fueled vehicles for sometime, when I was 17 I did an experiment with a small truck and hydrogen ( in a tank ) that we had made through electrolosys....I seen the truck explode and jump nearly what looked like 15 or 20 off the ground ( mind you i was busy running away ), so I do apoligize if I come accross like an ass when it comes to the dangers of hydrogen. My mistake back then was no regulator. 


Now onto a more positive note here, I was in walmart today...I was looking at deep cycle / starter batteries. Energizers to be exact...I've run these before and know from first hand experience that they last in high usage a lot longer than regular automotive batteries. Now, these batteries are 800 AMP storage, with a 180 minute reserve time. I used to run 1 of these batteries for 3 days with a consumption of 6 KW over 3 days. The total capacity of these batteries at 12 volts is 9.6 KW so I can assume these are around 60% efficient? I never ran the battery completely dead. Would I be correct in assuming that these batteries are rated for 3.2KW per hour output? with 60% efficiency 1.92KW/hr? And in the useage of an electric vehicle based on a 144 Volt system this would be a 23KW system...and given a 15KW per hour usage at 100km/hr I could logically expect 153 KM range using these batteries? ( Remember these are a deep cycle/starting hybrid battery...basically a battery capable of the high output current required to start with the ability of deep discharge from the deep cycle...just for anyone whos never heard of them...lol ). 


A thaught letank, why dont you look into building your own single cylinder steam engine? An idea would be a hybrid type setup, a single cylinder steam engine with a thermoelectric generator around the steam cyl...perhaps that would extend the range for you? you could use propane,methane,etc or even hydrogen...


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey just thought this site could help with its mpg tips, check it out1
http://www.brightgreen.us/lubedev/smartgas/ultra5.htm


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

What about those links for the HHO sites?


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I truly believe in that suppression of invention stuff. The government wants to be 10 years ahead of the public, which insures the government will not be taken over by a better technological weapon the public has or any other country has. Common sense. 

however, having a way to create energy in any fashion that saves money benefits everyone including the governments around the world. Even power companies could use them and save money and make more profit. It is stupid not to use these technologies at least for energy. It is no threat to anyone and it increases profits and creates a larger market and more jobs. 

It is truly up to the public to make things better because the government has its hands in every large companies pants they don't cate about anyone else, just their own pocket book. Clinton still makes 500 million a year just from Arab nations and he doesn't do anything except show up to new world order meetings. wtf. so the public will be the ones who make their cars go 300 miles per charge and will put solar on their homes and the government will just create its own plan to keep the same gas mileage on vehicles and let everyone else suffer who just doesn't get it. 

so, Ev's are what people are looking at, even if they have to buy one that someone else converted because what gm, ford, and chrysler are selling are too high priced and just about worthless. (just like their stock, worthless)


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I looked up the best Green Cars for 2009 and there were absolutely NO EV'S in the list! Oh man, now that is a nipple pincher. They have only hybrids which included VW, BMW, Saturn, and some dinky Euro car that you can fit in your mailbox. NO EV'S! I demand a recount. 

Update:
Still tinkering with my HHO assist booster for my generator, but my generator is on its last leg. I ran it too many hours and it is about to fall apart of pop a piston. Time to change generators before I try the HHO out. 
The magmotor is still on hold, waiting to get more money at this point and the other one only put out a few amps, but not enough to jump for joy about.
I want to try it out on a larger PMA. Which costs around $450.00 pebbles. That will have to wait for later this winter and all I can do is have my fingers crossed with the new design of a plastic rotor and more powerful button magnets. But it did work...to some degree. Lots of testing and tinkering to do yet. If it sucks, I will just use the new PMA for a windmill instead.
It is up in the air yet.

I was hoping to see something about the new 2009 EV's coming about. Anyone heard about what is the top ten of EV's?
I had someone call me yesterday and yell they saw a Zenn driving around their town, which is nice to hear, but Zenns only go so fast and so little far.
But it was nice to hear there was at least a full blown EV in his town.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

HighTech,
Glad to see others are aware of those things you mentioned.
Truly, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it though at the moment.

If enough people become aware of the abuse of power, they will eventually demand a change. Till then, we have to live with it.

The Technology today that is available is still very effective in getting more distance, but it will have to be tested in a combination with other things in order to get that extended long range. Like we have been talking about such as using solar, regen braking, generator assist, different types of batteries and finding motors that use less energy for more power. Each bit helps.

Some people don't want to spend the money to build a long ranged EV, while others like myself have to look at it because we live far from any city or town. A round trip to the largest city is about 150+ miles. So trying to find a way to get there by EV would be great, then even if the EV had to be charged there for the return trip is still worth the entire project. 

Then there is the aspect of trying to get that extra range from any assist concept, such as the HHO or ethanol run generator. Of course you have to add in weight, but we can just add in the extra time for the trip to stop and recharge with the generator or even run it as we go down the road for the extra few miles. (Could be anywhere from 6 to 15 miles, but hey it is something on the go.) But adding the glob of other charging compnonents such as the solar panels, regen braking or what ever else you use you may be able to get perhaps 30 more miles. Who knows.

We won't know how much more we will get until these have been tinkered with and tested on a working EV. 
If the Carter Charging system works in the X-Prize, which I am assuming is some sort of generator run off either bio-fuel or ethanol, it may give us some idea of how much we can get out of such a unit. We still don't know what kind of charging system they are using, so this is all a guess.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I thought I would add this to this thread since it was quite interesting.
Wind powered Car concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-fhrh5ewsU

Their website is:
http://zerocarbonista.com/

Supossed to be a interview with them on BBC Nov. 24th. 

Is this cool or what?


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

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

This is more what I'm looking for...


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Dream on......


----------



## Jordan (Oct 29, 2008)

Beshires1 said:


> This is if anyone has looked at any of Ed Grey's motor technology how his motor worked. His secret power conversion tube is just a.... sparkplug. Look at this page and imagine the motors field coils and rotor coils in place of D. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ignition-system4.htm This motor that ran off of two sets of battery packs 2 six volt batteries each, was designed by a close friend "Boot" Mallory of the MALLORY IGNITIONS. Also compare Ed Grey's power conversion tube Drawings with a picture of a spark plug. He basically merged the automobile industries's ignition technology with an electric motor then added some of Telsa's ideas to recharge the batteries and WA-LAA . The Electric EV that could get 300 miles to a charge. And the Automobile industry dosn't want it Back.


It almost sounds like you are talking about some sort of variation of the "tesla coil" (invented in the 1890s)?


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I couldn't get a lot of info from watching the video, it was just a truck cruising around and nobody was saying anything. I had to look up their website to figure out what it was about. 

Here is their website.
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/motors/hipa_drive.html

and also here for the PML-hi-pa drive
http://www.hipadrive.com/

About the hipa drive system 
Our breakthrough propulsion system and development platform acts as an electric motor, generator or brake and is several times lighter, smaller and powerful than the conventional electronic propulsion systems and generators it replaces.

Pretty cool, but there is no range or power stats I can see as of yet on their page, still looking though.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

K, here is what I found on the Hipa system for the F-150 Ford Truck.
It has 600hp and goes 100 miles at a top speed of 120 miles per hour.

Not bad. Here is another link to read more about it. That is easy to go through besides hiting link after link like I had to find this.
http://www.hipadrive.com/Documents/pressrelease.pdf

Although it is built in the UK, it would be nice to see them on the roads and perhaps on the market in America. At least then we may be able to get our hands on the motor as well.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Coley said:


> Dream on......


Awwww, thats nice.....By the way, did grandpaw buy ya some ice cream?
http://www.evalbum.com/762


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

I have to say for those who are going by textbook status quo on free energy and it can't be done need to look at this whole thing in a different light. There are several factors to this and why we need to be a little more open minded towards science. 

From specific facts there are reasons why such information was suppressed and kept from textbooks. (I did some digging and here is a few things I found.)

Example of Darwinism and Evolution:
Darwin only proposed the idea of evolution and had not expected his quirky ideas to grab so much attention that it became a religion. Darwin later became a Christian and died with a Bible in his hands and regreted ever bringing up evolution. Fact. Yet, it was adopted by the board of science and placed into textbooks because Christianity or any other religion offered the free will of free thinking. Evolution offers more control.

Example of Tesla:
Tesla invented and offered Free Electricity to everyone. His ideas were dangerous and debunked, his warehouse was set on fire and he was blacklisted and no more funding was given for his projects. It was years later that anyone ever knew Tesla invented AC. The credit was always spread around to others. Fact.

Example of Egyptian Ruins found in Grand Canyon:
The enormous cave found in the Grand Canyon was found in the 1940's, but this was prevented from being put into the textbooks because it caused a stir of mix societies and it was believed the Spanish were in the Americas first. The Egytpian cave was dated back to the time of Ramses. Fact. 

Example of Nuclear Energy as over unity:
A physicist found in the 1940's that one nuclear atom could produce 60,000 times the energy over its existing energy source. The breakthrough was kept secret and the Scientific Foundation prevented that basic information from being put into textbooks because it was completely the opposite of the physics they had already proposed to be written. It would have created more questions and proved the fact there was over unity. When the atom was spit, it produced over 300,000 times more power, even if it was not over unity, it was far greater power than its previous continuous power rating. This also was hushed from the public for many years.

And just another example:
The Land of Ur is stated in the Bible as the land of giants. Bones of Giant people were found in Mexico, California. Nevada, and Arizona. The first recorded find was in the 1800's and others were found through till this day.
One skull was over 4 feet tall. This was kept from the textbooks as well because it gave more evidence leaning towards the Bible. Evolution was to be kept the concept of creation. Such a public announcement would have questioned evolution and gave more credit to the Bible..as yet again it was kept from the textbooks. Fact.

This is only a few.

What is taught in the schools and placed in textbooks is there for control, control of information. Whether it be to benefit large companies (Such as oil) or benefit the idea of control in that if you take away some of the freedom of thinking you can create new avenues for how you want people to think. As in Darwinism and survival of the fittest. Which leads to selective breeding, who lives and who dies and leads to other ideas such as population control. 

So, take a textbook like a grain of salt. If you watch Ben Steins movie called Expelled, you begin to see exacly how stubborn the Scientific Foundation really is and they will only allow what they want in a textbook and nothing else within schools. That is pretty interesting. Anyone trying to step up gets fired, blacklisted and shut out of the system. 

Something to think about.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

interesting....i was actually pointing out that thats the type of vehicle i want...the drive motor seems a bit over powered tho...I'm going to reread that but i didn't notice whether it said it was 600 continuous or peak. even if it were peak thats still in the range of a 100 - 123 HP electric motor. 75 - 93kw usage. a simular size truck without engine ,etc weighs...5 - 6000 lbs...a ranger weighs in the range of 4 000 lbs..30HP runs these to 100km/hr soo i'm guessing a 45 HP requirement minimum for that truck? thats only 33.5 KW...at 100 miles ( 140 KM i believe ) we could be looking at a possible 400KM ( 280 mile ) electric vehicle. Thats something I'd be interested in!

Did you notice the batteries they were using on that electric car they were building in the other video? do you have any info on those?...they looked pretty interesting..mainly for there size...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

If you are refering to the batteries on the wind powered car (Those thin batteries) I will try to find more about them. I may have to write to them for the information, but I am sure many were curious as well and perhaps released the info somewhere on the web. I will keep digging.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I found something on a pure solar car. A Mazda MX-5 Converted to run off nothing but solar in Japan. 
Is anyone here from Japan?

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2007/11/gasoline_car_now_runs_on_solar_power.html

Looking for more.


----------



## Jordan (Oct 29, 2008)

LeTank said:


> Example of Darwinism and Evolution:
> Darwin only proposed the idea of evolution and had not expected his quirky ideas to grab so much attention that it became a religion. Darwin later became a Christian and died with a Bible in his hands and regreted ever bringing up evolution. Fact. Yet, it was adopted by the board of science and placed into textbooks because Christianity or any other religion offered the free will of free thinking. Evolution offers more control.


Not sure this is a good example. Have christians not been know to do everything from exhile to burning people alive for speaking scienctific ideas. Not sure how evolution gains control over anything in a society sense. It simply makes to much sense to any one looking with their eyes open. It really just offers simplicity in an over imaginative world. It is well know that the bible has had books removed and been rewritten countless times all for guess what....control. 

These laws (and textbooks) are in science because it standardizes things in the world. People can spend less time chasing their tail with ideas that do not work, instead spend time progressing a more complete understanding of the world around us.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> If you are refering to the batteries on the wind powered car (Those thin batteries) I will try to find more about them. I may have to write to them for the information, but I am sure many were curious as well and perhaps released the info somewhere on the web. I will keep digging.


yes...the thin ones...they could open a host of design options.

"I found something on a pure solar car. A Mazda MX-5 Converted to run off nothing but solar in Japan. 
Is anyone here from Japan?

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives...lar_power.html

Looking for more."
Its intrestig, but they should be able to get further than they claim. I'd think with a 1Kw array on the hood there ( 1m2 = 1Kw solar ), they'd be able to generate about 7 kw per day...if they're using a 15kw motor thats around 40 to 50 km range. They're numbers are off tho about savings. I don't know what they pay for gas over there, I do know that in korea however they're still fairly high...around 1.20/L I believe. That car should get about 10km/L so they're saving 6L of fuel per day based on 60km/day. so....7.20/day? it'd take 8 years to pay itself off. But, the numbers change for here in canada where we're payng 82.4 cents per litre. It would take 11.63yrs to break even. I think the main issue is the cost of solar panels really, a 1Kw array costs around....4,800.00 ( Retail...not ebay lol )ew pay around 8 cent per kw from the grid. Just to break even on this portion of the vehcle cost would be 27 years based on the cost of buying electricity from the grid ( setting aside the savings in gas). I think because of this it'll be really unlikely that we'll be seeing these o the roads...at least not in the area I live in.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey Guys
I have spent hours reading this thread and I'm surprized no one mentioned
Nicola Tesla's Pierce Arrow experiment back in 1931.
Read a summary of the story here:

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1062

Many will claim that there is no evidence for this experiment and it may very well be just a tall tale. But this is not a story about a Stan Myers or a Troy Reid, men who hitherto had no acclaim or practical usable patents to their names. Who of all the past and present members of the scientific community would be the most likely to achieve success in this area? My vote would be for Nicola Tesla. This man was and still is to this day perhaps the most prolific inventor in the field of electricity. While none of his inventions could be said to have broken the laws of Physics, he clearly took the known knowledge of his day to levels which just scared the shit out of the scientific community. Not to mention that many newpaper editors of his day were accusing him of Black Magic.
Could there be a kernel of truth to the experiment? Could it be that the story like many of it's ilk was embellished for the sake of sensationalism? Did an actual event take place but with somewhat watered results? Before we just dismiss his alleged Pierce Arrow experiment, I would like
someone to tell me that they had personally combed the archives of Pierce Arrow and the local Buffalo, NY newspapers and there is in fact no record or mention of any instance of a liasion between Tesla and the Pierce Arrow company. 
And don't think for a moment that just because paper archives exist, therefore, we already know all their contents.
My daughter was completing a degree in History at Rutgers University.
As part of her final thesis she was sorting through the paper archives of the local historical society here in Freehold, NJ. Her thesis was about life
in the colonies prior and following the Revolutionary War.
During her search she came upon a British flyer offering 25 Pounds reward for the arrest and conviction of an alleged Black leader of the local underground. Months later while reviewing court records she discovered the trial record, confession and conviction of this Black individual and three of his men. She included this in her thesis and two professors at Rutgers wrote that they were astonished to learn that a Black Militia existed during the Revolutionary War. Need I say more about archives........?
I'm not saying that Tesla achieved Overunity or Perpetual Motion or anything like that. What I am suggesting is that it's possible that this Tesla Story grew out of a misunderstood attempt at powering a vehicle with other than internal combustion components. Given the man's prowess
in the fields of Physics and Electricity would anyone be surprized that he
attempted an alternative?
Roy Mann


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> Hey Guys
> I have spent hours reading this thread and I'm surprized no one mentioned
> Nicola Tesla's Pierce Arrow experiment back in 1931.
> Read a summary of the story here:
> ...


I chopped up his quote to save space. Anyway, I have every Patent that Tesla has ever had and there were no Patents for his EV motor. The issue was with a few Patents that some had missing pages. Some Patents only had one partial page and the rest of the Patent is not obtainable. Mysterious to say the least. I have also read about his Pierce Arrow, but there is only a picture to be found and his vehicle has since been missing and nobody knows where this vehicle went to, nor where the electric motor went as well. 

I would surely like to find more about his EV motor, but if someone was related to or has inside information that will offer it to the public, that would be nice. Probably won't happen though.

However, one of Tesla's Patents had a relative appearance to an Electric motor which was some believe a magnetic motor that actually sustained itself by perpetual motion. Some believed it was only a larger hp electric motor running a smaller electric motor, but once you see the design and place magnets on the rotor and on the rim of the motor, you have a totally different outcome. This may have been the EV motor, but hard to say.

Everything about Tesla's EV motor is still trying to be found. Perhaps one day it will come back into the light. We just are in that guessing game right now.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank
The real mystery of the story was not so much the 80hp AC Motor by General Electric (they were at the time licensing his AC patents from Westinghouse).
What was never revealed were the complete contents of the wooden box which supplied the power or the arrangement of it's components. It is alleged that the box contained vaccum tubes and capacitors which he purchased at a Buffalo, NY radio supply shop. According to the story, Tesla built the box and it's contents in his Buffalo hotel room which was not unusual for him. Many times over the years he would construct devices in a hotel room as he was constantly "on the road" exhibiting his inventions.
What else was in that box was never made public. And you are correct,
he never applied for a patent on the power supply. The electric motor was already under his patent which as we know were all sold to Westinghouse.
As for his trip to Buffalo, Tesla made countless trips to that city over the years owing to the fact that he and Westinghouse had the Niagara Electrification contract for Buffalo via their AC Generators installed at The Falls.
So with his familiarity of the city, I'm certain he knew that Pierce Arrow
had their production facility there. They were no doubt one of his biggest customers in the area. Again, it may just be an embellished Tesla Tale but to totally dismiss the experiment we would have to know that no evidence exists in the paper archives of Pierce Arrow or any local Buffalo, NY newspaper. Tesla was constantly hounded by the media of his day. If he did in fact spend a week at Pierce Arrow, it's likely the story was covered by the newspapers. Lacking evidence to the contrary, there may be a kernel of truth to it.
What is encouraging is that the Laws of Physics, to my limited knowledge,
do not dictate the size or components of any power supply. The word "Battery" covers a vast collection of possibilities. We can't just assume that because no one has developed a 15KWH supply weighing only 20 lbs that it cannot be done.
Roy


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

That is true, there was some sort of box that was supposed to be the power source, but there is some speculation he was just using the box as a ploy to keep others from stealing his idea with perhaps a magmotor. However, it is true that he was able to have invented the remote power capability and hence could have had a power source built near by where he tested the Pierce Arrow. Could this test have been in Colorado? Seems I remember he went to Colorado to test his motor out once on a vehicle, but don't remember if it was the Pierce Arrow for the first test and his witness. Which the car was parked in a barn, to this day perhaps someone has this vehicle and its electric motor in a barn. (Speculation) 
Either way, he got it to work and got up to speeds of 90 mph. That I do remember.

However, until more documentation, a witness, or even the car and motor appear to give more details about the device and motor, we are stuck in the dark waiting for something to come forth. Perhaps it is all stuck in Iron Mountain kept away from everyone. I just hope one day the answers will be known. 

Right now, so far it is a dead stick. Meaning, we have nothing to go by to even try to recreate the device.


----------



## manic_monkey (Jun 24, 2008)

LeTank said:


> Example of Darwinism and Evolution:
> Darwin only proposed the idea of evolution and had not expected his quirky ideas to grab so much attention that it became a religion. Darwin later became a Christian and died with a Bible in his hands and regreted ever bringing up evolution. Fact. Yet, it was adopted by the board of science and placed into textbooks because Christianity or any other religion offered the free will of free thinking. Evolution offers more control.


This is not fact, it is plain wrong. Your quoting the "Lady Hope Story" which was invented by theists to try and soften the blow to religion they percieved darwin had dealt them. Darwins own children refute this story. Scholars refute this story. Darwin was baptised and raised as an anglican. He even studied to be a clergyman. he lost his faith as he grew older, and called himself agnositic. Evolution wasnt adopted by science because it offered control, it was adopted because of the HUGE body of evidence to support the theory. 



LeTank said:


> Example of Tesla:
> Tesla invented and offered Free Electricity to everyone. His ideas were dangerous and debunked, his warehouse was set on fire and he was blacklisted and no more funding was given for his projects. It was years later that anyone ever knew Tesla invented AC. The credit was always spread around to others. Fact.


Not Fact. Tesla conspiracy/secret technology theories are everywhere. There's no evidence to prove any of them. No evidence = no fact. there was never any attempt to cover tesla's work either. He was very well known in his time, and well respected. As was his work.



LeTank said:


> And just another example:
> The Land of Ur is stated in the Bible as the land of giants. Bones of Giant people were found in Mexico, California. Nevada, and Arizona. The first recorded find was in the 1800's and others were found through till this day.
> One skull was over 4 feet tall. This was kept from the textbooks as well because it gave more evidence leaning towards the Bible. Evolution was to be kept the concept of creation. Such a public announcement would have questioned evolution and gave more credit to the Bible..as yet again it was kept from the textbooks. Fact.


are you serious? Your using the bible and an unfounded story about giants to try to prove the point that the laws of thermodynamics and other sciences may be incorrect?? 

You say the first RECORDED find of these giants was in 1800's. please could you point me to where i could find these records? 

no.... i didnt think so. Thats why you dont get to call it FACT

In the interests of harmony, can we please keep the bible/evolution/religous overtones out of electric vehicles? The only thing we should be trying to convert is our vehicles.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I found in one of my disks an assortment of links, while searching for ethanol stuff for someone else. 

I will post them here so others may use it to their own benefit in making ethanol to run their generator assist on an EV. 

Ethanol links:

http://www.moonshine-still.com/

Rover, old mountin dew, old kentucky stills
http://www.ibiblio.org/moonshine/make/make.html

http://www.happymountain.net/moonshine still.html

moonshine designs and plans
http://homedistiller.org/designs.htm

Various moonshine still designs and plans
http://www.stillcooker.com/

kinda ify site, but who knows. haha
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-moonshine/

Worlds simplest still
http://www.matchrockets.com/water/still.html

Jesse's Moonshine still
http://www.moonshineplans.co.uk/

Another Dukes Uncle Jesse Still
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/moon1.html

State, Federal and Corp stuff.
http://www.ethanolontap.com/links.asp


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> That is true, there was some sort of box that was supposed to be the power source, but there is some speculation he was just using the box as a ploy to keep others from stealing his idea with perhaps a magmotor. However, it is true that he was able to have invented the remote power capability and hence could have had a power source built near by where he tested the Pierce Arrow. Could this test have been in Colorado? Seems I remember he went to Colorado to test his motor out once on a vehicle, but don't remember if it was the Pierce Arrow for the first test and his witness. Which the car was parked in a barn, to this day perhaps someone has this vehicle and its electric motor in a barn. (Speculation)
> Either way, he got it to work and got up to speeds of 90 mph. That I do remember.
> However, until more documentation, a witness, or even the car and motor appear to give more details about the device and motor, we are stuck in the dark waiting for something to come forth. Perhaps it is all stuck in Iron Mountain kept away from everyone. I just hope one day the answers will be known.
> Right now, so far it is a dead stick. Meaning, we have nothing to go by to even try to recreate the device.


Follow-up to the pierce arrow. It was said that Telsa placed two iron bars thru holes into the Black Box (Energy Source) .Go Here for description of what he may have been doing.

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/02/06/the-isotopic-electricity-generator/

The mystery behind Tesla's power box may have been partially solved. 
It appears that he could have been using a type of isotope battery
which involves stimulated radioactivity..

On the matter of Tesla's Car, it appears that the power may have came
from the iron rods he pushed into his Cosmic Energy box. It's been
found that normal iron, which is isotope 56 can be converted into
isotope 54, releasing a considerable amount of energy in the process.
The conversion process which has been developed places the iron in a
heavy magnetic field, then stimulates the nuclei to undergo beta
voltaic decay, using a resonant NMR frequency from a second coil. A
third coil then picks up the output, similar to Dr. Paul Brown's
isotope battery, but with a different configuration.

Tesla maintained that he had found a way to harness cosmic rays. His
usage of the term was clarified by Moray, who said that this refers to
frequencies, rather than particles. (The name Moray is synonymous
with Radiant Energy.) What Tesla did could very well have been to
find a way to harness cosmic rays to produce the stimulated decay of
the iron, without needing the heavy magnetic field.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

Manic Monkey,
True and good points. However, if I may I can bring up some good links about the giants, but as you say this is about EV's so we can just let it go at that.

It was mostly to relate all that was perhaps suppressed, hidden, or what not to hinder the public since the Government wanted the best technology for themselves. Ok, maybe its is conspiracy, but it just seemed some hard lined facts were stirred up over the years that made sense.

It was mosty a referal to battery technology, solar, even light weight motors and where did the Tesla motor go to? That is just mearly what I was trying to point out, but it somehow turned into the Bible proof idea along the line...somewhere, somehow, heck I don't even know how it got to be added like that. haha. Anway, sorry for my ranting. 

I will go play with my EV now...well I can sit in it and make reving noises anyway.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Update on Ed Grey Motor:

It appears that Ed Grey's big secret was...nothing. It appears he guarded a fabricated "Secret" to his motors to obtain a patent. The "Conversion Switching Element Tube" was the device that made his systems work. This idea was taken from a old patent of Nicole Tesla, that had expired, making it open source to the public. If it was found to be the main ingredient to Greys patents they would have become null, and his technology would have become open source. He guarded a Secret in a small case, when the real "Secret" was in plain view durning his demonstrations with Investors.
Recently , researchers have reproduced some of effects by reproducing the "Switching Element Tube". In effect, they can now produce mechanical energy from a single properly timed pulse from a high voltage transformer, and make a electromagnet repel another magnet with this single pulse. A big step in reviving Ed Greys 300 mile per charge, 100 HP motor.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beshires1,
I have to admit there seems to be a lot inside what you say and I did a little more research on it. Seems there was more about it than I ever imagined. Even photos I was not aware of. Pretty cool.

It looks like Moray was highly involved into Teslas Radiant Energy idea and actually made not just a few, but a lot of different designs that worked. This is great to know as he had many witnesses and even ran an Iron and 50 light bulbs at 100 watt each on just radiant energy. Now this has my attention.

I will look more into this and see what I can come up with.
Thanks for the nice links you two, great info.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Some various links on Radiant Energy. More research needs to be done, but perhaps someone will find something more (plans, designs, working concepts) on radiant energy that puts out more than just a few watts. Every bit helps. Add your suggestions and post any links you find.

I came up with these in a flash deep web search. However, there thousands of pages to go through and I just picked a few.

http://www.gnucash.org/mirrors/mirrors/jnaudin.free.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mmcgen.htm

http://www.upramene.cz/forum/download.php?id=4169&sid=831e20ae375f38cacf066e2b4627255d


http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter3.pdf

http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/TopTen.pdf

Tesla Radiant Energy
http://0049606.netsolhost.com/alt/tesla_energy.htm

Wiki Radiant Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6EnDBjCjBw


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Some of the things Telsa did plain "scared the shit" out of people who witnessed his experiments. LeTank, links to information that I have given you, you should save what interests you to your computer. Then copy info to a discs. The good stuff has a way of getting "lost", when it comes to things the public is not susposed to know.Now check this out!
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/contents.htm


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Wow, just followed up on those links you all have posted. Powerful stuff
so if it was true we can get energy from radiant energy for all these years, why the *(&(&*( have we been slaved by oil and electric companies? suppression!

blasted governments with their greedy pockets is what it is. 

I have always suspected there was more to it all than what has been blitzd at a conspiracy. Well now we will have to work on getting more folks convinced that tesla had it all figured out and all our electric and oil problems could have been solved a hundred years ago. I remember my grandma telling me she used to drive around in an electric car when grandpa owned a store and she said it flew down the road with no problems. 
one question someone may hopefully answer. Where are those thousands of electric cars today that were made in the early days? 
I remember seeing pictures of thousands of ev's in the city where my grandma lived, she mentioned almost everyone had one. only a few of the wealtier had the oil guzzlers.

makes me steaming mad. 
anyway, great links folks. hope to see more.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

GM had a better idea in the late 1990s. The EV1 was a rechargeable electric coupe. The EV1 could go from zero to 60 miles per hour in less than eight seconds. There were no harmful emissions. With one moving engine part and no muffler, tailpipe, gasoline, radiator or transmission and none of the fluids needed to feed a normal car, the EV1 looked like the automotive future.
The little car would go 140 miles on a charge, but then the owner had to plug it in. Almost 800 drivers signed up for the EV1. GM refused to sell the cars but leased them to the EV1 faithful.
Now the auto giant is crushing the little car. The market was just not big enough, auto executives insist. They say they can't sell the cars because GM would incur an obligation to maintain the EV1. GM is unable to service the car, executives say, because many of the companies that participated in the EVI project no longer make parts for the electric vehicle.
The last EV1 leases ran out in August and GM has now gathered the remaining cars in a Southern California lot behind a suburban office building. GM has already sent many of the EV1s to the car crusher.
Now nearly 100 people are demanding an opportunity to buy the cars.
While GM has given several of the cars to universities and automobile museums, there are no plans to give in to the electric car enthusiasts. GM officials say they spent $1 billion on the EV1 project and the little car had every opportunity to succeed.
Toyota, today's leader in hybrid technology agrees that most Americans don't want a car that they have to plug in. The latest advertisement for the Prius emphasizes that no one has to plug it in.
GM has turned to hydrogen-powered fuel cells as the alternative energy supply to power vehicles in the future.
In the meantime, the waiting list for the Toyota is growing, and the hardy band of EV1 loyalists in Southern California still hope to save their cars. But if GM has its way, the last of the EV1 s are off to be recycled. Translation: crushed.


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> Hey Guys
> I have spent hours reading this thread and I'm surprized no one mentioned
> Nicola Tesla's Pierce Arrow experiment back in 1931.
> Read a summary of the story here:
> ...


Hi guys,
A subject dear to my heart Tesla conspiracy theories.

Lets not forget that Lee Deforest made some very special "Thyratron" type valves - possibly using mercury vapour - for Tesla which are refenced to this particular event. Also, there is the suggestion that the trip actually happened in Canada where at about that time Tesla had built a large TMT. Hence the need for the antenna and Thyratrons.

I'll get out of your hair now.

Incidentally, I still haven't got it on Steven Marks discovery. Me, I would be studying US Patent 462418. Nothing has changed since this patent and within lies the clue to Tesla's success. Understand this patent, and you will understand Hubbards Generator, Hendershot Motor, EV Gray motor and the Tesla switch:- and, Tesla's later preoccupation with Electrostatic Induction.

Regards
Rob


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I found this link to forum where guys are discussing the Steven Marks Device. I found this extremely humorous. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=962.msg48022


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beshires1 said:


> Some of the things Telsa did plain "scared the shit" out of people who witnessed his experiments. LeTank, links to information that I have given you, you should save what interests you to your computer. Then copy info to a discs. The good stuff has a way of getting "lost", when it comes to things the public is not susposed to know.Now check this out!
> http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/contents.htm


I have the patent for Tesla's Death Ray or (Peace Ray). It was nothing more than a magnetic rail gun which shot a spread of metal objects at 45 times the speed of sound. It used 60,000 volts. I had to laugh because something with that much power running magnets would cause anyone standing near it to feel a nice EMP, get a few tumors or just accidently touching it would light them up with the death ray of light at 60,000 volts. 

Just for fun, thought I would mention that.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



ourbobby said:


> Hi guys,
> A subject dear to my heart Tesla conspiracy theories.
> Incidentally, I still haven't got it on Steven Marks discovery. Me, I would be studying US Patent 462418. Nothing has changed since this patent and within lies the clue to Tesla's success. Understand this patent, and you will understand Hubbards Generator, Hendershot Motor, EV Gray motor and the Tesla switch:- and, Tesla's later preoccupation with Electrostatic Induction.
> 
> ...


In the Patent you are refering to, it acts more like a multi-phase sync buck as it helps keep a constant current when there is more or less power coming from a generator, motor, only it is reverse from the unit and not to it. 
In line 30 of the patent it describes the rapid rising and falling of strength and that anything more or less than is wanted is not allowed to pass through the gate. Helps keep the power constant. 

But he adds with a few changes you can make the current oscillating. Further, it has the ability with added components to offer rapid pulses for certain purposes. He just added in everything in one patent to cover all its variable aspects and properties, even with components added to or taken from the device.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey Lexus, glad to see you are up and around, at least sitting and joining the fun in the forum. 

Yes, I am sure mercs are lining up to have some fun with the pirates as well. haha. It would be nice to see you peppering some terrorist in the arse with an Uzi or a rail gun if you prefer.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I forgot to add, there is a lot of discussion about how the Toroid Coil worked that Steven Marks presented in his video. (Although he was not the inventor)
It is described as a negative circuit using negative energy. Which, I feel is a bit overboard since it is exciting ions from point A and pushing them to point B, which from one end of the coil to the other and out the leads to a capacitor or battery (or lightbulb). It is in the range of nuclear harmonics in that the magnets are pushing and pulling the +/- ions towards the exit point of the coil. It always runs counter clockwise, but one side is negative and the other positive. Positive would be the exit and the start would be negative.

I have also looked into this with much interenst. However, still in that "trying get to work on it phase", which is just another winter tinkering project. 

Another to look at is Moray's inventions which I believe most of this concept comes from. He also was able to use just copper windings and an iron rod to make electricity out of thin air. Which isn't the best way to describe it, but by exciting the ions is more comparative. The unit does heat up a little when it the circuit is complete, which is why Steven Marks kept one magnet out when he wasn't using the device. 

Moray had only used 100 windings of copper placed apart a few inches on an iron rod. Perhaps just using the straight rod idea will work easier since trying to get a iron as a loop has to be done by a metalsmith. Unless you are one yourself or handy at that sort of thing. 

If you get it to work and put out enough amps, it would be nice to use in an EV. Let us know.


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Another to look at is Moray's inventions which I believe most of this concept comes from. He also was able to use just copper windings and an iron rod to make electricity out of thin air. Which isn't the best way to describe it, but by exciting the ions is more comparative. The unit does heat up a little when it the circuit is complete, which is why Steven Marks kept one magnet out when he wasn't using the device.
> 
> Moray had only used 100 windings of copper placed apart a few inches on an iron rod. Perhaps just using the straight rod idea will work easier since trying to get a iron as a loop has to be done by a metalsmith. Unless you are one yourself or handy at that sort of thing.
> 
> If you get it to work and put out enough amps, it would be nice to use in an EV. Let us know.


Moray was guilty of using Radio Active materials in his Rectifiers. In particular Polonium. It was as you would know, Polonium that was administered to the Russian Defector in UK a few years ago - Alexander Litvitenko. I would think that Moray closed his own operation down due to contamination of say a loved one or worker or friend or on the advice of the US government. Moray preceded the regulations that constrain experiments using radioactive substances.

As for the summary on the Patent I refered to, I would, IMHO, suggest that you re-read the intent and causality that is implied by Tesla, and not some classical interpretation that becomes self defeating when trying to get things to work. After the assasination attempty on his life in 1895, Tesla became reclusive and secretive. He bacame renowned for concealing the true intent of his devises. I suppose, he reckoned only those who wanted to understand would find the real pathway!

The Steven Marks thingy is up in the air. IMHO, there might be a similarity to the Sweet VTA. In as much as these things are working at mutliple frequencies within a constrained magnetic field. Much like the dual frequencies of the Hendershot motor. The stray capacitance in The Steven Marks devise, if it indeed worked, would imply a frequency at greater than VHF. This would not be an unusual phenomenon as it has been shown, that frequencies in the UHF range can promote forms of ionic reaction, thus inducing extra energy on top of the original energy source. 

The list goes on, but, how does this help with the EV motor? IMHO, an understanding of some of these phenomena should lead to conclusive results that will enable us to push the boundaries of limited travel for EV's.

I'll get out of your hair now.

Regards
Rob


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Actually 60,000 volts is not much. We produce almost that amount in your normal automobile coil. Amps are the issue with the rail gun. What is the amp output? An emp won't hurt you nor will you get tumors from magnetic pulses. An MRI machine pumps out very high magnetic fields and no known damage to date. The damage comes from IONIZING radiation. These ray guns do not produce ionizing radiation. EMP's are good for knocking out electronics.

: )





LeTank said:


> I have the patent for Tesla's Death Ray or (Peace Ray). It was nothing more than a magnetic rail gun which shot a spread of metal objects at 45 times the speed of sound. It used 60,000 volts. I had to laugh because something with that much power running magnets would cause anyone standing near it to feel a nice EMP, get a few tumors or just accidently touching it would light them up with the death ray of light at 60,000 volts.
> 
> Just for fun, thought I would mention that.


----------



## Jordan (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

It can take as little as 100 milli amps to kill a person. It really kind of depends on how much water is in your body at that particular time. It is hard to figure out ahead of time because it can vary so much from time to time and person to person. This is why you hear stories of some people having to be electricuted 2 and 3 times in the electric chair. The executioner can not tell ahead of time.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Quote:
"This is why you hear stories of some people having to be electricuted 2 and 3 times in the electric chair."

Um...you can only be electrocuted ONCE.....but shocked many times in the attempt.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> Quote:
> "This is why you hear stories of some people having to be electricuted 2 and 3 times in the electric chair."
> 
> Um...you can only be electrocuted ONCE.....but shocked many times in the attempt.


smartarse


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

On the subject of electric shock, I stumbled across something about the Infinity Coil. Anyone know more about this?
Then as the search continued, I ran across a patent for a self sustaining energy device. 2007 Patent.
http://www.google.ca/patents?id=vI2XAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=48

I would like to know more about Hubbard and his inventions, possibly even if it gives a few amps on either one, they might help in the cause to find a slow charging source for an EV, thinking a series of them would provide at least 10 amps or more if they only put out a few amps. Maybe it is all just not worth the time, but if there is something to his inventions that worked I think it can be useful. 

Just searching for options, always open for options.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The health concern was mostly from AC not DC. Long exposure to AC EMF caused tumors. There was a fit over power lines and that they should be shielded when over school yards, homes, etc, but it was left "as is" because there are just too many power lines to shield and too costly. 

Would have to google it to read more about it. I can see what I can find quick. It standarizes the risk as low, but if I can find that other site, the risk was high when a person was within a foot or two of higher AC EMF. However, the risk overall is moderate from high AC EMF.

Governments idea on the subject, however it is all stated "little evidence and they didn't say NO evidence". haha
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/magnetic-fields

A University Study of the EMF and Health.
http://www.energyfields.org/pdfs/Bioinitiative_pressrelease_73107.pdf

Interesting read:
http://www.midtod.com/9603/voltage.phtml

Just for kicks, when I built my home I shielded my entire home (walls and ceiling) with EMF shielding just for fun. =) Now, I can't get satellite phone reception till I walk outside. But with the new Digital (microwave) signals from TV, cell phones, satellite, etc, I am glad I did. A little won't hurt you, but a ton of microwaves will eventually cause problems. Bees perhaps are going AWOL because of this, but this is speculation only. 

I just like to bring that stuff up. haha


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> On the subject of electric shock, I stumbled across something about the Infinity Coil. Anyone know more about this?
> Then as the search continued, I ran across a patent for a self sustaining energy device. 2007 Patent.
> http://www.google.ca/patents?id=vI2XAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=48
> 
> ...


Hi LeTank,
IMHO, the infinity coil could be delicate to get going. its a bit like the basic Cook Coil:-
http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm

With regards to Hubbard, there is not much actual information out there. There has been several speculations and attempts to replicate his devise.
None of which have seemed to have worked - or been published as working.

The trick for the Hubbard coil is to not look at it as a simple transformer, as most seem to do that I have come across. It is hypothesized that a central coil was surrounded by eight satellite coils.cf:-which used some original coils for that basis of the mathematical exploraton

http://www.atl2.netfirms.com/engy/mutch/matrixlaw/hubbard.htm.

Personally, I feel that this theory tends to obfuscate the design of Hubbards Motor. And, this theory is based upon the small 6 inch version :- here is about the best summary of "known" information on Hubbard Generator.

http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm

This 6 inch devise is probably very similar to the Hendershot Motor. The Hubbard Generator that drove the boat around Portage Bay, IMHO, was a completely different design. Similar principles though. There is a good thead on overuniy on the attempted replication of the infinity coil:- another unfortunate failure.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5144.msg137995;topicseen

A coil generator that seems to produce energy, but, also seems to ba a bit unstable is the Cater Coil. I do have a PDF file on this, but is too large for the forum upload: 400 KB. It is in my opinion, a further attempt to understand the Hubbard generator. I could only send you a copy of this privately if you wish to read about it. I have comments from people who have had some measure of success with the construction. Control seems to be the issue.

FYI, to my mind there are 2 viable solutions to the energy problems surrounding the EV and Distance. One is the Hubbard generator or a variation on this, and the other is the Tesla Switch. To understand all there is to know about getting the Tesla Switch going google for the file "report_on_4_battery_Tesla switch.pdf" I have a copy but it is 800KB so cannot be uploaded. EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW to get the Tesla Switch working in in this file. You just have to understand the Patent I referenced previously a,d read fully this document - everything so that you are completely familiar with it. A lot of people fail to get the TS working. There are others who have succeded. The TS works!

Hope this info keeps you going for a few hours!

Regards


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Great links and good info. 
Still looking for the .pdf files. Ended up on some energyfree forum and had to scope it out for a while. (Downloading everything in site. haha)

I guess the nanosafe battery is now certified, tested and approved, which is good since I do like its stats. Still trying to find an open seller for the battery and a list of prices. If anyone finds such a place I hope they will post it here.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

New company is reaching for the 500 mile range using EEstor batteries on two wheel and three wheel vehicles. 
http://www.lightevs.com/

From their page:
EEStor EESUs are expected to provide over 450 watt hours per kilogram and over 700 watt hours per liter, charge in minutes, and, for all practical vehicular purposes, last indefinitely. By comparison, lithium iron phosphate batteries provide about 100 watt hours per kilogram and 170 watt hours per liter. Unlike electrochemical batteries, EESUs should not break down from use or time during the life of a vehicle. They are expected to deliver high current without loss of efficiency or excess heat, and they should operate at optimum efficiency over a wide range of ambient temperatures. They will be configurable for any output voltage that optimizes vehicle performance, and will maintain that output voltage at a constant level over the span of each discharge cycle. Production is expected to start mid 2009.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*










Update on the X-Prize:
On March 20th, 2008 at the New York International Auto Show, the X PRIZE Foundation and Progressive Insurance jointly announced the company’s Title Sponsorship of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE competition and its funding of the $10 million prize purse. 

The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE invites teams from around the world "to design, build, and sell super-efficient cars that people want to buy." 

The winning car must carry four or more passengers, have climate control, an audio system and 10 cubic feet of cargo space. They also must have four or more wheels, hit 60 miles per hour in less than 12 seconds and have a minimum top speed of 100 miles per hour and a range of 200 miles. 

The winner will receive $10 million USD. 

The cross-country race begins in New York City, September 2009.

For those new members, your chance to enter the X-Prize is still there until January 2009.

Read more here. Get your company involved for a greener planet.
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/


----------



## veperformance (Aug 17, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*








Actually you can enter until end of february.But the requirements include a complete buisness model that demonstrate that you aim to manufacture 10000 units per year.The good news is that these technologies will most likely be availeable very soon and everybody can improve their ev at affordable cost , unless the big players buys everything to keep control.Hope to see some of your guys at races and hopefuly be able to start providing our units on the market next year.


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> New company is reaching for the 500 mile range using EEstor batteries on two wheel and three wheel vehicles.
> http://www.lightevs.com/
> 
> From their page:
> EEStor EESUs are expected to provide over 450 watt hours per kilogram and over 700 watt hours per liter, charge in minutes, and, for all practical vehicular purposes, last indefinitely. By comparison, lithium iron phosphate batteries provide about 100 watt hours per kilogram and 170 watt hours per liter. Unlike electrochemical batteries, EESUs should not break down from use or time during the life of a vehicle. They are expected to deliver high current without loss of efficiency or excess heat, and they should operate at optimum efficiency over a wide range of ambient temperatures. They will be configurable for any output voltage that optimizes vehicle performance, and will maintain that output voltage at a constant level over the span of each discharge cycle. Production is expected to start mid 2009.


This has been on the go now for a while Hmmm.........:-
http://chrisgammell.com/2008/11/11/eestor-not-delivering/

Regards
Rob


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



veperformance said:


> Actually you can enter until end of february.But the requirements include a complete buisness model that demonstrate that you aim to manufacture 10000 units per year.The good news is that these technologies will most likely be availeable very soon and everybody can improve their ev at affordable cost , unless the big players buys everything to keep control.Hope to see some of your guys at races and hopefuly be able to start providing our units on the market next year.


Thanks for the added info. Congrats on being a contender in the Automotive X-Prize.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Rob, I have heard they were slow on filling the contracts, but it seems they are producing, just not fast enough. In the other case, nanosafe or 123? cap/batteries are just as good which can be the alternative. 

I am still going for the BatCaps as planned, since it is available and I have planned everything out in detail what I will do and how they will be placed in the vehicle. There is talk about another type of supercapacitor that will just be a larger electrolyte cap in that it will have the same concept, but having carbon on the aluminum to have a greater holding capacity. 

Trying to think who is building that type of supercap, but it will come to me. I just read it two nights ago. Need my ginko biloba. haha


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

MIT to release nanotube supercapacitor battery in 5 years. 5 Years?
I want it now. 
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MIT_Nanotube_Super_Capacitor

Official Website from MIT and the man (Professor) behind it. But since he worked on several projects for the DOD-R, he will probably sell it to the military and we will never see it, at least for another 40 years. haha
http://lees.mit.edu/lees/schindall_j.htm

A DIY super capacitor special thingy. 9 volt. Hey, I like it. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00165.html

I am digging for a compilation of a list of Super and UltraCap batteries. Their stats would be nice if anyone wants to help search or has one list of these already to post here.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I guess the advantage mostly would be from the capacity and the ligth weight. However the charging would still be the same or longer I think because of the large capacity it has to charge up.

Havent heard of anyone coming up with a charging system for these types of supercap batts because I don't think the grid can handle it on homes. It would have to be over nite to charge them, but that is ok with me since they are holding more and are lighter. I am serious, I am going the same route. Less repair on them as well. just neeeeeeeed money. I bet they are all expensive.

The nerd from MIT will prob never sell it to any auto company or have it made to sell. Something like that surely will go straight into a Military Jeep first, unless it is about the same as nanotech batts. Then we will see it on the shelf in stores. WALLY-WORLD. My super shop for all my worthless needs for products that break down every other day. hee hee
Made in China of course.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> I guess the advantage mostly would be from the capacity and the ligth weight. However the charging would still be the same or longer I think because of the large capacity it has to charge up.
> 
> Havent heard of anyone coming up with a charging system for these types of supercap batts because I don't think the grid can handle it on homes. It would have to be over nite to charge them, but that is ok with me since they are holding more and are lighter. I am serious, I am going the same route. Less repair on them as well. just neeeeeeeed money. I bet they are all expensive.


 Your right on the money. A grid tied home could not charge these fast. You will be limited to the same charging time as any other battery....your home only has a 24Kw service coming in ( providing you have a 100 amp service ). Average hourly consumption is 2 KW....so the max you can charge without tripping your main is 22Kw. The only advantage to these I can see is the capacity... Although..IMO your not doing anything for the environment by using pure electric from the grid. 

LeTank, have you considered propane or methane fuel cells? They run on the same principle as hydrogen fuel cells both are clean and do not pollute the environment ( I should mention methane needs to be burnt or run through a fuel cell, if not it pollutes worse than gas ). This would be easily converted to a hydrogen fueled vehicle later on if they become more popular.

I had an idea, some time ago i read an article ( dont know where ) on generating electricity from static electricity...has anyone here read or seen anything on static electricity generators ? If plausable then this may help extend the range...not much but every little bit counts.

Also...what have you found on regenerative breaking? I have an idea with a twist perhaps... I was reading on wheel motors and got to thinking why cant you build 2 generators into the rear wheels of your fwd vehicle? Now I know what your going to say, its going to consume the same if not more power to drive the vehicle...but what if they were built like a standard automotive altinator with w relay tied into the accelerator circut essentially shutting down the circut when accelerating and powering it when decellerating.... wheel motors run upto 30HP each or something like that ( 22 380 watts ), now with regenerative breaking you only generate off of your main motor, I'm suggesting you could generate off of 2 motors instead, with a potential 44 760 watts per hour...you average stopping time is about 2 minutes for decelleration ? based on this you could recharge say 746 watts for each stop. thats what 3 -4 extra miles of range? not to mention you could still use the regenerative option with your main motor.. not to mention the huge magnetic forces that would save you on changing brakes so often...lol. 3 - 4 miles extra per stop would be in an ideal world under ideal conditions...although you could possibly do this on all 4 wheels...should be no drag when not powered? Just an idea that might be worth researching...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Here is a site I think is pretty cool. The original website was taken down in early 2001, but since it was started in 1999 I thought I had to dig through some archives, but low and behold some person saved it and recreated it.

http://www.magneticenergy.org.uk/

Anyway, this is pretty cool stuff on this site. Had some old disks with stuff on it I haven't seen in a while and found that stuff on it. So gave a looksie on google and it lives yet today. Can't believe I forgot about that stuff or just saved the webpage and was going to go back later, can't recall.
Glad someone saved it and recreated it, just like it was in the original package (form). Anyway, it is amazing how much stuff we saved and never got to look at. Truly, I have tens of thousands of disks (5 huge boxes full) I didn't label, I will be probably finding more exciting stuff as I go through them. haha

I thought this was so cool, I had to post it.
Open for comments on any of the things on the website.

Note: I used the term "stuff" to limit the back lash of the word freee energy. =)

Does anyone recall or perhaps were lucky enough to download the solar panel information that NASA had on its server when it was still connected to the Net? Still digging through my stuff, but NASA (in the late 90's) was using solar panels and one 4 foot square panel put out 5,000 watts of power. I want to find it to prove I was not literally insane, (although it will take some convincing others here..haha) but just curious if anyone ever ran across that.
Still looking..oh and not to mention Ghotdi I didn't forget about your stuff, still searching my disks.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Does anyone recall or perhaps were lucky enough to download the solar panel information that NASA had on its server when it was still connected to the Net? Still digging through my stuff, but NASA (in the late 90's) was using solar panels and one 4 foot square panel put out 5,000 watts of power. I want to find it to prove I was not literally insane, (although it will take some convincing others here..haha) but just curious if anyone ever ran across that.


 I remember reading an article about such a solar panel..dont have the info tho. However PV electrical generation is usually 1KW per square meter. I would think it used a concentrator design...or something simular..the easiest way to reproduce the results would be to use a solar concentrator tube for a house...a 21" tube puts out the equivalent power of 10 100 watt lightbulbs into your living room...I dont see why several of these wouldn't be give you the output you want. If you do the math, a 21" concentrator is...65.94sqin, 48"X48" panel is 2304 sqin, thus you could put roughly 30 concentrator tubes focusing about 30 KW of light energy onto the panel....so no, its not an insane concept.

Also it should be noted that in space the efficiencies of PV arrays are much higher since they dont have the atmosphere or cloud cover to contend with.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Here is a site I think is pretty cool. The original website was taken down in early 2001, but since it was started in 1999 I thought I had to dig through some archives, but low and behold some person saved it and recreated it.
> 
> http://www.magneticenergy.org.uk/


Well this is an edit to add. I thought it was the same till I found the bit about making a spaceship material, I think that was added recently. Other than that, the magmotor idea is where I was going with the link. 
However, found another. haha
http://www.fdp.nu/animations/default.htm

Beyonder, regen is still on the list to dig more into. I was thinking of a cheap (well sorta) way of doing a regenative braking. By using a high amp PMA (alternator) which would be connected to a switch on the gas pedal that would turn on when I let up on the gas pedal (er..electric pedal) and would turn off when I pushed the pedal down. This way, I get amps from the PMA while I let up and it shuts off when I give it the electric juice (pedal to the metal). If that makes sense. Heck, I am for cheap right now after trying to buy those expensive batcaps. haha

I will dig more though, perhaps there is something (a lot) I am missing in the regen thing.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> I remember reading an article about such a solar panel..dont have the info tho. However PV electrical generation is usually 1KW per square meter. I would think it used a concentrator design...or something simular..the easiest way to reproduce the results would be to use a solar concentrator tube for a house...a 21" tube puts out the equivalent power of 10 100 watt lightbulbs into your living room...I dont see why several of these wouldn't be give you the output you want. If you do the math, a 21" concentrator is...65.94sqin, 48"X48" panel is 2304 sqin, thus you could put roughly 30 concentrator tubes focusing about 30 KW of light energy onto the panel....so no, its not an insane concept.


I have heard about those as well. But this was a flat thin gold solar panel, which I can't say for sure may have been the child of the solar panel on the moon electric vehicle that is still sitting there on the moon waving back at us.
I don't know, this is speculation, which has got me into a mess before. haha
Truly though, it was super thin, gold in color and was a four foot piece that put out 5000 watts. Now, if it was made just for space, perhaps with the better light it was putting out that much. However, if my mind is correct, it was getting that here on earth as well. I just was curious to see or find what it was made of. I will keep searching.

Oh yes, the concentrator idea is great too. Would maybe work well on an EV with some help to make it have less drag, but it would work. Good idea.
Here is a NASA link on your idea.
http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/scarlet.html


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Beyonder, regen is still on the list to dig more into. I was thinking of a cheap (well sorta) way of doing a regenative braking. By using a high amp PMA (alternator) which would be connected to a switch on the gas pedal that would turn on when I let up on the gas pedal (er..electric pedal) and would turn off when I pushed the pedal down. This way, I get amps from the PMA while I let up and it shuts off when I give it the electric juice (pedal to the metal). If that makes sense. Heck, I am for cheap right now after trying to buy those expensive batcaps. haha


The only problem with a PMA is your going to generate power when its turning, thats why I suggested a design simular to that of a ICE altinater. You can control it by powering the field coil when decelerating. However, if you were to use a 12V clutch ( can be bought at princess auto here in canada or I don't remember the name of the place in the states...lol ). The only down side ( that I know of ) of using a 12V clutch tho is you have to have 12 volts ( according what I've read online anyways), no more and no less...or it will ruin the clutch...i think they were fairly cheap tho...around 15.00 or something like that.
Depending on the vehicle being used, you could use an axle from a small truck, some modification would be needed, however you could connect the altinator to where the drive axle originallty connected. This would keep the system fairly simple, as well as distribute the weight more evenly. 
I would suggest tho, a low RPM PMA...simular to the ones they build at www.otherpower.com I think they would be a good design in electric vehicles. Something I've wondered and never asked, but the stronger the Perminant magnets, does that mean the lower the electrical current needed to make the same number of rpm or horsepower...maybe beshires can answer this 

As for the batcaps....i skimmed what was there about them, and now my question is what makes them better in compared to standard capacitors? For example comparing them to the ones at walmart or any audio shop..some of those ( I don't know exact specs ) get pretty large and are a lot lower cost...25.00 i think for the wallyworld ones. next time I'm there Iwill look and see what the specs are on them, but couldn't these be used in the same context? I think you would need a lot more of them, however they would be easier to install than batteries,etc....something to ponder anyways...

Now for the question i think most everyone on here that read about those is asking themselves...wheres the DIY thread on how to make them ourselves 

Oh, and thankyou for the link...I've been looking forthat for a while


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5224648/NikolaTesla-Build-your-own-Capacitors
http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-Capacitor/

for anyone interested in building there own capacitors...maybe someone can come up with something good 

Oh and i stand corrected about the usefulness of those super capacitor systems...if you had a recharge station connected to the grid they would be well worth it.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beyonder,
The Batcaps have a variety, but their website only contains up to the 9600 amp range, but AvLight has the Batcap Extreme which listed as this:








•AS POWERFUL AS (4) FOUR OF OUR 8400 MODEL
(that is 38400 amps at 12volts!)
•WEIGHS LESS THAN 65 LBS.
•EQUIVALENT TO 26 STANDARD CAR BATTERIES
•4 X 0/1G Power and Ground Outputs
•10 x 4G Power and Ground Outputs
•JUST ONE EXTREME COULD CRANK (48) FORTY-EIGHT V-8 CHEVYS ( AT ONCE !!! )
•15” L x 5 " W x 9 ” H
•12 VOLT & 16 VOLT CONFIRGURATIONS AVAILABLE
Price: $2399.95 each

On this website here:
http://www.lightav.com/car/batcap/batcap.html

With two of these, which I plan to get four, I can figure with the Var
and other components I will use to control the power I will get around 1500 miles per charge. Not bad. People get confused when they see these as audio caps, but a cap is a cap and you just have to know how to control the amps to get what you want out of them. 

I have also been looking at Galleghar solar panels, which is used for charging up batteries for electric fences and they have a few that put out .5 Joules for around $200 (which are very slim and about 1.5 feet square). Trying to see if they have anything that puts out more. Will give a link when I find a decent website that lists a variety of them.

The Low resistance PMA I was mentioning I had a link a few pages back, but they were around $400. They start charging at any speed. At 100 rpm you still had a decent amount of amps to charge with. Building your own is probably cheaper, but takes more time too.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Interesting...I went to the website. What are the amp hours though? there site is a little confusing...
With model : 8400 they claim :

9600 AMPS @ 12 VOLT
9600 AMPS @ 14 VOLT
8400 AMPS @ 16 VOLT

but when i do the calculations based on 9600 amps at 12 volt ( 115200 watts ), I get 

9600 @ 12 volt
8228 @ 14 volt
7200 @ 16 volt

Although these numbers aren't really much to worry about due to mass capacity...it makes me wonder. I don't see an AH rating for this model either...so is this 9600 AH or 9600 AMPS peak ? some of there other math is off on other models to like model x400 is 5AH, however they state 28.97 amps for 5 minutes...since 5 minutes is 1/12 the time frame you should be able to pull 60 amps? if I'm wrong please correct me here.

These do look good, not only for EV but for those of us that live off grid as well...if these are true...I could buy one and have over a months reserve power...

let me know if you see anything on battery design...I'm looking for something on how to build a similar type battery...should be a lot cheaper 



> The Low resistance PMA I was mentioning I had a link a few pages back, but they were around $400. They start charging at any speed. At 100 rpm you still had a decent amount of amps to charge with. Building your own is probably cheaper, but takes more time too.


 You can buy the parts and assemble it yourself from www.otherpower.com


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I did some hard digging and it seems the BatCap8400 has 400ah, and the Extreme BatCap 9600x4 has 1600ah.

So that is nice, when I put four together, I will have 6400 ah. Now, I am going straight 12volt and using a 10,000 watt inverter to run my AC motor.
I am still looking around for a 25hp AC motor since my 15hp is just not enough for what I want to do.

So a total of 143200 amps with 6400 ah, I am figuring close to 1500 miles for a safe measure, but that is adding double the losses just in case I use more amps than I thought. If I use less that estimated, I will get more miles. However, till it is in the car and a final test has been done, this is all speculation. That will have to wait until the spring/summer of 2009 for the final test.
At any rate, it should give me a few hundred miles worth of travel before recharging. That is the main goal. 

GM is raving they are in harmony with Nature and the Environment. 
We all know what to think about that. haha


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> I did some hard digging and it seems the BatCap8400 has 400ah, and the Extreme BatCap 9600x4 has 1600ah.
> 
> So that is nice, when I put four together, I will have 6400 ah. Now, I am going straight 12volt and using a 10,000 watt inverter to run my AC motor.
> I am still looking around for a 25hp AC motor since my 15hp is just not enough for what I want to do.
> ...


 So this is a 400 amp capacity then ( 4.8KW reserve ) for the BatCap8400 and a 1600 amp ( 19.2KW reserve ) capacity for Batcap 9600? So are these based on 1 hour discharge or over a period of hours like a LA battery? Are these 9600 amps with a discharge rate of 400 amps/hr ( would give you a 24 hr discharge time ) This is where I'm getting confused...

I'm not sure your going to find a 10Kw inverter that runs on straight 12 volt...the ones I've seen are usually around 48 volt. Your loss's for inverting to AC are approximately 30% so you'll consume 13Kw for each 10 Kw inverted...this has been the case with my 3Kw inverter...consumes approximately 3.9 Kw/hr. 
For your 25 HP motor the 10Kw inverter wont be enough, 10Kw only gives you 13.4 HP output. Your going to need something in the range of 20+ Kw to run the motor.



> So a total of 143200 amps with 6400 ah, I am figuring close to 1500 miles for a safe measure, but that is adding double the losses just in case I use more amps than I thought. If I use less that estimated, I will get more miles. However, till it is in the car and a final test has been done, this is all speculation. That will have to wait until the spring/summer of 2009 for the final test.


 do you mean 143200 amps or watts? ( 9600 amps x 12 volts X 4 = 460 800 watts ) or 8400 amps X 16 volts X 4 = 537 600 watts. 

However if they are only 1600 AH for 1 hour only, your looking at 1600 amps X 12 volts X 4 = 76,800 watts. 

If your running 25 HP motor = 18650 watts/hr at 100% capacity..est 100 MPH. Counting in 30% for inversion = 24,245 watts you can expect about 3.16Hrs/ 316 Miles for range.

I'm still having problems with these numbers though, they almost seem unrealistic...it would be nice if the company would produce specific numbers,etc...

--Just wanted to note that by inverting with a 25 HP motor, your going to consume an extra 5.595KW per hour run time, and based on the 1600 AH for a 1 hr duration you would save 17.68 KW if you used a DC motor rather than AC. Would give you an estimated 94 miles more in range.

Out of curiosity, what vehicle are you planning to convert?

Edit : I emailed the company and asked them about there math...now I'll wait and see if they respond...lol


----------



## Ron Atkinson (Apr 17, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

"The day has come" it seems for Tavrima Canada to finally open it's doors and sell to the general public, for anyone contemplating an electric van I suggest you contact them at Tavrima, and ask about "off the shelf" supercapacitors that would best suit your needs. Apparently; Tavrima is even open to "custom-work" ( up until now not their interest) but the possible demise of the Big 3 automakers may have a tad to do with that move.There are quite a few large Grumman Vans operating on supercaps alone, and even a drag racer with 6-85kJ supercaps as sole supply!!! They are the sole supplier to NASA so that says something for their quality and reliability.


----------



## Harold in CR (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

OK, I'll show my ignorance. Are these caps 12V in and 12V out ??? Where does the higher voltage come from to power a motor, say, 96V DC. Step up transformers, electronic step up circuits ???


----------



## Ron Atkinson (Apr 17, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

If you need a 96 V. supply, then you need a 96Volt output charger, a rectifier to change from AC to DC. then the 96 Volt (DC) is fed to the supercapacitor which of course must be capable of this high voltage. Most companies attempting to sell Supercaps. can only produce very low voltage capacitors and these must all be "linked together, with an "electronic management system" similar to that used on Lithium Ion Batteries. The secret with Tavrima is; they have discovered a way of building supercaps able to store higher voltages than anyone in the world, and demonstrate this frequently to the public. Maxwell on the other hand has supercaps with low voltage so they have to build a huge number of these supercaps into a "power cache in order to make a suitable item for use in an EV. NASA and the NY City Transit tested all the competitors and when Tavrima won (hands down) they signed a contract to supply all future space shuttles and "rovers". NY Transit bought 39 new buses(the largest order in bus history) for electric buses powered with these supercaps from Tavrima. They must be doing something right eh???


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

From what I have read in the report below the Buses ordered by New York City are Hybrids. They only use the SuperCaps for acceleration.
Could it be the weight they are moving which prevented them from going totally SuperCaps? If so then there is the possibility of using only SuperCaps in a lighter weight EV.


www.*bgsu.edu*/downloads/tech/file55537.pdf


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Wow, so many questions, I will have to do this from notepad to keep track.

Well, first for the 20 hour rating you times it by 20 hours, like you would in a solar home configuration. Second, the loses I assumed were much higher, and yes you can buy a 12 volt 10,000 watt inverter. Expensive (around $1,000 or more) depending on the type you get. Trace inverters are great, which I use. Now, the power is rated in amps, not watts, but you can convert it to watts if you wanted, but you don't need to when your system is configuring in amps and volts.
For a 25 hp AC motor, I will get my max out of the motor even if it doesn't reach the max output of the motor. The 15hp gets a little warm, so that is why I want a larger motor, not that I will get to 25 hp, but I will get that little extra higher rpm out of it which is what I am looking for. (Probably just could find another 15hp motor with higher rpm's I guess too.) Hope that clears that up.

The vehicle I am converting is a Toyota Celica 1998. Manual tranny. (Want to go with a three speed if possible, looking at JC Whitney for racing trannies.) Lots of trunk space and not so much room in the front. I am trying to minimize my drag by getting the best motor to tranny ratio and by a higher speed tranny (0-70 1st gear, ect).

the problem with DC motors is that I can save the extra money at the moment for the batteries, perhaps later I will use DC. I would love to use a DC, but AC is simple enough with just using my Inverter, to even make it more simple I will get this worked out enough to just use the Varactor and assembled components to provide the power I need. This I am working on as of now, but have the winter to get it all in working order. The Var works great with Caps in that you can and are able to control the amps as you need them, so this will let me use a much larger AC motor if I wished and can dump as many amps as needed at any time, for those times I want a rush of speed or going up hills. It is far cheaper than buying off the shelf controllers, Var assembled systems, etc. by doing it myself. (Which any Vararctor setup would have to be made custom for an EV anyway.) If you know an electrician, they may be able to help you put something together. 

The 1500 mile configuration was from four of the Extreme Batcap 9600x4, which I would be happy with just a few hundred miles. This is like I said, assumed tilll it can be tested.

Let us know the results you find from the supplier. I am also curious. I wrote to another supplier of BatCaps, but never got an email back.
Equations for your questions are:
Amps = Watts / Volts
Watts = Amps x Volts
Volts = Watts / Amps

Harold, 
To get a higher DC voltage you will need a DC/DC step up converter. Or go with an AC inverter with a DC converter using a variety of components which ever is your choice.
However, if I remember right the higher voltage step up converters were expensive.
The nice thing about my inverter it also prevents my batteries (caps) from ever going below 12 volts and it automatically shuts off. Now, with these caps I can give them a little more beating than batteries and it will not hurt them. But, it is nice to be having that extra safey already on hand to prevent any damage to the motor.

This also means the BatCaps would have to be charged at either 12volts or 16volts only.
.
As for the Caps in Buses, I do know they are using them in Europe and in Switzerland. There are towns in Switzerland that do not allow gas engine vehicles of any time and they can only use electric, horses or you are on foot. I saw such a type of Bus on the discovery channel and it had a motor in each wheel. When it docked at the station it was charged within minutes, enough to make the next mile. That was last year.


----------



## Harold in CR (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

OK, that cleared up what I thought was needed. My technological language is not suited to electronics, so, step-up transformer, is the same thing, as a dc-dc converter, in MY mind. Thanks for all the explanations. 10KW inverter for $1000.00 ??? Hard to imagine, when I bought a 32V Inverter at 3KW, for $1250.00 back in the last century, for my off grid home ??


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> 12 volt 10,000 watt inverter. Expensive (around $1,000 or more) depending on the type you get


 1,000.00? 1 question..WHERE? lol..no not being an ass..I'm serious...I paid 500.00 for my 12V 3Kw last year ( I can remember when they were 3,000.00...lol I feel old ). But seriously, where? especially a trace.....or zantrax...i think that's what they're called in canada....I'm building a house and a ( hopefully ) 3,000 sqft shop this summer...I'd definatly be interested in buying a few 10KW inverters if they're only 1,000.00 each. 

Interesting vehicle... I'm planning on a f150/chevy 1500 with a custom built cab ( need it to seat 8 people...lol ) and a long box. I'm still in the design phase tho, having a problem deciding on what frame to use..whether to go with one from say a motor home ( chopped down of course ) or the DIY route...lol. 



> OK, that cleared up what I thought was needed. My technological language is not suited to electronics, so, step-up transformer, is the same thing, as a dc-dc converter, in MY mind.


 Your more or less right....I dont remember exactly how a DC converter works, but I believe it converts to low voltage AC steps it up to the desired voltage and recifies it back to DC.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Got my reply from them :

>
>
> Hi i have some questions about your product?
>
> 1. 9600 Amps, is this 9600 amp hours? if not what are the AH and what is
> the overall discharge time?
>
> 2. Your website claims the same amperage output at 14 volts and 8400 amps
> at 16 volts, how do you get 8400 amps at 16 volts, shouldn't it be around
> 7200 amps since 12 volts x 9600 amps = 115200 watts and 115200/16=7200
> amps?
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Clarence
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
Hello Clarence,
Thank-you for your interest in our product. 9600 is the maximum output.
The battery is 85 Ah. The 16 volt has more cells than the 14 volt version.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Ray

- So what I get from this is the batteries are difference and can't be run off of variable voltages? 85 AH still isn't that bad thats comparable to deep cycle, they're what normally 100AH? Based on 200w/mile each battery will allow you 5MPH. so you need 14 to hit 70MPH ( about 100km/hr ).
So, if the model you want is 4X that...your output is 340amps X 12 volts = 4,080 watts. The reason I convert everything to watts is watts are universal, they do not change...and as voltage changes the amperage pull changes. ( E.G. what takes 1 amp at 120 volts will take 10 amps at 12 volts ). so back to the 4,080 watts...since your inverting ( 30% is what I've calculated from my experieces with my inverters ) we could say 230 watts per mile, 1 batter will give you 17.74 MPH so you might even need 5 per say ( 88.70 MPH ) I'm not taking speed, I'm talking range per hour since with a 340 amp/hr pull from each battery they're going to have a 112.94 HR discharge time ( to 100% ) discharge. Providing these batteries dont turn out to be POS's I think your definatly onto something...

- do you have designs for your controller system that you wanna post? I'm interested in seeing them...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well that shoots the poop out of my calculations, I am glad you got a reply so fast. Lucky. 
So the Extreme Xx4 BatCap has 340 ah, that isn't bad, considering I will have four which is still 1360ah. So I will refigure for that. 

I bought my Trace Inverters from a local guy who had a solar sales outfit 5 years ago. I think he is still in business, I haven't been there in a few years now, but he is about 50 miles away. Next time I go by there I will stop in and see if he is still in business. He was the cheapest I could find and saved me a ton of money, both in my solar panels and inverters (including some 2volt batteries). 
Will check to see what his prices are and will post them here, if he is still around. He was just doing it out of a small shed/shop/store. 

If you have any type of business, you can probably get them at cost from the main company as well. Or do some searching on the web for cheaper prices on closeouts. I am sure there are still bargains out there for Trace inverters. (Hence the recession and they need to sell them or eat them.)

If anyone is going solar, I wouldn't use the Trojan T-105's, I have had bad luck with them, went through two sets in four years. I went instead with the commercial Napa batteries, 7421? or 7459, the biggest one they have and had no problems since. The two volts are still going great as well. But I just had to mention those Napa buggers, first thing I have ever bought at Napa I didn't have to return in the first month. haha. I usually avoid Napa completely, but was desperate for another set of batteries and was shy of trying another expensive deep cell without having a replacement shop nearby. 
I think the most frustrating thing was I had to order the Trojans from another City and the shipping was enough to avoid trying the Trojans again, even if they were only a $100 a piece. However, ordering 8 at a time was a bit expensive.
Just my opinion anyway, perhaps others have had better luck with them.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh, I forgot to add. My designs could be posted I guess, but right now I am still configuring for the amps I am going to use for which motor I decide to go with, since I don't have the motor in my hands as of yet. I could use my 15hp and configure for that instead. Still looking at my options and a friend at the local reycling place is keeping his eyes open for me, since there I only have to pay weight on any motor. 

Once I get a final solution, I will post my design of the Var setup. Probably will have to do it on my profile, which is fine too. It probably won't be up for at least a month, since it may take that long to find a good motor or at least decide if any I get is worth rebuilding if I can find one that suits my needs.
I guess when I add my design I will add in details how to change its output so anyone can use the design for their purpose. I am sure many will be asking anyway.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> Interesting vehicle... I'm planning on a f150/chevy 1500 with a custom built cab ( need it to seat 8 people...lol ) and a long box. I'm still in the design phase tho, having a problem deciding on what frame to use..whether to go with one from say a motor home ( chopped down of course ) or the DIY route...lol.


Why not just convert an RV to an EVRV? Or just go with a King Cab long box.

[/QUOTE]
Your more or less right....I dont remember exactly how a DC converter works, but I believe it converts to low voltage AC steps it up to the desired voltage and recifies it back to DC.[/QUOTE]

Converters are for stepping down DC, Step up converters are for stepping up DC. However, the terminology gets used widely by just saying a converter. As long as the other person knows what is being said, its all good.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Why not just convert an RV to an EVRV? Or just go with a King Cab long box.


 King cab? You mean like a crew cab? I want a truck for my daily driver...lol, I have 4 kids and 1 on the way...so that's why i need at least 7 seats. I was going to take a regular extended cab and add an extra extension onto it. I considered a short box, but well they're useless for what I need, lol. And with local laws for u-built vehicles I'd either have to extend the frame, which I cant do because I don't have the proper welding tickets ( stupid laws ) so I have to pay some guy 1500.00 to extend the frame 4 ft. Or...I figured I'd buy an old wrecked RV..they're pretty cheap...1500 - 3000.00...I'll have to chop the framethen...which for some reason they dont mind...lol. I was considering keeping the frame longer and putting a small ICE in between te cab & box to run it as a series hybrid.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Upon looking around for ideas how to build a really nice concentrator solar setup myself, I found a website that had more than I bargained for.
IT has just about everything under the sun, including the wild and wacky inventions that vanished or at least have come to light at this website.
It is truly worth checking out, I can't seem to get away from it with all the mixed great, good, wacky, and plain silly reading material. However, there are a lot of great ideas and plans to build solar, wind or other energy devices.

http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm#aether

It is probably the largest collection I have ever seen, and I just Love it! 


Hope it inspires, makes you laugh, helps a cause or does something because someone spent a lot of time putting it all together. 
Check out those things under solar. Some of it is worthwhile.


----------



## mrg (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beyonder "I have 4 kids and 1 on the way...so that's why i need at least 7 seats."....

Why not buy a Suburban/Expedition etc, patch a 1/4 panel over the RR Wheel opening and then put your box behind it? If you find the right model you could possibly keep the rear window hatch and have access from the bed too. In any case, it would be simpler than messing with roof lines, cabin leaks and certainly a lot less welding.......


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



mrg said:


> Beyonder "I have 4 kids and 1 on the way...so that's why i need at least 7 seats."....
> 
> Why not buy a Suburban/Expedition etc, patch a 1/4 panel over the RR Wheel opening and then put your box behind it? If you find the right model you could possibly keep the rear window hatch and have access from the bed too. In any case, it would be simpler than messing with roof lines, cabin leaks and certainly a lot less welding.......


I like that and adding the box behind the rear is a good idea. 
Also, what about those extended vans, I have seen them hold up to 12 people easy, I think the VA near here uses them to transport vets who can't drive (or those who dnon't want to) to the VA hospital every week.

Also, I think it was beyonder that was looking for a design to built your own super capacitor. I found one here:
http://www.rexresearch.com/zip/weir.zip

It was located on the Rexresearch website I posted a few hours ago.
http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm
Here it is again if case you don't want to backtrack. haha

I was also reading that someone used wax and aluminum foil to make a battery cap with, the wax and foil acting as the battery of the cap. On top of that was the foil with carbon sprayed on in loops to make the cap.
Seemed like it might work, but haven't read about how much it put out.
Still reading....get back to that later.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



mrg said:


> Beyonder "I have 4 kids and 1 on the way...so that's why i need at least 7 seats."....
> 
> Why not buy a Suburban/Expedition etc, patch a 1/4 panel over the RR Wheel opening and then put your box behind it? If you find the right model you could possibly keep the rear window hatch and have access from the bed too. In any case, it would be simpler than messing with roof lines, cabin leaks and certainly a lot less welding.......


 That's a good idea...I never thought about a Suburban/Expedition I considered an Explorer and mounting seat from a van in it. Problem is cost mainly, Explorers in any decent shape are running around 4,000.00. I looked and there was a suburban for 3500 today. I can buy a body from a 07 F150 from wreckers for around 2,000.00. I was just going to buy 2 extended cabs, cut 1 in half and weld them together. Tieing in supports underneath to create new body mount locations. I was considering building my own cab or a tube frame with a skin for weight...Still in the planning stages tho so I'll keep your idea in mind


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Here is a van that fits 12 people.
http://www.carseek.com/reviews/dodge/sprinter-passenger-van/


2008 Dodge Sprinter Passenger Van
The tall roof of the 2008 Dodge Sprinter Passenger Van makes entering and exiting the van easy for all twelve of its passengers.

However, it is new, but I am sure there are older vans out there that fit twelve people at a much cheaper price.
At least the van offers comfort as well as space, which does save time in adding on to another vehicle. May be worth looking into for an older long van.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Here is something new. Regen Shocks. Absolutely a cool idea. 
Used on a X-Prize Chevy truck. 
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/11/14/x-prize-chevy-blazer-is-back-now-with-regenerative-shocks/










Now that adds one more thing to the list. Regen braking and regen shocks would give a nice edge to some more charge on the go. With some solar panels and perhaps adding a few spring coils around the vehicle and you would have a nice continuous charge. Interesting.

A List of "most" popular vehicles entered in the X-Prize:
http://xprizecars.com/XPrizeCars.html
(Note, not all contenders are listed here.)


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I don't believe in 'free energy' or in OverUnity-not at all.

BUT if you get enough Regen going(standard through the Motor+the shocks mentioned above)and boost the efficiency enough while reducing the Airflow problems with better body designs, lighten the chassis via better Battery tech and lighter materials in the frame, get PV cells affordable enough to add to the roof...well, you'd get a LOT more range.It wouldn't be Unlimited Mileage, but it would be low-maintenance and convenient enough to make both Big Auto and Big Oil try to kill the EV movement dead,dead, dead...

Oh, they're trying to do that anyway. Carry on...


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



order99 said:


> I don't believe in 'free energy' or in OverUnity-not at all.
> 
> BUT if you get enough Regen going(standard through the Motor+the shocks mentioned above)and boost the efficiency enough while reducing the Airflow problems with better body designs, lighten the chassis via better Battery tech and lighter materials in the frame, get PV cells affordable enough to add to the roof...well, you'd get a LOT more range.It wouldn't be Unlimited Mileage, but it would be low-maintenance and convenient enough to make both Big Auto and Big Oil try to kill the EV movement dead,dead, dead...
> 
> Oh, they're trying to do that anyway. Carry on...


 Normally I would agree full heartedly. I have serious doubts about free energy. However..take thermoelectric modules for example. They can generate 216 watts per sqft. Figure the total sqftage of a vehicle..say a pickup truck for example...that's around 90sqft ( just rough numbers ). That's around 18 KW production. And correct me if I'm wrong but arent the EVs running around 15KW/100 KM? The thermorelectric modules can be molded into existing body panels so therefor there would be no extra drag added. I have been researching online for a reason this wont work and yet haven't been able to find anything or anyone that can explain why it wont. 
I also don't have the means at this time to test my idea. I'd need around 360 of these modules at around 6.00 a piece. It works if you mount them to your windshield with the heater going on defrost. By definition t his would be a free energy device producing 3 more kw/hr than consuming. Perhaps someone will eventually be able to explain why it wont work...

And big autos not trying to kill the evs...they're just making way for us little guys to start lil auto's producing evs and bankrupting them! LOL


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> Normally I would agree full heartedly. I have serious doubts about free energy. However..take thermoelectric modules for example. They can generate 216 watts per sqft. Figure the total sqftage of a vehicle..say a pickup truck for example...that's around 90sqft ( just rough numbers ). That's around 18 KW production.


Without actually doing any math, one glaring problem is that you're never going to be driving somewhere that all of your car is in the sun. So when you subtract off the part that's in the shade, and derate the part that's in the sun but at less than 90 degree angle, you're going to be left with a much smaller amount of solar power generated.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well I think the concentrator solar panels are a great idea. Plus we are forgetting that if we added untra-caps or super-caps we can a nice recharge from the regen systems (both the shocks regen and the regen braking), which adds to the charge even if you don't have sun for a few hours.

In winter, your distance would decrease unless you lived in a sunny and warm area all year round. 

The combo sounds great and I see a lot of potential in those ideas.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Plus you can fill a pickup bed with spring coils and add a false bed on top with a metal frame, so you can still carry stuff around in the back of your pickup. By the estimates of the Shock Coils, they produce about 3 to 5kwh, so a bed full of coils would be worth a try. The weight added wouldn't be much, in fact perhaps around a 150 pounds (including aluminum frame). But, calculate added weight and the massive amount of charge, you have about 20:1 charge to the added weight.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> Well I think the concentrator solar panels are a great idea. Plus we are forgetting that if we added untra-caps or super-caps we can a nice recharge from the regen systems (both the shocks regen and the regen braking), which adds to the charge even if you don't have sun for a few hours.
> 
> In winter, your distance would decrease unless you lived in a sunny and warm area all year round.
> 
> The combo sounds great and I see a lot of potential in those ideas.


Anyone know how to calculate how much it would decrease?


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well there is a way. First, since you are going with solar as a primary to configure from, you have to use ionly solar to get the solution.
Then you can work from there with any other recharging devices onboard you have with their own calculations to be added later.

However, to first figure your solar, there are solar calculators out there on the web. Now, they are figuring for montly values and the calculations will have to be divided by 30 to get a daily value. Always minus an hour or two for clouds or going through tunnels, etc.
Here are two links to add in your data and see what you come up with.
http://www.where-rv-now.com/Notes/Solar/index.php#Calculator

and
http://www.bigfrogmountain.com/calculators/solarpanelsrequired.htm

and a solar wiring calculator
http://www.freesunpower.com/wire_calc.php

There are more out there, but these are simpe enough to just add in your data and get a solution without having to explain every thing in detail, which saves time at this point and space on this site.
Now, as you get a final solution, just divide it by 30, perhaps try it at both websites and see if you get the same answer. If not, then just pick the one you knew you were closest on your data with since the other may ask for something you are not sure of. However, knowing which concentrator solar panels helps and what their output is, otherwise you will be guessing.

Than figure by the final solution how many amps gained in one day from solar.
Add that to your battery pack and minus your loses from wiring and the charging system you have. (Guess even. 4% is below nominal, but it depends on what gauge you used.) I always just say 5% just to get a solution and work from there. You can do the final testing later to see your actual results at the batteries themselves on how much was gained. But at least you have something to work with and work up from there.

Hope this helps.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Wireless recharging, my newest research on the web. I thought about it when I saw a youtube video that showed a man hooked up one coil to his cellphone and Ipod and the other coil was carrying the charge from a plugged in energy source. The result was the second coil picked up the same charge from a distance (within inches for these small coils) and the units started charging. Then I ran across this.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/11/14/nissans-ev-forays-leading-to-wireless-recharging/

I forget who came up with the microwave wireless charging system, but an Auto company perfected it and uses it to recharge their EV with. 
http://gm-volt.com/2007/10/26/mitsubishi-i-miev-to-use-wireless-charging-system/

Now, it could be possible to charge an EV just by pulling into a recharge station, your garage or even have these coils on the sides of power poles along the roads so EV's could drive up next to them and recharge ANYWHERE. haha. I like it. I like it alot. No plugging in the EV, just drive next to a coil and start charging instantly. Hassle free. 

Now, I am curious to know if any of the shock coils, or spring coils would pick up enough of the charge without adding a seperate coil system. Hmmm.
What is your thoughts on this?


----------



## mrg (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

My thoughts....watch out when your car is wet and whatever you do, don't touch anything metal during the charging sequence. 

Of course it could be marketed as a free permanent for your hair with every fill-up! It might increase the number of women driving EVs and they influence the majority of buying decisions in the US.


----------



## Jordan (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

A couple years back while I was traveling on my way from Tennessee to D.C. (not quite to North Carolina yet) I stopped at this little rest area/market. I was amazed to learn that the whole set-up was powered off of the trees that surrounded it. One tree out front was set-up like the one in the video where you could come up and plug stuff into it. Awesome little spot. 

I tried to find the video of it as it was featured a different time on the Heartland Series. I could not find the video but found one that shows information about the idea, from the same T.V. series. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=340i4dzfYv0

If Tennessee can ever get some money from the feds they want to start recycling grass clippings for ethanol and start using technology like this, although, small scale at first. It would be interesting to say the least.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Jordan,

I truly hope you don't believe that video! 



Jordan said:


> A couple years back while I was traveling on my way from Tennessee to D.C. (not quite to North Carolina yet) I stopped at this little rest area/market. I was amazed to learn that the whole set-up was powered off of the trees that surrounded it. One tree out front was set-up like the one in the video where you could come up and plug stuff into it. Awesome little spot.
> 
> I tried to find the video of it as it was featured a different time on the Heartland Series. I could not find the video but found one that shows information about the idea, from the same T.V. series. Enjoy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jordan (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well of course the video is mostly bogus and he says that (Dr. A.C. Watts?). In the following videos that is when they visit the store which was the bases for the joke show. The electricity that the trees produce comes from a difference in PH from soil to plant. It has to be hooked up low on the plant in order to get any juice generally between 0.8-1.2v a tree. The non existent bonsais they showed where leading to the fact that smaller growing trees produce more juice.

The science is in it's infancy. The store I was at was powered by around 1,000 trees. It was little probably 10'-14'. Still it had coolers, AC and lights (in and out). Oak Ridge National Laboratory has something to do with the store from what I was told.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank
To answer your question:
The microwave wireless charging system you referred to was invented by Nicola Tesla. He was the first to experiment with wireless transmission of electricity in 1898. In fact, and this was proven, the lighting in his entire labratory on Houston St. in New York was wireless. Many reporters who visited the lab told of large glowing portable bulbs hanging everywhere which were lacking any wiring.
Tesla also theorized the earth as a large battery capable of producing massive amounts of free electricity.
Roy


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Jordan,

No the store was not powered by 1000 trees. I have gotten about 1.2 volts when hooked to a tree or plant but you can't put them in series because they all use the same ground. I tied three trees together and came up with a whopping 1.2 volts. The same as one tree. So the only energy you get is 1.2 or less volts and I can only assume that you will get micro-amps. The idea is total bogus. Try to put a battery in the circuit and try to charge it. You may get some LED's to power up and that may be cool. Try that. I would but have no LED's to try out. 

Pete 




Jordan said:


> Well of course the video is mostly bogus and he says that (Dr. A.C. Watts?). In the following videos that is when they visit the store which was the bases for the joke show. The electricity that the trees produce comes from a difference in PH from soil to plant. It has to be hooked up low on the plant in order to get any juice generally between 0.8-1.2v a tree. The non existent bonsais they showed where leading to the fact that smaller growing trees produce more juice.
> 
> The science is in it's infancy. The store I was at was powered by around 1,000 trees. It was little probably 10'-14'. Still it had coolers, AC and lights (in and out). Oak Ridge National Laboratory has something to do with the store from what I was told.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well, the videos may have been a joke, but I have made the wireless (Ionic/radiant) circuits and I have powered a clock before. The tree idea will only put out so much little volts like ghottdi had tried, but I got 6.7 volts by placing a stainless steel two foot rod on one side and a three foot copper rod on the other, both pounded in the ground about 9 inches or so. Hooked my positive up to the copper rod and negative to the nail in the tree about head height and was going to try other ideas out but the snow came. Curious to know if the snow will make any difference. 
However, the first part of the video could be true with the little box running the clock, this was done by several people including me. I was gonig to sell them at one point as radiant clocks, but trying to get an antenna configuration right in a small area was difficult. Perhaps a coil antenna would work. STill tinkering with it all. The zinc part interests me, I may try that as an antenna as well. Also have a roll of aluminum fence wire I may try.
In all it is fun to play with and I always liked that kind of stuff.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Very Interesting. Like the video even though it was a joke. haha
I have tried just using the copper rods and steel rods before as well, just a few weeks ago after I posted the link to rexresearch and found something about it on there. I got only a few votls as well. However, I was going to try them in series using diodes to see what the increase would be. (Using a cap as the collector). By taking one lead off from the second and checking the voltage I can see if it will go up or down, perhaps you all have a good idea and getting enough milliamps will lite up some LED's on an outside Christmas tree. 

Seems a few people beat me to the free energy radiant circuit design, I just have been waiting to go to radio shack to pick up a few things. Maybe I can get a clock to run off one for the heck of it. I also have a 32dbi wireless antennae I picked up a few years ago, was war driving when traveling for free interent service in Arizona once..but besides that the thing just sits here looking back at me. I may try it out as a radiant antennae or try to see if I can get a few microwave signals and see what I can do with a few parts to convert it into milliwatts or who knows. Wonder if Nissan has a patent. haha

I am also one of those who like to tinker with new gadgets like hightech and a few others here. I will have some cool links to post shortly. Got to find them.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, found a few of them, but will post more when I find them.
Here is something that caught my interest. 
The pyramid generator.
http://www.rexresearch.com/trawoeger/trawoeger.htm

Then there is this page, which about half way down -keep scrolling- you will find ebooks on aether and tesla, among others. 
The one I found interesting was the ebook on "Modern Aether Science by Dr. Harold Aspden."
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/

Let me know what you think of both.


----------



## Beyonder (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I remember reading not to long ago an article on microwave power distribution they were planning in some valley over in the states. Don't know if they got far with it but I do know there were concerns about cancer,ect. However that may have just been naysayers to...


----------



## dgallagher (Dec 23, 2008)

I am new to this site. I look foward to learning all I can, and if converting a small car to an EV. As far as alternators go I am a pilot and on the older aircraft they would have small porpellers attached to alternators externaly mounted in the slip stream to charge up the battery. They make newer ducted fan versions now. Maybe this could be applied. Just a thought.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank
Here is an interesting video I saw on Youtube a while back. I have a smaller Sterling Engine and I have performed this experiment using a magnifying glass.
Roy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrB7...eature=related


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> LeTank
> Here is an interesting video I saw on Youtube a while back. I have a smaller Sterling Engine and I have performed this experiment using a magnifying glass.
> Roy
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrB7...eature=related


I like it. However, it looks like putting any type of alternator/generator on the unit would probably stop it, but adding a few magnets to the wheel and a coil sitting beside it would give some juice. Pretty cool though. Not a bad thing to use for trickle charging a battery.

Beyonder,
I also remember reading about the wireless energy run villa, I think it was in Nevada or California. I think it was working the last time I read about it, but forgot about it until you brought it up. Now..If we can just find that News thread that talked about it. Would be nice to re-read it again. I could be wrong about where it was and if it worked or not, but I think it worked. Not sure.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Interesting video I found. check this out. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdup42Epq0o


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank
That was a very interesting video but they never named the device.
Do happen to know the name?
Roy


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

They didn't name it, but it was a mix of Tesla's radiant energy device and Coley (1921) who also created similar devices. The main idea is using a 3 coil system, in which ever way you can make the coils work with in this case magnetic wire wrapped around an insulated copper tube. The copper tube is one acting coil, the magnetic wire is the second coil and the third is the magnetic field. Tesla had as many as 5 coils inside of each other, as I have been studying this late last night. A man found that by taking an inside of a toilet paper roll and putting aluminum foil inside it and around the outside with a magnetic wire going through it to a capacitor and out the other side to a larger round aluminum antennae the unit put out so many volts it went off the scale. He had two of the toilet paper coils made and one with about 500 wraps of copper wire on it. Think it was also on the same page as the other youtube video, but its there on youtube. Will see if I can find it again. All of these contain a series of coils, either by wire or with a copper rod or aluminum foil as a coil. All produce voltage that can be used. 

So, I am thinking of the 3 looped antennaes of aluminum (tesla had talked about) and using it attached to the copper rod with magnetic wire looped around it. Will see if I can get more voltage than just lighting up Christmas tree lights. Perhaps adding in the toilet paper spool with aluminum wrapped around it. Then adding a coil later in the same fashion. 

Fun to tinker with. I tried the copper rod (12 inches long) with what I had early this morning for fun and only got a few volts, but I am going to have to go with the exact plans from the video to get anything more to start with and work up from there. The copper tube I had was larger as well, I think the smaller size is needed for the magnetic wire to have its full affect through the smaller pipe.

From what I am reading the coil or round toroid features acing as a coil, even a coil itself wrapped inside of another coil and so on all are creating a magnetic field displacement which is causing the ions to move causing friction in a magnetic sense to create energy that can be collected. That was probably the best description I have found yet that explains it.
It is interesting indeed. I know someone will find something that eventually puts out enough amps to even charge a single battery, which I am always looking for in case the solar unit on the future project doesn't always get enough sunlight to charge my single battery. (For the radio, wipers, etc.)


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Going to play with it more, may try another copper wrap on top of the aluminum just for kicks. Trial and error time. Hack away.
Merry Christmas by the way. YeeehAAWW. Christmas is here.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Anyone heard of these fellows? EV7?
http://www.ev7.org/

Are they still in business?

Another car that gets my goat. In 1996 it got over 370 miles per charge. Grrrrr.
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=305

What is even more frustrating, this the news on the Tor De Sol of 2006. 
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=285

Huge difference and it has been 10 years, ok, I am going to find 2008 and this will be probably worse than 2006. 
Insanity, its complete insanity to have made those awesome vehicle in 1996 and today they are scrap metal.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, now some ranting.
As in "Oh dear, Another Spill" hasn't been heard before, in fact one of the many hundreds of spills large or small that seems to get world attention. However, it just makes me feel horrible knowing solar and wind energy is here and energy giants are not taking advantage of it, even if they would make more , yes MORE money with solar or wind energy than using coal. Anyway, another day and another spill. Here is the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Isn't it like the EPA or DVA to play down the toxins in the spill, much like that of 911. So let us hope the people in Tenn. are not so gullible and will get out of the area quickly to avoid the toxins in the coal sludge. 

But to add to the latest of news, just because Pakistan is moving its troops to India's border, we will see our gas prices go up. 

Now, I am glad I own an EV, but I still feel I need to finish converting all my ICE's to EV's. Just because I feel I am doing my part in helping keep some part of my area clean and by using solar I feel somewhere down the road perhaps enough people will do the same and less oil, coal or gas will be the demand. 

Anyway, just thought it would be nice to rant here with a few words. Anyone feel you want to rant or rave about something related to EV's, feel free. 

Back to this Thread, the Chinese make a limited Ranged Vehicle and call it an Extended Range Electric Vehicle. Extended? Where? Perhaps they have a different dictionary than I do.
http://jalopnik.com/5110178/byd-f3d...ar-launches-in-china-out+volts-prius-and-volt


----------



## aussie_ev (Dec 29, 2008)

Hi All,

I've decided I dont want to have a battery rack in my EV I want a free energy motor.

This is what I am thinking of using in my EV conversion when I get started.

Either a Perendev motor

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9rbysrv24

or a Bedini motor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_f4cXKjybI&feature=related

Going to model these small scale to get the engine working first and see which is more efficient and then build the real thing.

Would only use a battery to kick start the electro magnets sort of like a starter motor. I then want to feed a portion of the energy of the engine back to keep the electro magnets going and trickle charge the battery.

Hopefully this setup would allow me to get rid of the battery rack and hence the weight in the car and do away with having to recharge overnight. Just get in and go, well thats the dream anyway.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

aussie_ev said:


> well thats the dream anyway.


that's all these perpetual motion machines ever are...... dreams.


----------



## rfengineers (Jun 2, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Is the photo below Quartz Crystal or Diamond? You sure of your answer? It feels cold, shows up white on Xray film, Did not fluoresce while being x-rayed. Have not put it under UV light yet. Oh I forgot it was found in California in the northern hills around Folsom Lake.
> Pete : )


Pete, 
The crystal structure should give you a klew. Diamond is FCC Carbon with 1/4-1/4 interstices. What you have might be Beta-Cristobalite (quartz), but I am not sure.

Joe


----------



## rfengineers (Jun 2, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Is the photo below Quartz Crystal or Diamond? You sure of your answer? It feels cold, shows up white on Xray film, Did not fluoresce while being x-rayed. Have not put it under UV light yet. Oh I forgot it was found in California in the northern hills around Folsom Lake.
> Pete : )


Looking closer, the crystal looks more rhombohedral than cubic. It is still likely in the SiO2 (quartz) family. Very common in that part of California.

I'm a materials engineer, not a geologist. Give me an X-Ray diffraction pattern and I can identify it.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

O.K. first of all I want everyone to know that bendini and perendev type technology won't work. I had fun screwing around with the idea, but it is not self perpetuating. 

It violates the laws of conservation of energy. If you want free energy try for solar panels.

Or better yet I ran across this guy for a free energy circuit. It takes radio waves and makes electricity out of them.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/915226/free_electricity_from_thin_air/


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

i dont knwo why everyones saying perpetual doesnt exist. He does and hes in my garage - i will post pics of him tomorrow, considering he hasnt left by then.


----------



## COS (Dec 23, 2008)

Perendev has never been replicated and Bedini is kind of complicated and too sensitive to the copper wire wound coils.
I would consider the Adams motor. My son and I made a few of them, never got to 1:1 and obviously never got to overunity, but really close. 

Here's a suggestion, don't go for overunity completely. Go for regen assisted overunity. Basically if your Adams motor is close to 1:1 say 95%:1 with descent torque, then use the kenetic energy transfered fron brake regen to your motor to kick you into OU for a short period of time. Also use a flywheel or better yet, design the rotor heavy enough to act as a flywheel.

One other thing to keep in mind is there's incidental wind you can harness to push the Adams motor into OU. Think about it.
________
Amura


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

New Hope or just Hype?

Subaru is taking its claim to a new level stating that in 2009 they will be bringing their new electric car to the US for $17,500 and it will get 128 miles per charge and charge in 10 minutes. Fuji has stated it has designed a faster charging system. 
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/electric-subaru.html

This was posted in 2007, but has anyone seen or heard about Subaru's EV yet? I am curious to find out more and if this was a failed idea.
Also want to know more about their charging system if anyone knows.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I doubt the 10 minute charge claim but hey, even 1 hour would be Awesome! And a production EV with Lithiums for less than $17,500?
Yeah baby.....Hook me up!


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well it looks like Subaru may have something to be competitive with in 08-09 with their two different models, however, I am still digging around for exactly what is required to use the quick charging system. 

This is the latest news on the two models and that Subaru wants to be the top maker of EV's today. 
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/06/geneva-2008-subaru-wants-to-be-tops-in-evs/


Here is the Subaru G4e model:
Charges in 15 minutes. I like its style, roomy interior and range.)








http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/10/tokyo-motor-show-subarus-g4e-lithium-batteries-200-km-per-c/

Here is the R1e model:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/26/subaru-ev-could-arrive-as-early-as-2009/

Perhaps there will be more coming up on the requirements such as if there has to be a 220 volt system wired to the quick charger or if the charger has to have a higher voltage input. Even if a person had to wire their electric car charger output in their garage a little differently to make the charger work, it would be worth it to get the car charged in 15 minutes.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I would like to add my tuppence worth to the fast charging discussion.

Most of the factory cars (Tesla ..) can produce power at 150Kw+

Their batteries can probably absorb power at a similar rate 

This could charge a 30 Kwh pack in 12 minutes

Now comes the catch - 150Kw

I am expecting a future "Charging Station" to consist of a number of batteries that are charged at - 3Kw - but that are used to charge their customers electric cars at the 150Kw rate

Probably 600 Volts and 250 Amps

The charging station could use older heavier batteries and make extra money as a load spreading resource for the power companies


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Duncan said:


> I would like to add my tuppence worth to the fast charging discussion.
> 
> 
> Now comes the catch - 150Kw


Hi, try this link and see what you think!!!! Hmm.....
http://www.mullenmotorco.com/
Or, you might like to chase this one up!!!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/shelby-supercars-ultimate-aero-ev-electric-car.php


Regards
Rob


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

http://www.mullenmotorco.com/specifications2.htm

Power Source-240V,600A
Power Supply- 2 Batteries, 12V



C'mon....


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

A perpetual motion machine with an abundant fuel source: women that we can repulse! WOO HOO.

Brilliance!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I am afraid order99 said it well "C'mon..."

Even if you have a "Flux Capacitor" you still need to get the energy in there so if you want a fast charge you are talking about high energy rates "150Kw"

OTOH this is not difficult if your charging station has its own "Flux Capacitor" or battery bank so it can charge over a longer period from mains and then discharge into your car battery at the high rate


----------



## ice (Sep 8, 2008)

Hi COS,

Adams motor? can you give me more info. Thank you!


----------



## slurryguy (Dec 16, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You want unlimited mileage? 

Here is how you can build it yourself.

Take the typical DIY Electric Conversion car that is very well documented on this forum.

Turn it into a series hybrid using a Radioisotope Thermionic Generator.

Just to give you an idea, the Voyager space probes use RTG's, and have had continuous power every day since 1977. No interruptions. For about 90 pounds in weight, those generators produce over 300 watts of continuous power. 24x7x365 x over 30 years. Don't confuse these devices with Nuclear Reactors... they aren't the same thing at all. These generators make their power with the natural radioactive decay of their fuel to induce electric current in metal plates. Rather like a nuclear battery.

You'd still need traditional batteries to supply power to the traction motor for high current load situations, but the car would self-charge whenever you park it, heck it would charge a little bit every time you coast or stop at an intersection. No plugging in required.

Who among us drives 24 hours straight consistently anyway? Me personally, I get antsy to empty my bladder after a couple of hours behind the wheel. Might as well let my car recharge on its own while I look around, answer the call of nature, grab a bite to eat, shop, work, throw a baseball around, sleep... The RTG would keep pumping out the watts all the time, no matter what I was doing. The traction pack batteries would always be stronger when I get into the car than they were when I parked the car every time.


Disadvantages? Oh sure... everyone driving around with nuclear material in their car might raise a few eyebrows, but nothing comes for free right? Pick your poision... greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? or a few nuclear spills on the interstate? Make those fire, police, and ambulance departments earn their pay by working in a nuclear hazard area. They can handle it.

Cost? Sure it won't come cheap, but how much do most people pay for gasoline over 30 years?

Getting a license to handle the nuclear material?
Details, Details, Details.

It's proven technology that is decades old. It just hasn't been put in a car (that I know of.)





My suggestion... don't hold your breath on this one... we'll never see it go into production. (nor should we want to see it.) It would work, though.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



slurryguy said:


> My suggestion... don't hold your breath on this one... we'll never see it go into production. (nor should we want to see it.) It would work, though.


I'd rather have a few nanoliters of antiprotons... I think it could power a car for about 100,000 years per nanoliter.


----------



## slurryguy (Dec 16, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> I'd rather have a few nanoliters of antiprotons... I think it could power a car for about 100,000 years per nanoliter.


 
Show me a portable, functioning, long term containment system for antimatter, and we'll talk.

RTG's are already proven technoligies. Heck... the instructions for building the RTG powered hybrid would not be complicated. It would be easy to post on this forum.

Finding a legal source for the fuel... well... that's the hard part.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I think the antiprotons would have more "bang for the buck" so to speak.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beyonder said:


> Normally I would agree full heartedly. I have serious doubts about free energy. However..take thermoelectric modules for example. They can generate 216 watts per sqft. I have been researching online for a reason this wont work and yet haven't been able to find anything or anyone that can explain why it wont.
> I also don't have the means at this time to test my idea. I'd need around 360 of these modules at around 6.00 a piece. It works if you mount them to your windshield with the heater going on defrost. By definition t his would be a free energy device producing 3 more kw/hr than consuming. Perhaps someone will eventually be able to explain why it wont work..


The reason it doesn't work normally is because you need a temperature gradient. I'm not sure how one would get the outside hot and the inside cold or vice versa without wasting energy. During the summer perhaps the gradient between the cars hot metal and the outside air but I am not sure how much of a gradient would develope, especially given the fact that when the module makes electricity it also will try to cool or heat the surface(s) to an equilibrium. My guess is you would need to space the modules a ways apart so there would be enough metal to conduct heat to the module, maybe fins to conduct better into the air. (which would increase drag if your driving at the moment)

The more I look at this the more I think that it would work best at stationary sites.

Good Luck


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

Stiive said:


> i dont knwo why everyones saying perpetual doesnt exist. He does and hes in my garage - i will post pics of him tomorrow, considering he hasnt left by then.


_Wha ha ha ! ........That’s funny............Did ET phone home............I would like to see his picture though .......Ha Ha!.........._


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Hello to all who participate and read this thread, to the orthodox and the heretic alike greetings and salutations. I have now read this whole thread and I have to say it has been both entertaining as well as inspirational at certain levels. My hat is off so to speak to you orthodox types who recite the status quo and hold the proverbial line in the sand like the great wall of china keeping out the mongol horde and rightly so; keep up the good fight of faith. My hat is off to you heretics also for your intended or unintended aspirations of dreaming the impossible dreams of: and I will say the words and terms: — Perpetual Motion , Free Energy , Over Unity and etc.... Often you are ridiculed and insulted and laughed at as well as called (labeled) with degrading titles either expressed or thought by the orthodox who have the understanding of the facts concerning physics in - re > energy etc.... Of which are the discussions of this thread and for that matter the forum. For it is the orthodox type’s responsibility to keep the proverbial line in the sand and great wall standing firm. However for those heretical types who choose (for that is what the word heretic means in the ancient language — choosing to think differently from the popular view ) to express the wonder of the creative imagination of your mind by beating your heads against the proverbial wall ....... I say more power to you and Whoa! .... As well as may you never stop for it is your responsibility just as much and maybe more so than the orthodoxy. As we find ourselves now just entering the 21st century where energy has become so great an issue in so many ways. Let us look back with the logic of our own maturity and years like the thought often quoted ( I wish I knew what I know now when I was younger ) acknowledging the wisdom and knowledge that come with time. So to - look then at the centuries past when in the light of history we see how the 18th century paled in comparison to the 19th as did the 19th pale to the 20th so also will the 20th just past not come near to comparing to the possibilities of the 21st century that we find ourselves interring. It just might be that the laws of physics - relativity will be proved true even more so in that its laws perpetuate change / evolution as in mass and energy from one form to the other which are in themselves tangibles .... However intangibles are like the darkness in which holds the light of which we can see more clearly .......That is it is not what we already KNOW that causes us to grow in knowledge, understanding and wisdom but it is the Darkness, the unknown (WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN REALIZED) that causes us to grow in knowledge, understanding and wisdom and advances us ......(LIKE THE LIGHT SHINING OUT OF THE DARKNESS) so we now stand at the edge of the darkness — the unknown 21st century that is before us . Many look into the darkness and anticipate with fear the unknown events and changes before us with much apprehension . Even though the past showed many problems it also shows us that the possibilities of the future should be amazing and wondrous. And in as I said a time when the world is in such a predicament as to the (Conservation , Use and Acquiring of Energy) The world must for the sake of necessity inter in to a new era and take the next step in reference to unknown forms of energy complimentary or uncomplimentary. I do support the fundamental laws of physics, What E=mc2 says and how it is applied. Not so much as a limit but as a foundation by which we take the next step . The thoughts of energy, momentum and force and how they are related . The conservation of energy and momentum and how to apply them. These corresponding in relation of how greater than c speed is achieved in classical physics and why these methods fail in relativity theory. Therefore I applaud the efforts of all the dreamers who either intended or unintended beat their heads against the proverbial wall of the status quo. For it is the freedom to think and of choice when it comes to the power of imagination that brings about growth and change resulting in possibilities and not limitations that shows us to be in one way the progeny of GOD . So with respect to Perpetual Motion , Free Energy , Over Unity and what ever other name by which called , I acknowledge there incompatibility with the laws of physics now held and leave the door open wide for the possibilities of this century . For in a time such as this it will take something like Perpetual Motion etc... to fill such a large deficiency as we face today and the future . I look to the future with eyes open and not closed to the hope and possibilities . With that said I say to you dreamers of which I count myself as one — dream on the so called impossible dream. It just might be that in some stated idea (dream) no matter how naive , there might be some tiny key when heard by someone that helps to unlock the reality of Perpetual Motion etc.......And free this world from its dependancies . But as the man himself says — and I [quote]— Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case. Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science. _
_There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there.There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance. Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. Information is not knowledge. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them. When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking........................Albert Einstein_


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zlinM1wAI5U

Not what I would call practical, but it may inspire someone to think of something.

Why its not overunity - this motor seem very interesting and needs no external power to run. As you will see the water is the main driving force and its falling at the end and therefore the gravity is adding to the output power and thats why it works. - well thats what I think..


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Love the waterjet powered water wheel. Of all the Perpetual motion machines, this is the most ridiculous. How does the generator provide 110volt ac current for the pump and bulb with no rectifier?

I have tried building a few of these machines, until I realized they won't work. You can't violate the laws of physics. Specifically the Law of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Conservation of energy.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Hello gottdi , Boy you said a lot about what you think, and your position is well known.......But why are you getting so upset ? Yes I did say a lot didn’t I , and buy your statement that I didn’t say much at all ; it is plain to everyone that what I did say rattled you .......Really just what part was against the very position you so passionately are defending and why ? As for as the entertaining metaphor concerning ( really needing to stop trying to make that square work as a wheel).As well as the statement (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over but expecting different results.) Which was the only quote from Albert Einstein that I noticed and I agree with it — if that is what a person is doing the same exact thing ; I however never implied any such thing. I really think you should read my post again ........Boy I do hope that statement doesn’t offend you also . There too I was not trashing you or anyone that I’m aware of ....If so just state what I said so I can better explain it to you . I never said that I new of any that actually works and as you must agree it must actually do work . Therefore as to some advocated experiment or idea that I’m promoting from all those touted and heralded I take no part in any defense there of , and yes there have been many. I would dare to say that neither you or me knows every experiment and every idea researched in the last 100 or so years, and I would further think that you could agree that most people have not this knowledge either . So when someone is posting some idea that has come into his mind and has no idea that it has been researched and tried before , how should he be dealt with etc...Kindly point it out to him or shall we censure him and not allow such thoughts to be posted or maybe ban him/her from the thread or forum completely ... I mean really — what is the topic of this thread ? Is it not ( *Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...) Or is it ( Opposition to Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that.) *I think it’s the first ... In any other forum posts that continually oppose* the topic of the thread would be in opposition and require *administrative action . Are you a Administrator ? Boy I hope not for this might be my last post here ........However if you read my post you can see that I said , and I quote (My hat is off so to speak to you orthodox types who recite the status quo and hold the proverbial line in the sand like the great wall of china keeping out the mongol horde and rightly so — the orthodox who have the understanding of the facts concerning physics in - re > energy etc.... Of which are the discussions of this thread and for that matter the forum. For it is the orthodox type’s responsibility to keep the proverbial line in the sand and great wall standing firm.) Or did you just focus on the positive things I said about those whose ideas you so passionately appose and take issue . All I was and am doing is applauding the freedom to think and express the hope of possibilities that might be realized if we are allowed too . Read my post _
_again please . Here is a quote from someone see if you know who it is — ("Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race") — I know if you do a search you can find him ........Now I can only hope that you get my point of the second post now.....................Best of thoughts .....EVF........_


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



ourbobby said:


> Hi, try this link and see what you think!!!! Hmm.....
> http://www.mullenmotorco.com/
> Or, you might like to chase this one up!!!
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/shelby-supercars-ultimate-aero-ev-electric-car.php
> ...


Sorry I missed the convo's the last few days, wow, I like the Mullen GT Sports Car and the other Regen concept with only two batteries. So, perhaps it was and could be done. I love to see this kind of stuff, its like they put another big X on GM and Ford. 

Now the 240volt system would work to charge in less than 15 minutes would be worth the investment to install a 240volt system in the garage for me if I had the vehicle. 

I just hope to see these cars on the market, at least on our local car lots for sale, but hoping in hand and and ..... in the other. =)

As for the Shelby Supercars, its old news, but however I was digging around on how they propose to have years in between charges and found a few things including three different regen systems onboard. Regen braking, Back EMF regen-charging, and rotor-in-wheel regen system. However, I cannot confirm these and felt they may have been false on the website I was reading it on, but who knows. It was during Christmas break and my hard drive took a dump so I lost the bookmark. But.. somewhere in between it does make sense from an engineering point of view, but was it enough to recharge the supercaps? I would like to know more.

I do like the nuclear waste idea, but spills are a bitch to clean up. haha


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Hello gottdi , sorry for being so long winded . It seems it sometimes takes a lot of words to lets say paint the picture clearly . Like wise it takes listening to more words to get the picture also . That said I think it best to just say that I do not disagree with your recited creed above with exception to # 6 even though I can understand how you feel as to the content of it . However my exception is to the spirit it engenders as to possible actions taken out of some righteous indignation . Which could be offensive and actually stifle interest in the person being dealt with . I wonder if in your past experiences if you possible were stubbornly positive about some idea even though you were told that it had been tried before and would not work . Did you go ahead and persist anyway or did you listen to what you were told the first time that it wouldn’t work . If however you did persist was it (the same thing but with a little different added part to the idea ) Really if so then should not these ones in #6 be granted the same privilege of learning through trial and failure . Not saying that was how it was maybe you were a great student and never questioned . However the prior could explain your position in that you don’t want them to suffer the failures and loss of time and money you experienced . But I am not so sure of that . So lets call it a day and end with this quote — (There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case.) — What do you think he was thinking in that statement ? Looking foreword to your answer ..................EVF........._


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Round about story with a point..

When I was a kid, I was intrigued how a magnet could move anther magnet and over the years I learnt how roughly in its basic sense and apparently even in modern science its is still not fully understood. But clearly viewable is that magnets will push or attract each other, this we could call mechanical motion. As we don’t put anything into a magnet to cause this motion, it is classed as free energy. But that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t some force put into making the magnets.

Since I started looking at EV’s the most common problem is power and getting enough at the right weight to do our bidding. 
Because of magnets we have tried many time to make a device that will spin using magnets and what we look from those was the electro magnetic motor and generator.

Our dreams have come up with the Perendev magnetic motor, some people have tried to make this work and have failed and viewing the video on Youtube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGiWiXMHn0) you can see that the video cuts away and it is probable that some machine is turning the crank on the other side.
One thing that we know why these type of motors don’t work is because of back emf that’s comes on the back of the magnetic field as they rotate and this stalls the motor.
So what if we can dump this back emf? 
Its these kind of fakes and shows that people put on that inspire other to look and try to find ways to produce motion.

While looking around and following many dead ends I came across many other areas that for the most part proved worthwhile. But as most people like to copy rather than do any real work, you can not show any lead to be positive as it seems to be repeats after repeats feeding from one story that was not true. – This is what I have found.

One of the interesting things that I came across was a Tesla box, As we know Tesla gave us much and has done many things that we rely on today and quite a lot of this relates to electric cars.
One of the stories/tales was of a box Tesla had made to power a car in buffalo, this apparently was witness by his young relative and he give some information about this in a so called interview and names one of the parts. But this could all be fictional. 
Some believe that this could be what was called the Tesla switch. So I Google and had a look around and some people had tried this out. Most using 9volt D9 cell batteries as apposed to the LA batteries that some have claimed to have worked. for the most part. Looking at the tests people have done and claimed as a fake, one report said that there was a rise in the battery charge for a time, the over all power was a loss. In my eyes this shows some possibilities for a limited amount of power, up to the critical point.

When I looked at Tesla’s work and something that I had heard of many years ago, I started to put some things together, and have formulated something to try out, but with out the lab etc, this hasn’t got any further than the inside of my head, and by no means do I have enough info on all the subjects that the total of the formula could be a cert. The odd thing is that it touches on many areas of science and physic’s and isn’t free energy but a tap (tap into energy).
Hopefully there is something that I am right about and that someone who’s got the equipment can look into. One of the positive leads that I have come up with was a guy who inadvertently stumbled into this while trying to find something else, its not quite what I was looking for, but it is a step in the right direction. So it does look promising.

I probably wont make a good outline, as what’s in my head and what I write are two different things because I run several things at once (who said men cant multi task) and sometimes skip points that I have ran off before typing fast enough. So here goes, please don’t ask me to go over points and why as the info will be taken from known science, if its debatable then I will say so.
So here goes.
At an atomic level, everything is made up of stuff, that includes electrons, its my understanding that this is what we use and is called electricity.

Nikola Tesla in some of his later days went to a building site and used a sound wave device (like a tuning fork) to shake a building. Tesla has a lot of his work based on wavelengths 

A doctor looking for something ( I cant remember) made a whistle that when he operated it killed him instantly, much the same as breaking glass with a certain wave length. 
Cancer is treated using radiotherapy, this is because the wavelength of the cancer cell is about the same of the radio wave and therefore hits the spot and destroys the cell.

The general consensus is that everything works on a wavelength playing certain waves – be that sound, light or energy you can alter the object, or destroy it. In some reading, the Soviet Union use this tech on creating the hulls of their submarines – unconfirmed- 
In more recent time a guy was looking for a cancer cure and found that applying this waves to sea water you could light it. This and the Mayers Water powered car was suppose to use this tech to drive the car (produce the fuel at one of the stages)

It was my though that, if you could find the wavelength for the electron or to detach the electron from the atom, that you could use anything to get the electron from to ‘fuel’ the EV.

So It maybe prudent to say that its not a matter of improving on the battery tech that we have but getting rid of it in place for something different. The closes thing that we currently have is a fuel cell that converts water to a gas, and then takes the electrons from the gas to produce power.
One of the hardest problems is that it’s all about thinking outside of the box. It was one of the things that is hard as most things are ground in, try to explain time with out reference to clocks and calendars and you will see that this isn’t that easy.
So here are some videos that are to inspire:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM 
This video uses sonic waves apparently – all unconfirmed
This video from the same place, was also interesting as some people had been talking about using caps to replace batteries, maybe this would inspire? 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8fR3vBB1Yn0 -unconfirmed

 So hopefully, we have taken the pressure off the battery and how to store energy and look towards portable power systems. Even if its small bits to make a whole from different sources.


----------



## kevgrn114 (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, I will be the first to admit I have not read this entire thread, I really prefer pictures.  However I would like to throw something a little different into the mix than the typical generator spinning providing extra power that can't work because of the magnetic field it creates and bogs down the generator. etc. etc. 

I have heard of Piezoelectric tiles that generate electricity off of the foot traffic in highly used public areas. Basically, you step on it and get a small charge. Now I haven't done extensive research or ran the numbers or anything like that, but let me just throw this out there.

Why couldn't you incorporate this type of thing on the tread of the tire so that as it rolls the bottom part under pressure would generate a charge that would not adversly affect your rate of speed or power to maintain that speed. Thoughts? Questions? Rants? Ridicule?

Thanks,
Kevin

Oh, here is one link I have found on the tiles and how they work.
http://www.stevens.edu/ses/me/filea...11/Design_Documentation/Senior_D_brochure.pdf


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Hey,

I saw the piezo-electric tiles your talking about. They don't produce a significant amount of electricity, but when covered a huge area with constant foot traffic like at a subway station, they do produce usable power. Unfortunatily they don't work to well in such small numbers, and it would cause extra drag to the car. Kind of like lowering your tires air pressure.

I think I will just wait till solar cells make the next big breakthrough.


----------



## kevgrn114 (Jan 28, 2009)

I was wondering where the pressure from the tire is trasferred to inside the tire itself. Like if they were wrapped around the inside of the rim if they would still get press and release action from the air inside the tire being redistributed. 

I'm with you on the solar cells, they are working on inkjet ink that can print out cells on plastic and that have a different color ink to capture specific bands in the light spectrum, then layer those on top of each other to increase the efficiency. I love the SCience channel. 

Here is one interesting article on thhat type of thing:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



GTWCMT said:


> One of the interesting things that I came across was a Tesla box...



And ran an electrified 1931 Pierce Arrow by tapping into unseen energy waves. 


http://www.keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm





GTWCMT said:


> Nikola Tesla in some of his later days went to a building site and used a sound wave device (like a tuning fork) to shake a building. Tesla has a lot of his work based on wavelengths...


And when the priests blew the trumpets and the people shouted, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

_Paraphrased from the events of JOSHUA 6:16_


---

I also believe that if we can tap into the "nethers" as Tesla did, we can use the invisible power that is all around us to do useful work such as power EVs.


I also suspect that the Federal mandate to go from Analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting will free up radio transmission waves _for something_ and wonder what that something is.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The change from Analog broadcasting to Digital broadcasting uses the same waves, What they have done is added more layers to it which they can with the digitial signal.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> http://www.keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm


lol, the guy/gal who wrote that site, what were they smoking???


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Gavin1977 said:


> lol, the guy/gal who wrote that site, what were they smoking???


LOL, I did notice that the post was made in 1993.
This bit is great though:
"At present there are several companies offering interim solutions. Some offer electric powered designs - but this is strictly batteries, while others offer a hybrid combination of batteries and small gasoline engines. All of these so-called "modern alternatives" suffer from the same lack of accessories we've become accustomed to."

I was looking at the batteries named at the bottom of the page, I didnt really find anything, other than repeats of the same document, was this the nikle mag batteries? that have in the best part come and almost gone in terms of battery tech.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



GTWCMT said:


> The change from Analog broadcasting to Digital broadcasting uses the same waves, What they have done is added more layers to it which they can with the digitial signal.


They plan to use part of the digital spectrum used by analog for emergency services signals and expanded cellular coverage. I've also heard rumors about over the air broadband. Analog TV uses a huge amount of bandwidth. Nice thing about this conversion is spectrum that used to carry one channel, at least in the Tulsa area, is now being used to carry as many as 5 channels. 

My favorite, channel 8.3, is the Retro TV network. I watch more TV per day than I used to watch per week thanks to this little gem, which shows all the great TV shows they had from the 1980s on back. Airwolf, Knight Rider, The A Team, Maggot PI, all the great ones are there, and according to their website they are nationwide. They also adhere to the old 20 percent rule for commercials, so you see ALL the show, not cut up bits like they show on the regular tube.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The number one reason why most of the past inventions for creating free energy-zero point energy or other energy devices were debunked, discredited, or disappeared was due mostly to greed, money and power. If everyone knew they worked they would make it themselves and there would be no monthly income to the power companies (the largest money maker in the world next to oil). That fact is not everyone needs oil, but everyone needs electricity.

You basically go from one to the other when you convert an ICE Vehicle to Electric, but if you use solar or wind to recharge your car you have eliminated the large greedy companies. Find a way to create a sustainable energy source for a vehicle and you eliminate the charging demand on your home solar or wind energy system, which you can just use for home use. 

What dangers are going to come from an all digital TV signal network? I am curious to find out just how dangerous it can be by using a microwave tester near a TV station in the next few weeks. If it goes into the red (Danger) area we could have a new series of health problems from so many digital (microwave) signals in the air around us. It will be interesting to check out.

As for creating an awareness and present demand for EV's, just stand on a street corner in your town or city that is the busiest with a carbon monoxide detector and watch it go off a few times, which gets the attention of many people standing on the street. Parking garages are also great places to try this out. I carry one in my car when I travel just to see how many times it goes off while going through cities or large towns. 

About Keeley.net they do have a very interesting array of topics on free energy, zero point energy and schematics to follow with many links which is a great place to read up on some of the past and present ideas and inventions for energy devices. Which I hope will lead to someone finding a solution to recharging on long distance ventures in an EV. 

So far, it looks like Japan is leading the way for the radiant energy charging device in an EV. Will we ever see in America? Probably not. Unless we order the device and add it in our own EV's or ship the vehicle to the USA and somehow get it through customs. 

Many good things are brought up here and truly I like them all. The question is which is more feasible and affordable to build and will it work without a huge amount of time being wasted in testing and more research? That is where those garage gurus come in and hopefully solve the problem and gets it out to the public before some large company gets their fingers in it. 

The Truth is out there.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

gottdi,

Your piezo AC/heater would actually work, unlike many of the things discussed in this thread.

However, something you might want to check into is the amount of energy in vs the amount of energy out. I understand that most of these devices are pretty inefficient. You might find it cheaper in the long run to use something else.

I do admit though that it would be really cool to see that work on that scale.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

well that leads to all sorts of questions, and pretty simple answers ( or logic atleast)
If you have large industry, like oil and power, the government taxes them, then we pay the bill we pay the tax on that, so the government will ALWAYS support the hands that feed them.

Seeming as texaco hold the paintent for the nimh battery and this would benefit lots of people around the world, why hasnt someone come up with some sort of law, that stops companies hording things that are going to benefit mankind? in part, isnt it invading their human rights, say for example the far reaches of africa where they cant perform theather becuase of no power, or pump water around certain countries for crops?

Paitents are like waving food in front of the starved as far as Im concerned and if I could I would build one, apreantly you are alowed to?

TBH with the amount of signals that are beamed about, its a wonder that cancer hasnt grown since the technology age... Oh hang on it has! but many signals effect life on this planet and things like HARP have been around. There are two ways to this type of thing, they know what they are doing and keeping hush, or they are to dumb to link things to gether to make better things from it. Like the guy that invented the wheel, did he invisage the car or cart? prob not.

Maybe to get notice to EVs you could put a EV charge station sing on yoru front lawn, that way people will read it as they pass and you may bump into a few people off the forums as well.

Going back the the [email protected]

If electric motors drive the cars and these motors are electical magnets, why bother using electric to create the magnets with there are plenty in the world that you could use?
Isnt what stoppong people just two things, the Back EMF (which can be removed with a switching wire) or that the field catches on its self, ( which can be over come with timed shielding) 
I have always wondered that, and even from a early age I have wanted to make one thats a clockwork type of motor and the image of how to build it hasnt left my head in all the years, so I have this 3D model of this motor working and all its cogs rotating the magenets. I cant remember how old I was when that first come to mind.


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> What dangers are going to come from an all digital TV signal network? I am curious to find out just how dangerous it can be by using a microwave tester near a TV station in the next few weeks. If it goes into the red (Danger) area we could have a new series of health problems from so many digital (microwave) signals in the air around us. It will be interesting to check out.
> 
> Many good things are brought up here and truly I like them all. The question is which is more feasible and affordable to build and will it work without a huge amount of time being wasted in testing and more research? That is where those garage gurus come in and hopefully solve the problem and gets it out to the public before some large company gets their fingers in it.
> 
> The Truth is out there.


Since we're on conspiracies

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/soundsofsilence11dec08.shtml

DTV as far as I know is normally transmitted on UHF which isn't quite microwave but getting closer. Being surrounded by AC carrying wires actually has a fairly large health effect, most of the boxes we live in have them all around us. DC current on the other hand generally improves metabolism, perhaps Edison was right but for the wrong reasons. 

A real concern of DTV is the fact that it in the past was stated as being able to show different TV programs to different demographics on the same channel based on what they like. In other words a method of effectively having a "rating" of your political leanings and world view so as to allow you to see different things on your TV then your neighbor based on what you believe. This would make for a very manipulative marketing strategy or political ad strategy. Ever wonder what the update port was on the back of your TV?


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



LeTank said:


> The number one reason why most of the past inventions for creating free energy-zero point energy or other energy devices were debunked, discredited, or disappeared was due mostly to greed, money and power.


I think you will find the number one reason is that they dont work.



LeTank said:


> You basically go from one to the other when you convert an ICE Vehicle to Electric, but if you use solar or wind to recharge your car you have eliminated the large greedy companies. Find a way to create a sustainable energy source for a vehicle and you eliminate the charging demand on your home solar or wind energy system, which you can just use for home use.


Yes but if you had a "Device" for creating 50KW out of thin air to run your EV, you might as well just build another one to power your home and forget about wind and solar.

If you really must have "Free Energy" then you could always plug your EV into the streetlight.



LeTank said:


> What dangers are going to come from an all digital TV signal network? I am curious to find out just how dangerous it can be by using a microwave tester near a TV station in the next few weeks. If it goes into the red (Danger) area we could have a new series of health problems from so many digital (microwave) signals in the air around us. It will be interesting to check out.


Im concerned about this too, but honestly dont know enough about what different RF signals do to the human body, so cant really comment.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Gavin1977 said:


> I think you will find the number one reason is that they dont work.


Really. These things would already be in place. 


> Yes but if you had a "Device" for creating 50KW out of thin air to run your EV, you might as well just build another one to power your home and forget about wind and solar.


Actually I would not want to pay any more city taxes to pay for that street light and it's use. I already pay enough. It's not free. 


> If you really must have "Free Energy" then you could always plug your EV into the streetlight.


Microwave has been used for many years will no ill effects. Take cell phones. Those are microwave towers. Just different frequencies. Ultrasound used in hospitals has been used for a very long time and no ill effects. Sure it's low power but it is RF. Mostly microwaves won't harm you. Most microwaves won't harm electronic equipment either. Microwave antenna's won't cook you either. That myth was already debunked. Aircraft use them, damn they are everywhere. I'd be more worried about chemicals in the food you eat long before I'd be worried about microwaves.

Pete : )



> Im concerned about this too, but honestly dont know enough about what different RF signals do to the human body, so cant really comment.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

If you want to know what the waves to kill someone, its around the 4HZ range. putting that on will mush your brain. Wiki up the sonic gun.

Gernerally speaking, different cells ossolate and different Hz, this can slightly differ from person to person, which is why the sonic gun can kill people and not others. 
One of the impacts of this was that a Dr in the 1960's poss 40's tried to isolate the cancer cells wave to cure cancer and ended up killing himself, This was deamed too dangerous to continue.
I had noticed that this guy picking up the old work that he 'thinks' is new
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdaisqzT68 but then hes comeup with something new. Well thats not true either, Stan Meyer was doing this was water, as one of his stages to his water powered car, so this news is old news and a repeat of what most science has been doing for years.. Great to go around in circles isnt it.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m8F44mrrlbA


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

This thread is about Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles, or so it says.

I built an "unlimited mileage vehicle" back in the 80's, if you define "unlimited mileage vehicle" as "unlimited miles per gallon".

Define it that way, I did it! My vehicle used no gasoline, and was never plugged in to recharge. It just worked, it produced all it's power, by itself.

So simple. I bought a 36 volt golf cart, and mounted three 12 volt solar panels on the roof to charge the batteries. The solar panels charged the batteries all day long, I used the power collected when I drove it. I used this for over 3 years and not once did I plug it in to charge, never. When the batteries ran out of juice, I just left it and came back the next day, and it would run. 

Miles per gallon? very very high, well, unlimited

Range? poor, a sunny day would give maybe a mile of range. Of course, not using it for several days would give a much longer range.

Convenience? Fantastic, just get in and drive, never have to plug it in or fill with gas, just park in the sun.

Carrying capacity? Two adults and stuff in the back, and I had a 7' trailer I pulled a lot. Plenty.

I used it for years, and it was always fun. Driving on sunshine.

That was back about 1980 when I did that, and the solar panels are so much better now. A solar powered car will work, it worked 30 years ago, they race them all the way across Australia now.

I'm sure many people have built a vehicle better than the solar panels on golf cart that I did years ago. I ask you, tell us what you did, how you did it and how it worked. So an "unlimited mileage" vehicle has been done many times. Let us make one that is practical, affordable, and fun to drive.

Mine vehicle did 1 mile per day, with three 30 watt panels, if you have done better tell us about it, I'm sure many many people have done better by now. If we pool our experiences, maybe we can get 5 miles per day, or 10, or even 100 someday soon. Today, panels are available that produce 200 watts, about 6 times what my 1980 panels make.

This should be a competition, with a big cash prize of course.


Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicle Competion!

During the competition, no fuel is to be added to the vehicle, other than the sunshine and wind that would normally impact the vehicle. The winner will be the one that travels the greatest distance per pound of payload. Payload is the weight of the driver and any additional weight to increase the payload. This allows heavier vehicles that can carry additional payload to compete more equally.

The competition will be on a closed course over 10 consecutive days, from sunup to sundown. Each entry can complete as many miles each day as they think best to win. 

To encourage more "useful" vehicles, winner will not be the one with the most miles, but with the most miles/pound of payload, which is what transportation is all about. 

First place, $10,000

Ok, who wants to run this competition? Who wants to donate $10-20,000 to get it rolling?


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The guy that I bought the my Ranger donor from showed me his HHO system he built and he now gets 29-30MPG in his big Mega liter Dodge truck where he was previously getting 19-20MPG.

His truck version was made of a stainless steel container with the stainless steel pipes inside as his annode/cathode plates.

He also demonstrated a smaller test version he built using large SS washers as the electrolyte plates I and a friend witnessed first hand.

He ran a measured amount of gas (carb bowl full) and ran a 2.2 Dodge K-Car at idle for 2 minutes using only gasoline before starving out.

When it ran out of gas, he primed the carb bowl again with gas and then added the HHO generator to pipe H2 into the intake and ran the engine at idle again for almost 6 minutes before it starved out of fuel.

It's not perpetual motion or over-unity and takes a small amount of 12V power to do the electrolysis, but it does extend gas mileage and clean up the combustion process by assisting the gasoline to burn cleaner and more efficient.

It's not huey, it works.


----------



## Bob Boyce (Jan 30, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Luckenbach said:


> So simple. I bought a 36 volt golf cart, and mounted three 12 volt solar panels on the roof to charge the batteries. The solar panels charged the batteries all day long, I used the power collected when I drove it. I used this for over 3 years and not once did I plug it in to charge, never. When the batteries ran out of juice, I just left it and came back the next day, and it would run.
> 
> Miles per gallon? very very high, well, unlimited
> 
> ...


I did this as well. In 1995, I bought a very nice retired golf cart for $200 from a golf course in FL. My friend worked there as a mechanic, he said it was the best one out of the batch, and had a nearly new set of batteries in it. So I installed 3 PV panels, 125 watts each, in place of the factory roof. I drove it out in the acreage of Royal Palm Beach FL. I used it for driving my daughter to/from the school bus stop, and to go fishing. All private roads out there, so cops didn't bother us. On some days, I would drive it as far as 25 miles round trip. If the batteries went too low, I would just park and fish for a while. I even found that in full sun, I could disconnect the batteries and drive on solar power alone at about 4 MPH max. When we travelled with our RV, we trailered it behind our car, and used it for getting around at the campgrounds. When we moved to TN, we brought it with us. I eventually sold it, but I first removed the solar panels, re-installed the factory roof, and provided the buyer with the original charger that I had never even used once!

Like Luckenbach, I never plugged it in the entire time I had it, about 4 years. I just kept it parked in the sun as much as possible. Practical as an EV, maybe not. But it was fun as heck, and it didn't cost me anything to drive the entire time I had it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Why of course they are. That is the only way you can say it works. Second, Third or Forth hand passed down rumors the it is always stated that the originals were either burned or put under lock and key or they were lost forever some how. Each story has a different but same outcome. There is no proof of any of it. There is always a disclaimer. ALWAYS. There is almost always a BOX involved too. But still there is always the one who insists it is true.

As for the CELL or any other HHO device I have yet gotten anyone who has built one to show exact volume of produced HHO at the same rate as the rpm of the engine. My argument is not that you can't get HHO but you can't get enough volume of HHO fast enough to make any dent in mileage. Not a single one would provide that information. Because none of the electrolizers (CELL) can produce enough volume of hho gas to even partially fill 8 cylinders of even a small V8 to make a noticible difference in mileage. I can say it will do this or that but without proof it is nothing. The link to the (CELL) web page worked and I took a look and found it said a lot about nothing. Absoloutely nothing was stated that would convince me that it would work. I could hook one up and let it run for awhile and have enough to make a difference for a very short time or I could make enough over a long time to actually make and engine run soley on HHO for a few seconds. However the on demand systems (CELL) can't provide enough volume even for a slight increase that is measurable. Not on Demand. The amount of power required if far more than what the normal vehicle uses. No one has ever stated what kind of power requirement is needed either. I guarantee that not even 24 volts for a short time the battery would live could produce enough volume. 

Show the proof. Don't just state some fluff but SHOW the proof and youtube is not PROOF. 





> The details of what were inside of the box are in his private notes, notes that were taken from his hotel room after his death. The unclassified portion of those notes were returned to the caretakers of his estate, and are still in storage to this day. I have seen and reviewed them. These documents may still be available for viewing, via special request, on the condition that they not be photographed, transcribed, or duplicated in any manner. The contents of those notes are not permitted to be published, as it was a condition of their return. Sorry, not my rules, but it was the conditions I had to agree to in order to see them.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> If hydroxy gas boosting technology was enough to set you off GotTDI, just wait until I start showing these guys how they can continuously charge their EVs from a small simplified toroidal power system that I developed a few years ago for producing hydroxy gas at 800% to 1200% of Faraday. The high powered version remains proprietary (except for a handful of independent replications by open-minded researchers and university professors that I trust) until I get the thumbs-up to take it to market. Some say it reminds them of the Steven Mark TPU, but I use very different materials and a dedicated controller. Did I mention that I studied, and fully understand, the "radiant energy" research of Nikola Tesla and Thomas Henry Moray? Ever heard of the Dirac Sea? Or the Aharonov-Bohm effect? If you doubt anything I typed, then just look me up on Google. I'm sure you can find a few hundred thousand more reasons to doubt everything I type.
> 
> Here is a link that some here might enjoy reading;
> 
> ...


lol you're hilarious

You're right, hydrogen into the combustion chamber increases fuel efficiency... ok, but you can't positively gain this on the run in a car  at least not improving the possible 10% MPG increase you can see (supposedly the max hydrocarbon burn factor increase is this)

Let's just do a bit of "thermodynamic math" on hydrogen production shall we?

Let's say your product electrolyized water at 85% efficiency (a fairly high number). Say you're using electrolytes in the water to achieve this number (I believe the max electricity to electrolysis energy ratio ever acheived is 93%). Of course these numbers are cited for the POTENTIAL energy of the hydrogen gas.

Let's take this number for the potential energy of hydrogen: one *litre* of H2 represents 11.838 kJ of potential energy. Let's assume, that your claims of 30L included the oxygen also given off... which will make up about twice the volume the hydrogen does, so we have 10L of hydrogen per minute (btw this number is too small to fully satisfy the draw in most combustion engines to improve efficiency)

Let's just say that your number is 10L just to give you a small chance in hell of being right. That's 118,000 J of energy every minute or 118,000 watts of energy per minute... divided by 60 seconds *gives us roughly 2kw of electricity needed to produce 10 Lpm. (or 2.3KW at 85% electrolyzation efficency)*

Ok here's the kicker, 2.3KW of electricity for the car's alternator is never produced at more than 60% efficiency so the car must expend roughly 4KW of energy to produce the hydrogen.

It's a fairly well proven fact that car's MPG drops 1-2 mpg (for a 30 mpg car) with the headlights on. But let's just treat the energy draw as a shear horsepower addition .

4KW= 5.2 HP

Now lets look at this university's scatterplot:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/academics/courses/fall1999/cmsc838s/Apps/gandhi/plots/hp_mpg.html

Seems that 5.2HP is actually enough to damage the MPG by a significant margin. 
Say you stuck this unit in a 4 cylinder Civic you would lose, roughly 20% in highway efficiency, even if 10Lpm is sufficient to gain 10% MPG boost *you would still lose* *OVERALL 10% total efficency in MPG*.
http://mb-soft.com/public/headlite.html

To gain roughly 30Lpm of hydrogen according to the calculations in Joules above, You'd need an additional 15HP or roughly a 50% reduction in overall highway motor efficiency.

*Btw I can not stress how nice I was on these efficiency figures*

Most data I can find for electrolysis show an energy input to energy output of 50% and alternators are COMMONLY 40% efficient. I also didn't include the efficiency losses in the engine damaging the hydrogen's output, inefficency of the mixing of hydrogen/oxygen out of the same transfer, etc (I can go on for days).

Sorry Bobby... you lose. And please shut up about your "magic product" now, I'm sick of it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Come on now, he has the market cornered and can get 800 to 1200% Faraday. : O

The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. Theory only. FLUFF.

Aharonov-Bohm effect: And what does this have to do with HHO? Quantum Physics is fine but there is not practical application for any thing useful.


I never talked about using HHO in a pure state but stated that you can not produce enough volume fast enough to make a difference in mileage. Even at 8 liters of gas 1 H to 2 Os. 4 large pop bottles worth of the stuff per minute is not near enough to make a difference. You'd need 46 liters per minute production at 2300 rpm and you get what? 8 Liters best. Mmmmmm. Fishy.

That is for a 2 liter engine and where is the power going to come from? Do I need to produce that electricity first from the engine? What about the amount of energy to make the HHO? I loose 10 hp to make back maybe 5? Efficient. It would be better to use the electricity directly into a motor. : )


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Come on now, he has the market cornered and can get 800 to 1200% Faraday. : O
> 
> The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. Theory only. FLUFF.
> 
> ...


Well as I explained above it would be H2 O2 coming off (2 H2 x 1 O2) but H2 takes up far less volume than O2...

At any rate the calculations for liter production against joules were correct above... hydrogen no matter how much of it you produce via electrolysis, will require that much energy per 10L/minute


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I was posting at the same time I guess. 





Technologic said:


> Well as I explained above it would be H2 O2 coming off (2 H2 x 1 O2) but H2 takes up far less volume than O2...
> 
> At any rate the calculations for liter production against joules were correct above... hydrogen no matter how much of it you produce via electrolysis, will require that much energy per 10L/minute


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> You both are so amusing, and predictable. Of course, I fully expected this sort of response after reading your responses to the others in this thread. You chased others away with your stereotypical responses. The difference is, I really don't care. Guys like you make it more fun when I travel cross-country to do live demonstrations. The sort of demonstrations that always make guys like you scratch their heads and exclaim "that's impossible". I hope it's comfy in there in your tight little boxes.
> 
> Bob Boyce


hahahaha

You seriously have no idea what I'm like if you believe I would ever say "that's impossible" to anything you could demonstrate to me.

If you want me to scratch my head, figure out a way to bend space-time artifically.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

One other thing in the HHO demonstration I observed first hand was that when he finished the experiment and re-hooked up the fuel line and ran the engine with the HHO booster, the HHO cylinder actually expanded when the engine was pulling a vacuum.

It acted opposite as you would expect on the cylinder under vacuum and appeared to create more H2 gas.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> hahahaha
> 
> If you want me to scratch my head, figure out a way to bend space-time artifically.


I really posted to this comment yesterday. It just now appeared on it's own.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> I did this as well. In 1995, I bought a very nice retired golf cart for $200 from a golf course in FL. My friend worked there as a mechanic, he said it was the best one out of the batch, and had a nearly new set of batteries in it. So I installed 3 PV panels, 125 watts each, in place of the factory roof. I drove it out in the acreage of Royal Palm Beach FL. I used it for driving my daughter to/from the school bus stop, and to go fishing. All private roads out there, so cops didn't bother us. On some days, I would drive it as far as 25 miles round trip. If the batteries went too low, I would just park and fish for a while. I even found that in full sun, I could disconnect the batteries and drive on solar power alone at about 4 MPH max. When we travelled with our RV, we trailered it behind our car, and used it for getting around at the campgrounds. When we moved to TN, we brought it with us. I eventually sold it, but I first removed the solar panels, re-installed the factory roof, and provided the buyer with the original charger that I had never even used once!
> 
> Like Luckenbach, I never plugged it in the entire time I had it, about 4 years. I just kept it parked in the sun as much as possible. Practical as an EV, maybe not. But it was fun as heck, and it didn't cost me anything to drive the entire time I had it.


Huge improvement, Bob. 3 125 watt panels are 4 times the power of my 3 30 watt panels, you should get 4 times the miles per day. Would you say you could drive that cart 4 miles a day perhaps?

I did mine about 1980, with used Arco panels from the Carrizo project.
You did it in 1995, 15 years later and 4 times the power.
2010 is only a year away, will we have 500 watt panels in 2010?

Bob could go 4mph on the panels alone. Assumming an 8 hour sunny day, that's a range of 32 miles. Faster than a horse, and you don't have to feed it. I know, it wouldn't work out to 32 miles at all, but it does give an idea of what was possible in 1995. Both Bob and I built totally solar powered "cars", that while crude, they worked, we used them and enjoyed them. 

Today is 2009, how far can we go today? A very long way, if we use a car similar to the winners of the race across Australia, the world solar challenge.
In 2007 the winner drove 3,000 kilometers in 33 hours and 17 minutes at an "average" speed of 56.3 mph, which means much of the time he was going much faster than 56 mph. 2009 rules state the cars must obey all traffic laws (this includes speed limits).

While those race cars are not "daily drivers", both mine and Bob's were. What we want may be something in between. Something useful, can carry a load, and uses zero power.

Anybody beat 4 miles a day yet? Could Bob really do 4 miles a day? Surely someone has, it's been 14 years since Bob built his.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Actually it is you guys that are predictable. I have been hammering on this for so long you have no idea of how predictable your responses really are. No answers to questions but hammering us who don't buy the bull. Most devices have been proven to not work and I don't and won't believe you can build an on demand system that actually improves your claims and tha is all you do is claim. You show no proof and it is you who need to show proof. I'd love to prove it on a dyno! Live demonstrations prove nothing because I know you can make HHO but you will talk a mean talk and make them not focus on the actual volume you are producing. If youre machine can produce 42 literes per minute then I may have to retract my statment but I can assure you you can't do that. 42 liters of HHO per minute is only 2% of the actual volume used by an engine at 2300 rpm and that 2% gas will remove 2% of the original volume and therefore not produce enough gain to make up for the required energy to make the HHO in the first place. YOU HAVE NO PROOF AND INIST ON NOT SHOWING PROOF.

Pete 




Bob Boyce said:


> You both are so amusing, and predictable. Of course, I fully expected this sort of response after reading your responses to the others in this thread. You chased others away with your stereotypical responses. The difference is, I really don't care. Guys like you make it more fun when I travel cross-country to do live demonstrations. The sort of demonstrations that always make guys like you scratch their heads and exclaim "that's impossible". I hope it's comfy in there in your tight little boxes.
> 
> Bob Boyce


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Nope nada sorry but you really must do better than that to prove your claim. 

The terms appeared and seemed are so vague. The same garbage those use to try to sell the bull. Same thing used by Psychics. Same vague statements used to make you think they know and can read you. Sorry but it is bull. 



tj4fa said:


> One other thing in the HHO demonstration I observed first hand was that when he finished the experiment and re-hooked up the fuel line and ran the engine with the HHO booster, the HHO cylinder actually expanded when the engine was pulling a vacuum.
> 
> It acted opposite as you would expect on the cylinder under vacuum and appeared to create more H2 gas.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Actually it is you guys that are predictable. I have been hammering on this for so long you have no idea of how predictable your responses really are. No answers to questions but hammering us who don't buy the bull. Most devices have been proven to not work and I don't and won't believe you can build an on demand system that actually improves your claims and tha is all you do is claim. You show no proof and it is you who need to show proof. I'd love to prove it on a dyno! Live demonstrations prove nothing because I know you can make HHO but you will talk a mean talk and make them not focus on the actual volume you are producing. If youre machine can produce 42 literes per minute then I may have to retract my statment but I can assure you you can't do that. 42 liters of HHO per minute is only 2% of the actual volume used by an engine at 2300 rpm and that 2% gas will remove 2% of the original volume and therefore not produce enough gain to make up for the required energy to make the HHO in the first place. YOU HAVE NO PROOF AND INIST ON NOT SHOWING PROOF.
> 
> Pete


lol not to mention 42 Lpm would require about 10HP


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Nope nada sorry but you really must do better than that to prove your claim.
> 
> The terms appeared and seemed are so vague. The same garbage those use to try to sell the bull. Same thing used by Psychics. Same vague statements used to make you think they know and can read you. Sorry but it is bull.


First of all, I'm not selling anything and I don't need to prove crap to you or anyone else. 

I know what I saw and I know the credibility of the person who showed me first hand.

Nothing you have said or will say will prove to me it doesn't work. 

Sorry...my first hand observation of this working trumphs your unfounded skepticism.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Sorry...my first hand observation of this working trumphs your unfounded skepticism.


You'd think so, but likely not the case.

There's very little thermodynamic evidence something like this could do anything but harm gas mileage.

In fact I've seen some university testing (undergraduate thesises) that have bought these "HHO" type mileage products and did mileage testing. In general they found they lost 2-4mpg using them, which always made a lot of sense to me.

Also it wouldn't produce more H2 gas just because it was "drawing" more in... Electrolysis is actually extremely simple and only been studied for about 150 years.

You "observing" without hooking it up to a dyno is almost worthless...


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Typical response of those who scam others into believing the garbage and my skepticism is no where near unfounded. 

: )



tj4fa said:


> First of all, I'm not selling anything and I don't need to prove crap to you or anyone else.
> 
> I know what I saw and I know the credibility of the person who showed me first hand.
> 
> ...


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> You'd think so, but likely not the case.
> 
> There's very little thermodynamic evidence something like this could do anything but harm gas mileage.
> 
> ...


I couldn't find much in the way of university testing looking over the internet. Could you link a few of those studies?

I did find some article that mentioned:



> _In all conditions a significant decrease of UHC and NOx emissions has been observed; In all conditions a significant increase of engine efficiency has been measured, which seems to be enough to compensate and overcome the losses due to the partial oxidation of Gasoline in the Reformer._


But I don't know exactly what they mean and know the credibility of the guys that said it...so it's probably Bull...

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-0972


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Puff Puff Huff Huff Thump Thump. 

What actually did you see? A box in an engine? Doing what that you can actually see and verify that it is producing the proper volume required to do what you said you observed. It would be interesting to observe and know for sure that the proper volume of an invisible gas is being produced. One time is not enough to prove increased fuel mileage and you have no clue if this person or persons were actually trying to dupe you and being friendly. That is how they all work. As soon as they see a fish that may actually bit they will befriend and try to gain trust. I know someone like you who is really bent on believing the hype. I try to talk to him but every one that is proven wrong he latches on to another and trusts the results he reads and sees. Nothing has actually proven it's self to actually work. The only thing that works is that there are people who will blindly release their money into the hands of these people. 


You did not see anything that actually proves anything either. Parlor tricks and slick talkers do this all the time. Sorry you actually believe the bull and what you think you saw. See the garbage on youtube all the time. Yea I waste my time looking and getting a good laugh. Some are better than others but none prove anything. Looks good but it's bull. 





tj4fa said:


> First of all, I'm not selling anything and I don't need to prove crap to you or anyone else.
> 
> I know what I saw and I know the credibility of the person who showed me first hand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

One more thing to add to the mix of the parlor trick. With todays computers and chip functions you can make any engine produce better fuel economy and it can be done with the push of a button or remotely activated. Diesel engines show the most benefit from chipping and that is a proven fact. Lots of proof of that. More power and better mileage. Easy to dupe someone because they would never know it had a chip. Way to easy to fake a working HHO generator. 

Pete : )


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Puff Puff Huff Huff Thump Thump.
> 
> What actually did you see? A box in an engine? Doing what that you can actually see and verify that it is producing the proper volume required to do what you said you observed. It would be interesting to observe and know for sure that the proper volume of an invisible gas is being produced. One time is not enough to prove increased fuel mileage and you have no clue if this person or persons were actually trying to dupe you and being friendly. That is how they all work. As soon as they see a fish that may actually bit they will befriend and try to gain trust. I know someone like you who is really bent on believing the hype. I try to talk to him but every one that is proven wrong he latches on to another and trusts the results he reads and sees. Nothing has actually proven it's self to actually work. The only thing that works is that there are people who will blindly release their money into the hands of these people.
> 
> ...


I guess you missed the part where I said I knew the person and can attest to his credibility.

He was also not trying to sell me anything.

There was no black box, he was using his own version of a Smacks booster. 

He wasn't on YouTube, he was standing next to me...

You can believe whatever you want, but I Know what I witnessed was not slight of hand, deception, or Bull...


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I did not miss that. So what if you saw his version. You still did not see anything except maybe a clear container bubbling a little bit of HHO. No proof of anything. So what you both got suckered and he needed to save face. He most likely did not actually prove anything except his gadget bubbles and that I have no doubt. 

: )


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Apparently someone is offering a million dollars to anyone who verifies a HHO system that improves mileage by 25% 
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

Here's a test by popularmechanics debunking it:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> I guess you missed the part where I said I knew the person and can attest to his credibility.
> 
> He was also not trying to sell me anything.
> 
> ...


You know what they say... when someone flys in the face of all physics and known science... it's not about seeing it, it's about repeatability.

I can't find a single dyno for any HHO system that shows any boosts in efficiency. 

a LOT of people have dynos sitting in their garages... it's not like this is a hard thing to test independently.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Just finished reading that one from popularmechanics. : )


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

But if they proved it did not work where would they get their next paycheck? That is why the say "I don't have to prove a damn thing to anyone"

How predictable. : )


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Direct from a forum of folks building these things from the smacks generator model. 



> I did notice that I had to put more than the 1 tsp per gallon amount of baking soda to make it fizz. The most output I got was 1 liter in 4.5 minutes.


 Oooooooooooooo. I'm so not impressed with those results.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Direct from a forum of folks building these things from the smacks generator model.
> 
> Oooooooooooooo. I'm so not impressed with those results.


lol fizzing baking soda in a base releases carbonate  not hydrogen.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> One more thing to add to the mix of the parlor trick. With todays computers and chip functions you can make any engine produce better fuel economy and it can be done with the push of a button or remotely activated. Diesel engines show the most benefit from chipping and that is a proven fact. Lots of proof of that. More power and better mileage. Easy to dupe someone because they would never know it had a chip. Way to easy to fake a working HHO generator.
> 
> Pete : )


2.2L 80s era Dodge Aries K-car. Probably had vacuum tubes for a spark control computer.

If it had a chip, then why did it run for only 2 minutes with a measure amount of gasoline as compared to just a few seconds under 6 minutes with the same amount of gasoline and the H2 gas he was piping into the intake?

I'm not doubting that there are some people out there scamming. I've seen some people trying to sell an electrolyzer for hundreds of dollars that I could build better for <$20-. 

And one day after playing with my EV, I'll build an electroyzer and stick it in one of my '74 Novas. But with gas still so cheap and all, it kind of slowed down my urgency to build one.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Another



> I built a Smacks generator on my second attempt. I did not check for voltage but the PDF document says that there will be a staggered voltage drop across the negative plates from 12, down to around 3 or so.


And how much volume do you expect to get from 12 volts?


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You tell me!

Why would cheaper gasoline be a reason to not build one right now? Hell if gasoline were 20 cents per gallon and I could increase my mileage then it would pay to build one right now. What a lame excuse. Gas is going up anyway so why wait? 

You could do better? Highly doubtful. I could build one that works and makes HHO but no way could it provide enough to decrease emissions and increase mileage without outside help like chipping. Then it would be the chip and not the HHO that actually did anything. 

Reproduce the results 50 times and get exactly the same results and do it with official personal and logging equipment to verify the validity and be sure they are a neutral party in the testing. Then maybe I will have a look at the resulting information. 




tj4fa said:


> 2.2L 80s era Dodge Aries K-car. Probably had vacuum tubes for a spark control computer.
> 
> If it had a chip, then why did it run for only 2 minutes with a measure amount of gasoline as compared to just a few seconds under 6 minutes with the same amount of gasoline and the H2 gas he was piping into the intake?
> 
> ...


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> Here's a test by popularmechanics debunking it:
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html


It doesn't look like he modified his vehicles O2 sensor/computer to not adjust for a leaner mixture. Without doing that, the computer will sense the leaner condition and then inject a higher ratio of gasoline into the mixture defeating any gain.

In fact he goes on about not doing it...

And from what he said, when he talked to his buddy...



> _I had another long talk yesterday with Steve Rumore, my off-road buddy turned HHO donater. He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results—fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing_.


It's obvious his buddy is much brighter than he is. The mods he's talking about are probably modifying the O2 sensor like he should have done to begin with.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> You tell me!
> 
> Why would cheaper gasoline be a reason to not build one right now? Hell if gasoline were 20 cents per gallon and I could increase my mileage then it would pay to build one right now. What a lame excuse. Gas is going up anyway so why wait?


There's only so much time in a day and I'm wasting it here right now.



gottdi said:


> You could do better? Highly doubtful. I could build one that works and makes HHO but no way could it provide enough to decrease emissions and increase mileage without outside help like chipping. Then it would be the chip and not the HHO that actually did anything.


I didn't say I could do better. About a 50% increase in MPG would be ok with me.



gottdi said:


> Reproduce the results 50 times and get exactly the same results and do it with official personal and logging equipment to verify the validity and be sure they are a neutral party in the testing. Then maybe I will have a look at the resulting information.


Why waste my time. You wouldn't believe it or accept it anyway. 

And if by some miracle that you would accept testing by an independant testing lab, you'd have to retract everything negative you've said about it here on on the rest of the www and that wouldn't happen because you would have to admit that you were wrong 

It's been fun but I've got to drive to south Florida later on this morning. Later.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> It doesn't look like he modified his vehicles O2 sensor/computer to not adjust for a leaner mixture. Without doing that, the computer will sense the leaner condition and then inject a higher ratio of gasoline into the mixture defeating any gain.
> .


*yawn* show me dynos or shut up already.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yeah...what he said!! 

It's been fun guys, but I'm off to South Florida for a few days.

HHO on dudes!!


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Waa waa waa. Buncha whiners, the lot of you. Bob, if you want to end this, and be believed, send Technologic an HHO generator for a one month trial. Technologic can hook it up to his car and see what it does. I've got confidence that Technologic would give your generator setup a fair shake after running it for a month, and it can be charged to your company's advertising budget. Converting a sceptic on a worldwide forum is worth more than a Superbowl ad for convincing potential customers.

And, it's very simple to artificially alter the space/time continuuminuuminuum, or so I hear.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

When I saw this thread titled "Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles" I was interested. I see the thread has been taken over by the "free energy" crowd. I have nothing against "free energy", and there are websites and good forums dedicated to it.

This thread has now degernerated into a discussion of hydrogen generators for internal combustion vehicles. Nothing to do with electric vehicles, and "unlimited" mileage is not to be seen. Oh well, so sad.

Once again, the free energy crowd has taken over a thread that had nothing to do with their interests and made it unusable for the idea it was started for. I would protest, but I don't think it would do any good. I wish you all good luck, but honestly, you "free energy" folks have offended me. I will leave. Goodbye.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Telco said:


> Waa waa waa. Buncha whiners, the lot of you. Bob, if you want to end this, and be believed, send Technologic an HHO generator for a one month trial. Technologic can hook it up to his car and see what it does. I've got confidence that Technologic would give your generator setup a fair shake after running it for a month, and it can be charged to your company's advertising budget. Converting a sceptic on a worldwide forum is worth more than a Superbowl ad for convincing potential customers.
> 
> And, it's very simple to artificially alter the space/time continuuminuuminuum, or so I hear.


I find it hilarious that despite typing that entire post showing them how physics denys this is possible (I wasn't even making the common mistake of claiming the hydrogen is "burnt" as fuel) they still claim it is possible.

I love how "I'm the skeptic" when physics itself tells me to be one based upon the data.  My extremely kind treatment of the efficiencies involved still couldn't show a positive energy output even assuming you gained 10% or more efficency off of 10Lpm of hydrogen.

It must be that I'm so unreasonable I can not give them a "fair shake".

These poor kids. I'm glad they're able to rip people off without any knowledge though. Fool and his money are soon posting on EV forums, or some such saying


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Luckenbach said:


> When I saw this thread titled "Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles" I was interested. I see the thread has been taken over by the "free energy" crowd. I have nothing against "free energy", and there are websites and good forums dedicated to it.
> 
> This thread has now degernerated into a discussion of hydrogen generators for internal combustion vehicles. Nothing to do with electric vehicles, and "unlimited" mileage is not to be seen. Oh well, so sad.
> 
> Once again, the free energy crowd has taken over a thread that had nothing to do with their interests and made it unusable for the idea it was started for. I would protest, but I don't think it would do any good. I wish you all good luck, but honestly, you "free energy" folks have offended me. I will leave. Goodbye.


OK, take your ball and go home.

I'm planning on supplimenting my planned series electric hybrid with a small ICE driven generator with an HHO booster to clean up emissions and give the fueled engine more MPG and extending the range.

And as long as I have a fuel source of some kind (gasoline, alcohol, bio-diesel, whatever; and can afford the fuel and batteries, I can get unlimited range which is a lot more realistic than a couple solar panels on a golf cart to drive up and down the driveway on a sunny day.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey Guyz
My brain is exhausted from reading this entire thread ( I may need a couple of glups of HHO myself).
Bob - you are the Thomas Edison of this thread. Well intentioned trial and error of actual testing.
Technologic - you are the Nicola Tesla of this thread. Theoretical analysis
of the claims.
I'm 62 years old and have rebuilt ICE engines from as small as a String Trimmer to V16 GMC Diesels on the old conventional US Submarines. ( that was longer ago than I care to remember)
Bob - I'll be the first to admit the gross inefficency of the ICE and I will concede the failings of the fuels used to operate them. But you sir have "donned the cloak of the Alchemist" and as such you must expect a healthy dose of skepticism and even some ridicule. It comes with the territory.
Technologic - While my own knowledge of theoretical electricity is no where near that of yours, you must recognize that many discoveries were the result of "thinking outside the box". 
One example is the discovery of DNA by Watson & Crick. Francis Crick was a physicist and molecular biologist....no surprize there. James Watson, however, was a geneticist and as such his thinking was not bound by prior knowledge of the laws of physics. The discovery by this Odd Duo is well documented and studied the area of epistomology (theory of knowledge).
While it is OK to argue a point, Technologic, you must be careful not to silence the other man.

Gottdi - If Bob's claims are so repulsive to you.....then stop reading the thread.
Roy


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Bob Boyce and company:

There is a way to prove your device works, and to do so authoritatively enough that it will shut Technologic and all other naysayers, including me:


Draw up a completely detailed set of plans.
Write a paper describing these plans well enough to get a patent.
Make at least 4 copies of these documents.
Get each set of documents notarized.
Put each set of plans into an envelope and seal the envelope.
Mail them via registered mail through the USPS: One to yourself, one to your lawyer, one to the patent office and one each to several respectable scientific journals, such as _Scientific American_ -- _Omni_ and _Popular Science_ do not count.
Make sure your lawyer puts it into his safe without opening it.
When yours arrives to you, put it in your safe without opening it.
Wait for the journal to publish your article.
Wait for a respected outside lab to duplicate your work from your instructions.
The registered mail trick gives you prior art. Nobody else's patent holds water if you have drawn yours up first. The notarized documents sent via registered mail and unopened envelope is admissible in court as evidence, and the registered mail legally sets a date.

The process above is the accepted procedure for getting recognition for a new idea or process or device. The patent office only protects the idea but does not insist that the idea works. The scientific journal, however, propose the idea publicly and give credit where credit is due. Once that happens, a few respectable labs will try to reproduce your device and will test it, publishing the results of their experiments.

The cold fusion guys got printed, and labs jumped all over themselves testing it. Of course it was a hoax the same way your setup is, but you will have proven your idea one way or the other.

You obviously won't do this, since you are presenting an idea which cannot work. You will no doubt offer some lame excuse about oil companies or industrial espionage.

Nonetheless, this is the thing you will have to do to get ME to believe you, since even speed-reading your posts makes it obvious it can't work. Anything short of that, and I will name you the fraud that you are. And so will anyone who even partially understands thermodynamics.

A snake oil salesman by any other name is still a snake oil salesman.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

1clue,
Great post, you have hit the nail smack on the head, 
Companies like Cummins and CAT would kill for an actual repeatable 1% improvement in efficiency.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8k4kZtbI8


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Our Company, Static Charge EVs, has found a way to develop a new concept EV. We have based out the design on the McClaren LoLa chassis.

We Plan to use 4 ,12 volt, grp 27 batteries with Flux multipliers to the 24th power, Powering a warp drive matrix that will develop a small Quantum Singularity as the main power system for range of about 1300 miles, and recharge in 3 mins, at 120 volts. 

Our Engineering dept says this is and will be ready by 2012, We are also seeking public offerings of our stock, we have 67,000,000 shares at 45$ each. 

This morning our engineering dept says that We may need to re-think our delivery date and cost per vehicle and the power systems range, We have to get permission from the DOE to use a black hole as a power medium.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

So Bob who at Cummings and Caterpillar can we contact to verify your claim?

Where do we find this PTI web site?




Bob Boyce said:


> Cummings and Caterpillar are already in negotiations with PTI. PTI installed systems in big rigs with both of those manufacturers engines in 15 liter displacement, and they are consistently getting 40% to 67% improvement in fuel economy.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> ...... I do not sell my designs, as I strongly believe in open source. I have published almost all of the details of my hydroxy gas research, so others can duplicate and use my designs.
> Bob Boyce


Bob,

Could you please direct me to this information? 

Thanks,
Keith


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey Bob,

If you don't sell then why would Cummings and Caterpillar need to be in negotiations with you unless you were actually selling your stuff. They would have no trouble building according to your plans. Negotiations are not needed. Your stuff is plastered everywhere. So far I have not seen any Dyno results that prove your claims from you or anyone else building them. For fun projects it is pretty cool but for actually making a vehicle more fuel efficient that is where we need proof. I am quite sure that it would be much more efficient to directly use the electricity stored in the battery than use it to produce meager amounts of HHO. That is why I built an all electric vehicle. I may for shits and grins build one of these and run it through it's paces. I am certan that if I do not produce reproduceable results you will say I did something wrong. : ) 

PS it will be installed on a turbo diesel engine that is chipped but has a known fuel milege rating of 46 to 48 mpg consistent and combined city/hwy. I check every tank and have been doing that for 2 years. I do not drive like grandma either. Diesel would be more likely to show any results as diesel will show changes better than gassers. More power and better mpg. I have full acces to my computer and can take on the road readings that are reproduceable and will show HP and fuel milege is checke each tank. So I can do what is called a Butt Dyno test and I can reproduce the results. 

: )




> Originally Posted by *Bob Boyce*
> _...... I do not sell my designs, as I strongly believe in open source. I have published almost all of the details of my hydroxy gas research, so others can duplicate and use my designs.
> Bob Boyce_


_
_


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> The cold fusion guys got printed, and labs jumped all over themselves testing it. Of course it was a hoax the same way your setup is, but you will have proven your idea one way or the other.
> 
> You obviously won't do this, since you are presenting an idea which cannot work. You will no doubt offer some lame excuse about oil companies or industrial espionage.
> A snake oil salesman by any other name is still a snake oil salesman.


lol poor 1clue, you know this won't even get to cold fusion levels of hoaxery. 

I vaguely feel bad for this kind of salesman. I mean he's selling a DIY unit who's marketability is dependent solely on clients being stupid. Yet he's marketing towards a DIY interface where people are often extremely intelligent and/or engineers.

I mean then entire idea that you could take ICE power, shift it to electricity, electrolyize hydrogen, put it back into the engine and achieve better mileage probably has many many 1st year engineers laughing. Granted I'm not totally closed minded about that being POSSIBLE, in theory, (if gas was burned so poorly in combustion that you could up it a large amount through a small amt of flammable gas igniting), but that's just pure inefficiency of the engine itself, which I find dubious indeed.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

My car runs on fairy dust and unicorn spit.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Bob Boyce,

So what scientific journal did you say you were printed in? And what lab verified the validity of your claims? This isn't "just about money" it's more of a complete invalidation of the same laws we used to design nuclear reactors and spacecraft.

Furthermore, if you actually had followed any sort of standard process _and successfully proved your points_, you would be splashed across the front page of every news source in the world. You wouldn't be negotiating with anyone. You'd have a Nobel for sure, and the entire world would be retooling to take advantage of the principles you discovered.

If you have anybody at Purdue who is working with you, then he/she is a first-year going there for something like pre-med or maybe liberal arts major. A cub scout den mother, perhaps?

Technologic,

I suspect somebody would print his articles if he would try, and then some lab somewhere would roast him for it.

He's right up there in my book with Moller, only probably a lot less successful.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Bob Boyce,
> 
> So what scientific journal did you say you were printed in? And what lab verified the validity of your claims? This isn't "just about money" it's more of a complete invalidation of the same laws we used to design nuclear reactors and spacecraft.
> .


There is one other logical possiblity besides a hoax or complete retooling of thermodynamics.

Hydrogen into the fuel mix could increase the efficiency of the gasoline burn (which is quite inefficient) however. However, I'm fairly convinced this would be impossible to the point necessary. 

Gas engines are rather inefficient (about 35%) but a lot of that is mechanical and electrical power from alternators/other things. 

The actual combustion is probably only like 50% or less efficient, but then again you're still talking about a rather large gap this thing would be jumping, likely not even close to possible.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Anyone who takes any of this seriously needs to reread the Law of Conservation of Energy, The Laws of Thermodynamics and some basic physics to realize you cannot get 200% efficiency in anything. These hydrogen electrolysis generators are not even close in efficiency compared to the standard electrolysis machines. They cannot utilize more than about 2 volts per cell or they will just be generating steam. The amount of hydrogen needed to run a car is on the order of 25,000 liters per hour of gas just to idle.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You know, I don't think anyone but maybe a handful really take this seriously.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> Thank you Technologic, you hit the nail right on the head.
> 
> According to DoE, the average automobile in the United States delivers 17% to 19% fuel energy conversion efficiency. If implemented well, via the use of very highly efficient electrolysis type technology, we can improve this fuel energy conversion efficiency by a very measurable amount. Of course, every vehicle responds differently, and some fuel management systems can actually fight us in this regard. So PTI concentrates mostly on big rig fleets, rather than passenger cars, light trucks/vans, and SUVs. No engine ECU reprogramming was required on those big rigs tested so far.
> \


I wasn't agreeing with you. I was merely committing the proper virtue of honesty and logical deduction about possible theoretical means without violating thermodynamic principles.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> AThe amount of hydrogen needed to run a car is on the order of 25,000 liters per hour of gas just to idle.


Is this considering a H2 + 02 conversion that passes it's electron off or burning it?


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Actually the result should be the same. H2 will always burn with O2. It is just that the conversion they are using does not separate the two gasses like normal electrolysis does. They still burn the same regardless of how they are transported. They are just contained differently. If there is any improvement in fuel economy it is just because the combustion was foul to begin with. I would love to see the results of this test by the EPA on a brand new car. I don't seem to be able to find one though.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Typical, you still did not answer the question. WHAT JOURNAL WERE YOUR FINDINGS PUBLISHED? Answer the mans simple question!

By the way, we are quite good with Google. Found nothing to support your claims. 



Bob Boyce said:


> Actually, if you know how to use Google, you should have no trouble finding the lab reports and studies done. There are many in Europe and other countries. There are a few here in the US however, despite the prejudice that many US universities hold against alternative energy researchers. You are already aware of the recent study by Purdue University. One of the earliest studies that proved positive results, was performed here in the US by NASA. Have you heard of them? Do you think that study was performed by a den mother as well? No matter, no amount of lab studies will have any effect upon the global impact of this technology. The european union (EU) has recently adopted new emissions standards, and my designs were given blanket approval in the EU to help automakers in these countries meet those new standards. If this technology is a hoax as you say, then it sure is a popular and widespread hoax!
> 
> As far as news, I do not seek publicity, quite the opposite. In fact, I was quite annoyed when an interview of mine was aired on the History Channel last year. That interview was done by a producer from Hollywood, and was filmed for the members of the International Tesla Society. It was not intended for the general public. Over the past several years, I have refused hundreds of interviews, including a recent one by MSNBC. I have participated in a few events in which I gave interviews, but they were not intended for news media, they were for attendees of those events. Those still ended up on YouTube and other internet sites.
> 
> Bob Boyce


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Never will either. 




> I would love to see the results of this test by the EPA on a brand new car. I don't seem to be able to find one though.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> Actually the result should be the same. H2 will always burn with O2. It is just that the conversion they are using does not separate the two gasses like normal electrolysis does. They still burn the same regardless of how they are transported. They are just contained differently. If there is any improvement in fuel economy it is just because the combustion was foul to begin with. I would love to see the results of this test by the EPA on a brand new car. I don't seem to be able to find one though.


No I'm talking about a hydrogen electric fuel cell where the hydrogen is passed through a semi-permiable electromagnetized screen that shoves the electron out along a wire so that it can pass to the oxygen molecules. It's significantly more efficient than a ICE running on hydrogen.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> No I'm talking about a hydrogen electric fuel cell where the hydrogen is passed through a semi-permiable electromagnetized screen that shoves the electron out along a wire so that it can pass to the oxygen molecules. It's significantly more efficient than a ICE running on hydrogen.



Yea the fuel cells are great technology, but hydrogen is still just an energy carrier. It is not a fuel, it takes a large amount of electricity to seperate hydrogen from gasoline. I believe the Honda FCX Clarity fuel cell car costs a few million dollars to build. That is why they only lease them.



Bob Boyce said:


> Apparently you know nothing of catalytic reactions. I guess all catalytic reactions violate these laws. Good thing the catalysts don't know the laws.
> 
> You are so right, efficiency requires low voltage and very efficient coupling of the electrodes to the electrolyte on all surfaces. I am guessing that you know how to build electrolysers that do not heat up the electrolyte during operation. And how to calculate efficiency.
> 
> ...


Actually my math is from 
http://www.b2bf.com/downloads/free_hho_plans.pdf

You should not only read the whole thing but also visit http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
they are actually in the business to start selling these systems. Even they say it is not possible to generate that much usable hydrogen.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> Yea the fuel cells are great technology, but hydrogen is still just an energy carrier. It is not a fuel, it takes a large amount of electricity to seperate hydrogen from gasoline. I believe the Honda FCX Clarity fuel cell car costs a few million dollars to build. That is why they only lease them.
> .


Hydrogen is easily seperated from methane which I believe is what they often seperate it from here in the US.

I doubt any car costs anything like a million dollars in any serious quantity. People just use that figure to inflate specs, write off expenses, etc.

At any rate running a ICE off hydrogen is a very dumb idea especially off of mixed oxygen/hydrogen gases


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Bob Boyce,

I'm not talking about using a search engine. I'm talking about academic credibility. If you have a degree in anything, you have written a term paper. If you have a Masters or better, then you've been published. Show me your published thesis. You are the one making a claim, you must supply the evidence found by an independent, recognized respectable third party. You give me the link to the NASA document. You give me the link to the EU document, which must reside on the server of a respectable lab or research facility, with proper bibliographical references citing the sources of your information, the exact procedures followed and the empirical test data.

The only links you've posted so far are to sites which tout your idea, which any one of us could create. Show me something on nasa.gov. Give us the name and contact information of the person who works there who headed the research. Show us something written by a credible source which cannot be faked.

I could not give one whit about who you've supposedly been talking to. I want you to prove what you said about being researched by NASA, specifically for this device you've been talking about. Count on me or someone else actually contacting these guys. You've been dropping a lot of names and have supplied absolutely no validation.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

1clue, I doubt he has one. I don't either but there have been enough before me to trust the evidence and not the quackerboxes.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

As Bob says

_"(output affected by earth energy nodes)"_

Need I say more?


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> 1clue, I doubt he has one. I don't either but there have been enough before me to trust the evidence and not the quackerboxes.


I don't either, but I've spent enough time in college to have written a few term papers in the proper form.

I can say one thing though, if I had an idea of his claimed magnitude that actually worked, I'd have a master's degree right now. Frankly though I think he's pretty much proved he doesn't have a degree or he would have pointed us directly at the sort of document I'm after right at the start of making his claim.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> Yes, that is what they do, crack methane for the hydrogen.
> 
> I agree 100%, hydrogen is an expensive energy carrier the way the energy industry is planning it. It makes a whole lot more sense to go all electric in my opinion. I am all for it myself, but unfortunately we EV enthusiests are the minority.
> 
> ...


There's no danger that I can see... the only danger is that half or more of any H2 O2 mix will turn back into water simply because the molecules naturally want to do so.

Additionally you're still avoiding issues so I won't answer you about supercapacitors.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> .......
> Here is a YouTube link showing hydroxy gas production from an independent replicator in South Africa. He reports getting 14.5 Liters a minute with 185 Volts at 5.2 Amps from one of my 100 cell series designs. BTW, that is 1.85 volts per cell;
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y07Tt-3JjE....
> 
> ...


You weren't producing the 15 LPM with the alternator were you? 
To me this would show that it wouldn't be possible to run a vehicle on only Hydroxy gas. 

185v X 5.2A produces 14.5 LPM - so I figure that 13.5v X 73.7A might produce 15 LPM

No car alternator is going to put out 75Amps at idle.

Thanks for the link, but I was kinda hoping that it would be research that *you* had published, not information that Patrick Kelly says he got from you.
Keith


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Bob Boyce,
> 
> I'm not talking about using a search engine. I'm talking about academic credibility. If you have a degree in anything, you have written a term paper. If you have a Masters or better, then you've been published. Show me your published thesis. You are the one making a claim, you must supply the evidence found by an independent, recognized respectable third party. You give me the link to the NASA document. You give me the link to the EU document, which must reside on the server of a respectable lab or research facility, with proper bibliographical references citing the sources of your information, the exact procedures followed and the empirical test data.
> .


Yeah, this would be a fairly easy thing to test anyway in a university setting... oh well.

Proving it works on paper is sufficient enough for me honestly. I'd take a paper of formulas and graphs, as long as I could even understand how it's thermodynamically possible (which it's not)


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



kek_63 said:


> You weren't producing the 15 LPM with the alternator were you?
> To me this would show that it wouldn't be possible to run a vehicle on only Hydroxy gas.
> 
> 185v X 5.2A produces 14.5 LPM - so I figure that 13.5v X 73.7A might produce 15 LPM
> ...


There are car alternators that can do so...

granted they eat up anywhere from 4-6HP (and cut fuel economy by about 4 mpg IIRC for something like a honda civic). 

http://www.alternatorparts.com/

I'm just throwing this out there though, to be as accurate/truthful as possible. Logical positivists like me can't do much else


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Bob Boyce,

You are correct that it doesn't take a degree to innovate. It does, however, require significant proof to be taken seriously when you are making the claims that you are making. Anyone who expects to be taken seriously by an engineering team should at least be able to write the equivalent of a term paper on it.

You can ignore me or not, I think I've lost patience with your smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

If time has not told by now it won't. I don't have to supply anything only says you don't have it. I highly doubt anyone ever did a study or published any results in favor of your findings and builds of these devices. No higher education does not tend to narrow the focus of brilliant minds. It solidifies the fact that we do have brilliant minds. I highly doubt that all the engineers of NASA are garage taught engineers. Takes a brilliant mind to work with and for NASA. 

You don't care because you have nothing to show except a fairly good science experiment. That I will say it is good for. It will spark interest in young minds but that is all it is good for. I think enough garage engineers have built enough of these to prove the value and none have shown any proof except those trying to dupe and make a quick buck. 



Bob Boyce said:


> 1clue, if you think that a person requires a degree in order to be a researcher, an inventor, or anything else for that matter, then I feel sorry for you. Higher education tends to narrow the focus of otherwise brilliant minds.
> 
> Good luck tracking down the people behind the NASA study, it was done in 1976, and is in the NASA records. That does not make the results any less important however. You want to read it, find it yourself. I'm not going to transcribe my printed copy just to satisfy you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

May the Force be with you Padawan learner. 




Duncan said:


> As Bob says
> 
> _"(output affected by earth energy nodes)"_
> 
> Need I say more?


----------



## Jordan (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Are you talking about the NASA/Hydrogen/Cadillac experiments in the 70s?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

They do show that hydrogen can be used to extend the lean range of a ICE (at a constant speed). They used hydrogen out of tanks or methanol steam reformation to get their hydrogen. Not even in the same boat as water electrolysis. 

I have a couple other NASA pdfs containing hydrogen experiments in the 70s time period. One has water electrolysis but I does not say very many good things about it.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> There are car alternators that can do so...
> 
> granted they eat up anywhere from 4-6HP (and cut fuel economy by about 4 mpg IIRC for something like a honda civic).
> 
> ...


Technologic,
That's exactly my point - at idle the Honda engine won't have enough power to turn the alternator (if they need 75Amps). At higher speeds the alternator (even those high-output aftermarket ones) won't put out enough amperage to make enough Hydroxy gas to run the engine. 

Bob,
I realize that you are not suggesting to convert car engines to all Hydroxy, but you did give the Accord example.

Keith


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Just thinking of this whole mess here. You know if it were me who came up with an idea and built a prototype and had an independent do a write up and their results proved my idea I'd be so stoked to have it published and keep it published and would boast and sing with joy that it works and I have the proof.That paper would be the first thing posted on my site. But when someone gets defensive and aggressive when someone asks for some results it just screams of fraud and deceit. I think I will have no more with this topic on this thread. He obviously shows no personal integrity and pride in his so called work that I will no longer waste my time and breath. 



Pete : )


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Just thinking of this whole mess here. You know if it were me who came up with an idea and built a prototype and had an independent do a write up and their results proved my idea I'd be so stoked to have it published and keep it published and would boast and sing with joy that it works and I have the proof.That paper would be the first thing posted on my site. But when someone gets defensive and aggressive when someone asks for some results it just screams of fraud and deceit. I think I will have no more with this topic on this thread. He obviously shows no personal integrity and pride in his so called work that I will no longer waste my time and breath.
> 
> 
> 
> Pete : )


I think it's fairly obvious the guy hasn't said a single claim that's stood up to any counterpost or request for direct data from other sources.

It's pretty sad really. Going though so much to appear intelligent and just can't seem to realize when to quit... people aren't going to trust this... and even with publishings it will take a LONG time of testing before people would step back and go "wow so this is correct" even if it was possible.

 he needs another hobby.


----------



## Bob Boyce (Jan 30, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> I think it's fairly obvious the guy hasn't said a single claim that's stood up to any counterpost or request for direct data from other sources.
> 
> It's pretty sad really. Going though so much to appear intelligent and just can't seem to realize when to quit... people aren't going to trust this... and even with publishings it will take a LONG time of testing before people would step back and go "wow so this is correct" even if it was possible.
> 
> he needs another hobby.


You're absolutely right Technologic. Once I realized I was beating a dead horse here, I gave up on even trying. I still respect what you do for the forum, you are an honorable man.

To the rest of you, I hope you all have nice long boring lives. Maybe some day, IF you ever realize how much I could have helped contribute, you will remember how I was treated here. I have deleted almost all of my prior posts, and you can all go back to your lives.

My friend that recommended this forum to me was wrong. You people need help alright, but not from me. I am going back to my research, and removing myself from this forum.

Goodbye


----------



## albano (Jan 12, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> You're absolutely right Technologic. Once I realized I was beating a dead horse here, I gave up on even trying. I still respect what you do for the forum, you are an honorable man.
> 
> To the rest of you, I hope you all have nice long boring lives. Maybe some day, IF you ever realize how much I could have helped contribute, you will remember how I was treated here. I have deleted almost all of my prior posts, and you can all go back to your lives.
> 
> ...


 
I also want to remove my post and how do i do?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> You're absolutely right Technologic. Once I realized I was beating a dead horse here, I gave up on even trying. I still respect what you do for the forum, you are an honorable man.
> 
> To the rest of you, I hope you all have nice long boring lives. Maybe some day, IF you ever realize how much I could have helped contribute, you will remember how I was treated here. I have deleted almost all of my prior posts, and you can all go back to your lives.
> 
> ...


Apparently we were not the easy marks he was hoping for.


----------



## Shade Tree EV (Feb 3, 2009)

So, I am sure you guys have seen the YouTube video on the surge technology, right?...so if perpetual motion doesn't exist, then how do you explain how this guy built an electric car that has only one 12V battery...and he is not the only one who has done this feat...there are at least a dozen different video's...there is a couple of guys in Australia who designed a perpetual generator that puts out enough power for your home!...so I am for the theory and not against it...you just need an open mind and think out side the box...check out the links below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Shade Tree EV said:


> So, I am sure you guys have seen the YouTube video on the surge technology, right?...so if perpetual motion doesn't exist, then how do you explain how this guy built an electric car that has only one 12V battery...and he is not the only one who has done this feat...there are at least a dozen different video's...there is a couple of guys in Australia who designed a perpetual generator that puts out enough power for your home!...so I am for the theory and not against it...you just need an open mind and think out side the box...check out the links below.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M


The way that car rides I would say that there are at least 10 batteries in the trunk.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Wha ha ha!..............You just can’t stop them can you?............Ha ha! ..... It’s kind of in a way like "Perpetual Motion".............Wha ha ha!.............................No matter how hard you try you won’t be able to stem the tide that’s growing bigger and bigger; for change is comming..........However it is your responsibility to try, So keep up the good work.....Again what do you think he was implying in this statement — (There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case.) ..................................................._


----------



## GKnightBC (Sep 10, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Piezeo-electric is real cool. Take a piezo electric tile and apply heat to one side and you get electricity. You apply electricity to the wires and you get one side hot and one side cold. Yes you can use the cold side to make ice and cool a compartment. Low voltage is required and they work real fast and well.


Sounds like Maxwell's Demon in circuitry. If the efficiencies can be brought higher, there are lots of applications for the ability to dynamically separate hot and cold, like spacecraft!  For example, when the shuttle is re-entering atmosphere, it generates a lot of heat. WOnder if they could use it to generate current? Or, in hot climates, generating electricity through piezo to power Dubai. Hmmmmm...


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

kevgrn114 said:


> I was wondering where the pressure from the tire is trasferred to inside the tire itself. Like if they were wrapped around the inside of the rim if they would still get press and release action from the air inside the tire being redistributed.


That would not work with a standard tire. The weight is actually borne by the rubber, not the air. The air is what allows the rubber to support the weight, but there is no change of air pressure inside the tire just from the act of rolling. 

If there were a way to compartmentalize the inside of the tire in a way that would allow the tire to flex normally, but not allow air pressure from one compartment to affect the pressure of another compartment, then I could see this possibly working. 

Another way might be to make a wheel with the peizo sensors in the actual rim, as the weight will fluxuate along the edge of the rim where the metal meets the rubber. This would be difficult though, as we are speaking of a very small area that needs to be able to seal air pressure. 

Another problem, you'd need a way to transmit the power generated from the moving wheel to the stationary vehicle in a way that would not induce rolling resistance. I think this would be the main stopper, as the piezo would not generate enough juice to make it worth the rolling resistance the transfer mechanism would create. At least, not at this time. Who knows what the future may hold.


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Sorry I missed what was going on here lately and I feel those who are leaving because of what others are throwing back at them is sad to see. It seems the first thing that comes up as impossible is listed as fraud, deceit, against all possible "known" physics is shot down the first instant it gets posted. 

What about if it can work? People are first to jump up and say it can't be done, but who says? I for one will NOT discredit anyone's idea for it is just and idea and it may just work. For those who say it can't be done, when did an idea become a dead horse before it left the stable? This thread was about ideas and shooting ideas down before they can be thought over, perhaps researched more and even tried is just destroying the whole concept of ideas alone. 

I hope someone will write to those who left and asks them to come back. It is just sad to see anyone leave this forum, because it does offer so much and they gave so much back. 

As for Roberts new software..it took me a few days to figure out why I couldn't even get into the forum from the new crappy software that only lets you in if you allow third party cookies. For crying out loud. haha
I don't allow third party cookies or any cookie through my firewalls and that really irks me to have to do so just to get into this forum. 
Lets get on Roberts case to fix that crap right now. 

Where is Lexus when we need him? haha
I want to hear some ranting. 

As for this thread, ALL ideas are welcome to get our extended range we need. Don't put anyone down for their ideas, because if it wasn't for ideas the electric car would never have existed to begin with...which came from one simple idea.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Tank,

It is not an issue of will it work or not but a matter of those trying things that have been tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and still getting the same results. The ideas presented in this last go around are not new and quite old and beating a dead horse is not going to make an old idea come back to life and in working order. The ideas just don't hold water no matter how cool the idea seems. I for one think some ideas are just way cool but either impractical or just flat out don't work and if you promote an idea and try to sell an idea for cash or gain that you know does not work then that is fraud, deciet and just plain crappy. If it does not work that is fine and it's ok to say so if you spent long hours trying to prove it does. Science is more about showing things don't work rather than that things do work. In the process of proving something won't work many other things are show to actually work but have nothing to do with the original hypothesis. So for all you diehard overunity types it is time to actually move on. Heck maybe you will stubble upon some new cool thing and actually make a name for your self and make some money to boot. But for those intent on duping and trying to rip people off we will be here waiting to pounce. : )







LeTank said:


> Sorry I missed what was going on here lately and I feel those who are leaving because of what others are throwing back at them is sad to see. It seems the first thing that comes up as impossible is listed as fraud, deceit, against all possible "known" physics is shot down the first instant it gets posted.
> 
> What about if it can work? People are first to jump up and say it can't be done, but who says? I for one will NOT discredit anyone's idea for it is just and idea and it may just work. For those who say it can't be done, when did an idea become a dead horse before it left the stable? This thread was about ideas and shooting ideas down before they can be thought over, perhaps researched more and even tried is just destroying the whole concept of ideas alone.
> 
> ...


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> It is not an issue of will it work or not but a matter of those trying things that have been tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and still getting the same results.


Hi guys, as some of you know I like the "idea" of hydroxy. I don't think that just because it's been tried before it shouldnt be tried again. There is also nothing wrong with failing in your attempts. How many people failed trying to fly before the Wright bros got it right?
Now, having said that, Bob made a lot of grand claims but he offered no proof *WHAT SO EVER*. He claimed *not* to be in it for money but also claimed to be *negotiating* with big companies. He repeatedly refused to offer anything to back up his claims, even though he also "claimed" to have support from everyone from popular mechanics to NASA.

The man was selling snake oil, let him leave.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I have been subscribing to this thread since it started and I could be wrong but I don't recall Bob ever soliciting anyone here to buy his device.
I don't know if it works or doesn't work. I have seen ads on the internet for Hydrogen Boosters and I was thankful for Bob's explanation of why those Boosters are junk. I wasn't aware that there are multiple ways of producing the gas.
As I said in an earlier thread, it's OK to argue a point but you must be careful not to silence your opponent. I still think that is sage advice.

Here is a good example: Edison was a great champion of DC Current. 
He had little choice as many of his early inventions used DC Current to do useful work. When Nicola Tesla discovered AC Current and it's inherent advantages over DC, Edison went to great lengths to discredit Tesla in the news media. And owing to Edison's reputation the news media were more than willing to aid in the public persecution of Tesla. This went on for years.
Were you aware that Edison concocted a Dog & Pony show which traveled across America publicly electrocuting small animals in an attempt to demonstrate the dangers of AC Current?
Edison, many years later, conceded that Tesla was right and AC was a superior form of electricity but the damage to Tesla could not be undone and he became reclusive even to the point of not registering patents on many of his later discoveries. That was inexcusable on Edison's part.
Again, it's OK to have an opinion, it's not OK to silence the other man.
Roy


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I don't think that anyone was "silenced". We were looking for some irrefutable proof to back up some fantastic claims. Challenges would be welcomed by anyone with proof. 

I'd love to be forced to eat some "free-energy" crow.
Keith


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Kek
Nothing wrong with asking for proof. Ridiculing a man however is quite a different thing.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Anyone claiming to have turned down $300 million for research that he also claims is open-source better have pretty thick skin. 

Keith


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> The man was selling snake oil, let him leave.


 He has been far from silenced but he will continue to boast with no proof and make bold claims and that is to dupe people. I am sorry but he is selling. 

Like I said earlier you mess with one and come up with another. Tesla did do alot with DC before he jumped on to AC. DC still reins high on the list for useful power. Splitting water for hydrogen gas may have purposes yet to be figured out but the way they are doing it and touting it for boosting mileage and power for your car is just total crap. Never said it did not work but it does not work as it is being sold. It was explained a few ways with some big words but in the end it is just electrolisis that is making the hydrogen gas. His way or not it is what it is and it won't work. It required too much input to make usable gas ON DEMAND. If I had excess power and had a ground station where I could make the stuff then I could but the problem there is safe storage of the gas. : )


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

We were ridiculed for asking. 



Voltswagen said:


> Kek
> Nothing wrong with asking for proof. Ridiculing a man however is quite a different thing.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank,

When someone makes a claim like that, if it were true it would be on par with the discovery that the Earth is not flat. If I had made such a discovery, the first thing I would do is protect my research with legal proof of its content and the time of the discovery. I described how to do that.

The next thing to do is publish it in a respected journal, where the scientific community can look at it. And so some independent third party can prove or disprove it. That's how it's done. We're not just talking about a new type of carburetor, what he is describing would change the world's understanding of how things work. It is profoundly different than our current model.

Every time somebody would ask for legitimate proof that can be verified, he would get defensive. If he were legitimate he would be extremely eager to offer that proof, to the point of giving links in his first post on the forum.


Look, it's like this. If you want to build your own perpetual motion machine, we can and probably will try to tell you why it won't work. Well, maybe not you personally because you've been going on about this sort of thing for longer than I've been on this forum. But we won't stop you.

On the other hand, if you try to convince ME to build it, then I'm going to ask for proof that it works first. Everything I know about the way the world works validates the laws of thermodynamics. This idea does NOT work within those laws, so I automatically think it's a fake. It's reasonable to ask for proof, and the proof I want is from a respectable third party as I posted.

Take it one step further: You trying to get somebody else to buy a product which does not work is fraud. By definition. Whether actual money travels into the salesman's pocket or not is irrelevant. Money changes hands on false pretenses. Write a bad check, it's fraud because you say money is there when it's not. You lied in order to get somebody to spend money. Same thing with this.

So, the reasonable thing to do here is to ask for proof which can be validated through standard means, BEFORE we spend money. And it's reasonable to get that proof without having to fight for it.

When the guy offers no such proof, it's reasonable to get suspicious, don't you think?


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yup, he could easily have shut everybody on the board just by taking his supposed working prototype, or product, and sending it to one of the naysayers here to try. If it's as good as he claims, then he could at least have offered to meet with one of the naysayers with his own car, and let them examine the vehicle and watch it run. But, he'd have to let it be a hands-on examination to ensure there wasn't any hidden gadgets that will make it seem to work.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Telco said:


> Yup, he could easily have shut everybody on the board just by taking his supposed working prototype, or product, and sending it to one of the naysayers here to try. If it's as good as he claims, then he could at least have offered to meet with one of the naysayers with his own car, and let them examine the vehicle and watch it run. But, he'd have to let it be a hands-on examination to ensure there wasn't any hidden gadgets that will make it seem to work.


Telco,

No that's not enough. How do I know that the naysayer is not in league with him? Me, as a third party who knows neither, can only trust a reputable third party of respected ability.

Had he come up with a document number for that NASA study he was talking about, then I would have gladly found it and read it. All he did was say he had the paper copy "somewhere" and give what decade he supposedly had it tested, and then tell me it wasn't worth his time to dig any of that out.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Telco,
> 
> No that's not enough. How do I know that the naysayer is not in league with him? Me, as a third party who knows neither, can only trust a reputable third party of respected ability.
> 
> Had he come up with a document number for that NASA study he was talking about, then I would have gladly found it and read it. All he did was say he had the paper copy "somewhere" and give what decade he supposedly had it tested, and then tell me it wasn't worth his time to dig any of that out.


Yes, I can see that as a problem. This is why I suggested Technologic, who is well known on this board, as the one to check it out. Someone slamming it that is relatively new would not be credible, but someone who built a reputation here and is convinced after a trial would be more believable. If a long time board member were to receive this product, and they were able to make it work, then I'd be more willing to believe that it was a credible product. But even that would require that the evaluator make a detailed report on the product.

Actually, I know I would be a reliable candidate for such a test, but I wouldn't recommend anyone rely on me as a tester here because I've not really been posting here very long. None of the rest of you would know me well enough to take my word for it.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Telco said:


> Yes, I can see that as a problem. This is why I suggested Technologic, who is well known on this board, as the one to check it out. Someone slamming it that is relatively new would not be credible, but someone who built a reputation here and is convinced after a trial would be more believable. If a long time board member were to receive this product, and they were able to make it work, then I'd be more willing to believe that it was a credible product. But even that would require that the evaluator make a detailed report on the product..


lol I appreciate the offer of course (though he's not offering it) but I definitely don't want to make the time to test this 

Testing it even nearly good enough for my tastes would mean I'd have to have a slight "interest" in it, of which I have none... however there's plenty of people that might have interest in it


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Telco,

I appreciate what you're saying, only I don't know Technologic either. I've certainly talked with him on the board, but what I had in mind is an institution like NASA or some reputable university, like MIT. Any R&D firm would work too. Not a person at all, but rather an organization with a long reputation for accuracy and integrity, which does scientific research as its main occupation and which would automatically lose millions of dollars if it were found to falsify research. The institution would sanction the project, and people would watch to validate that proper methods were used to reproduce the device.

Again, the only way to be truly convincing is to publish the principles and then have them validated by a third party of high repute.

I don't mean to belittle Technologic or anyone else here, but this is a forum on the net. It's owned by a guy who decided to put it up (whom I also am not trying to belittle in any way), and in order to sign up you don't have to even provide legal identification. You need an email address and a unique handle.

So with that in mind, would you spend $10,000 because Technologic said it would work? I wouldn't, nor would I expect anyone here to spend that money on my say-so. It's not a reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Telco,
> 
> I appreciate what you're saying, only I don't know Technologic either. I've certainly talked with him on the board, but what I had in mind is an institution like NASA or some reputable university, like MIT. Any R&D firm would work too. Not a person at all, but rather an organization with a long reputation for accuracy and integrity, which does scientific research as its main occupation and which would automatically lose millions of dollars if it were found to falsify research. The institution would sanction the project, and people would watch to validate that proper methods were used to reproduce the device.
> 
> ...


Meh university studies are overrated... I'd vaguely take any scientific analysis (I mean a well written, concise, full analysis). 

I mean you could send it off to the engineering department at my college (Duke University) and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to dick around with it in the hands of some undergrads.

Though I wouldn't necessarily trust their findings... it certainly would perk my interests if they were counterintuitive. Ie. similar to the university that found energy released from radium was 10,000,000 times the energy input if you excite it with Xrays... interesting, but in the end it proved to be non-repeatable.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Technologic,

They also wouldn't be likely to publish their findings unless they were pretty sure about it, right? That's what peer review is all about.

I thinkI've pretty much beat this topic into dust. I've certainly chewed all the flavor out of it.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Going back to the original thread title, how about a lightweight car with rooftop solar panels and a pedal powered generator. I found this http://www.windstreampower.com/Human_Power_Generator.php
and thought it would be great if it could produce some usable power.

Kind of like a solar powered Twike.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

In the simplest terms, YES. Neutral Third Party verification is absolutely required. 



> When the guy offers no such proof, it's reasonable to get suspicious, don't you think?


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> Going back to the original thread title, how about a lightweight car with rooftop solar panels and a pedal powered generator. I found this http://www.windstreampower.com/Human_Power_Generator.php
> and thought it would be great if it could produce some usable power.
> 
> Kind of like a solar powered Twike.


Guess What?

http://www.sunzeecar.com/ecotrike/sunzeecar/Home.html

It's only got a 30MPH top speed and a 30 mile range or so, but it was made so on purpose-stronger motors and a Lithium upgrade(or at least another string or two of the NiMH it's running) would pep up both problems to an extent. The Solar Cells are a slow way to charge though, and the Pedals are limited by what a human can dump into the system before getting exhausted-good workout though.

I do like the fact that the Pedals connect to a Generator instead of the drivetrain , since changes in terrain won't add more work to the driver, just the motors. It's plug-in as well, so you have three charging options. And since the designer is trying to get the manufacturing costs down to $1000 each (less than many used Golf Carts) You could outfit a substantial fleet of Ecotrikes for the price of one Twike...


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

1clue, I get what you're saying too, and agree that the trusted institution review would be the best way. But, would I risk 10 grand on Technologic's say? I wouldn't risk 10 grand on NASA's say. I would simply be more likely to believe the product is effective if someone who had been saying all along, and seems to speak his mind as he believes, and does not seem to be a bought-off person were to try it and say it works. I'd not just go order one, but I'd be willing to plan a vacation around going to wherever this product can be demonstrated to see if I think it works. Only after I see it in action, and get a chance to get elbow deep in the box, would I be willing to buy. I'm the same way about anything I buy that costs more than 20 bucks.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

$10K is pocket change to pay for an item that would generate billions if it was proven to work. No con artist would pay that but they would say that they proved it but they no longer have available the paper to prove it. Exactly what he said. 

My son had an item he though was something and insisted it was. I said it was not and he did not believe me. He kept insisting but I ended up telling him it does not matter what I think or your brother thinks. You need to take our item to an independent source for testing and have them send you the results. Thankfully he took the advice and he found a very good neutral third party company that did exactly what he was looking for and found it was only going to cost him $100 to have the test done. So he saved his $100 and sent the item in for testing and the results came back exactly what I had said in the beginning but I did not need to say I told you so. He did exactly what was needed and he believed the results. That is how this works. This thing with HHO or any other stupid thing that comes about is what is needed to prove or disprove. Make and test your idea and if your results come out the same every time and are reproducible then send your proposition to the third party and pay the money and give the directions and if they produce the item and get the same results, reproducible every time then you will have your cake and get to eat it too. 

The quacks on the internet are just that, quacks. What perfect place to peddle your quackery. So many gullible people. Makes the head spin just thinking about how big that number may actually be. : )





Telco said:


> 1clue, I get what you're saying too, and agree that the trusted institution review would be the best way. But, would I risk 10 grand on Technologic's say? I wouldn't risk 10 grand on NASA's say. I would simply be more likely to believe the product is effective if someone who had been saying all along, and seems to speak his mind as he believes, and does not seem to be a bought-off person were to try it and say it works. I'd not just go order one, but I'd be willing to plan a vacation around going to wherever this product can be demonstrated to see if I think it works. Only after I see it in action, and get a chance to get elbow deep in the box, would I be willing to buy. I'm the same way about anything I buy that costs more than 20 bucks.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I checked out the site and watched the vid. Not bad but the design must be better. The concept and the fact it actually works is great. Not too fast but not a slow poke either for a vehicle like this is good. However the outside cover design must be more pleasing than it is right now. He should invest in a better visual design then go for marketing of his product. Right now I think of Skirted Golf Carts or Citicar. Old and not real pleasing to the eye. It is not a forward visual design but the idea is great. However there is one problem that in the real world would be a biggie. That solar panel on the roof just screams out (rip me off and put me on your house). It would be a high priced item easy for a thief to rip off and sell or actually use for themselves. Find a way to secure the panel or the whole vehicle and you may just have a winning little city car/trike. Just get this thing some new clothes please. : )





order99 said:


> Guess What?
> 
> http://www.sunzeecar.com/ecotrike/sunzeecar/Home.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Yes, wonderful idea. I agree it needs some new clothes but I would think you could use lithium, a little bigger motor(for 50mph) and have a great car. I found some great seats for it. Two racing seats for $219.

http://racinx.com/RACINX/accessories/seatspads/rxseats.htm?gclid=CKzmx4jq95cCFRIfDQod-AJhCw


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Those PV cells DO scream 'TAKE ME', don't they? Also, the cloth fairing ensures a lack of security for anything you leave, and the entire vehicle can be lifted with one hand(note the designer showing this off as he tilts the Ecotrike for maximum Solar charge). Still, Scooters have the same problem...

I think the easiest solution would be to tighten the cloth and impregnate it with a Fiberglass solution(cutting out a lockable Fiberglass door), replace the side and back windows with the same material as the windshield, and pin the PV array under a layer of clear plastic or glass-this should add no more than 65lbs or so to the vehicle. Ultimately though, if a thief wants in your vehicle badly enough he'll get in.

Then there's these guys:

http://solarvehicles.org/home.html

The designers grab broken PV cells off the Net for pennies and rewire them by hand-the result is a perfectly usable panel that perversely screams' i'm too ugly to steal!'.

Seeing as how the goal of the website is to get folks to 'roll thier own' EVs though-if someone DID steal one of their prototypes the designers would probably beam with amused pride! And it's not like it wouldn't be spotted easily enough...


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

...aaand I just noticed one of the V9 photos seems to be using a dyed cloth canopy...Solar Dye perhaps? I'll have to drop these guys a line and find out! 

If that IS a Solar PV dye canopy, that would be a great way to keep casual thieves at bay, as it looks nothing like a PV panel. I'll let you know when I get a response...


----------



## LeTank (Jun 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I went back through and didn't see anything anyone was trying to sell on this thread. Making a claim is just that, but I didn't see any spam, website links to sell his product or anything of the sort. Having anyone test any product for that matter is still going to be questionable since the third party could be paid off by anyone else to discredit the proof of concept (big oil companies who don't want anything but oil being sold to put into your car for one.). It mostly comes down to the honor system and making a claim of an invention that anyone created does help to show some proof (video), but would it still convince anyone who is a skeptic to believe it works? It is then generally left up to each person to believe whether it is a working device or not. The other question is how many other people have been the garage guru and tried to make the unit work or have made it work, then there are those who tried and failed, but was there enough research done on the Internet to look for those proven and failed attempts to make a logical decision? As for his bad attempt to bring forth any "proof" of sorts to convince others on this forum, it may have been that he wanted credit for his hard work. Whether he was doing it for money and perhaps didn't want to lose out is another question if he was to show off details of his invention. However, there are probably a dozen or so Patented inventions of the same and he may find he could not Patent the idea without infringing on other Patents. Perhaps he had something a little different that worked better and he was really onto something, but I for one would not be posting my own inventions on a website just to soak people up into the idea before having it Patented because they will want more details, which would be giving the invention away if details were given. So, what he really was thinking is beyond me, but if it was for an open source idea it should have been made public with all details for anyone to read. The only other explanation would be he had an idea, but no real working unit that he could show and questions of proof only made him defensive. Who knows. Many questions still remain unanswered. Perhaps he (they) will come back on his (their) own someday. I am still researching many good ideas that are still popping up and trying to find more about Japans wireless charging system, messed around with some radiant energy devices (got a few watts woohoo) and its all good fun to tinker, but its a slow going process and if I ever come up with anything solid, I promise to give all the details and a video for show. haha. I still like the microwave charging idea as well, hydroxy is also cool for a generator to charge in a remote area and so many other cool ideas keep coming up here that eventually we will break down the mix of working ideas that have working models (that are easy to build) to which we can use to make in our own garage to get that extra mileage. Just finding that right combination is through a lot of trial and error, but all in good fun too. Gas is on the rise and I wonder how high it will get this year. I predict over $5.00 a gallon this year, but I hope I am wrong. At least we do have the proven batteries and electric motors to scoot us down the roads. Perhaps Obama will send us all a $5000 incentive check so we can finish our EV projects. =) (I need more BatCaps.) Anyone heard any more news about the X-Prize?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Letank,

How are those BatCaps working out?

Keith


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LeTank
I agree. And as I pointed out, he never offered or solicited to sell the device to anyone here. I'll be the first to admit, the guy's claims were 
sensational and beyond belief. And when challenged to offer proof he
bailed out. Does he actually have such a device? Probably not. But I am always willing to listen and keep an open mind.

Imagine the ridicule Bardeen & Brattian where subject to back in 1947.
These two scientists stumbled onto what appeared to be Overunity working with Germanium Crystals. When they applied voltage to a crystal
there was a measurable gain from the crystal. This appeared to defy the 
Conservation Laws. Who was going to believe them? And many didn't.
But they risked their reputations and gave birth to the modern Transistor.
We now know that what appeared to be Overunity in this case could actually be explained using the Conservation Laws. But it could have been too easy to throw the baby out with the bath water if we had listened only to their detractors.
Roy


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> LeTank
> I agree. And as I pointed out, he never offered or solicited to sell the device to anyone here. I'll be the first to admit, the guy's claims were
> sensational and beyond belief. And when challenged to offer proof he
> bailed out. Does he actually have such a device? Probably not. But I am always willing to listen and keep an open mind.
> ...


I agree with you VW Guy as you have valid points. 

I wish some of the others here could keep an open mind but it appears there are a few that are so much "inside the box" with a few "Laws (of this or that)" to snuggle up to to keep them warm and cozy.

Bob Boyce, the guys the nay-sayers ran off, was never trying to sell anything. In fact, he wasn't even the first one in this thread to talk about Free energy or HHO. It was one of the naysayers that constantly was on the attack IMO because...he was here.

I don't care if the nay-sayers believe the claims of hydrogen gas injection or HHO or not. 
But when they are asked for the "university" studies they say discalim it or are presented a link to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) that mentions:

_"...In all conditions a significant decrease of UHC and NOx emissions has been observed; In all conditions a significant increase of engine efficiency has been measured..."_
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-0972

I get totally blown off. 

Why? I dunno...maybe something they didn't want to hear I guess. 

As for me, I going to continue to be open-minded about others observations and ideas at least 'til the time I try them myself.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> I agree with you VW Guy as you have valid points.
> 
> I wish some of the others here could keep an open mind but it appears there are a few that are so much "inside the box" with a few "Laws (of this or that)" to snuggle up to to keep them warm and cozy.
> 
> ...


Did you really read that paper? There's a huge difference between what that paper says and what Bob Boyce was talking about.

First, the paper is talking about reducing the nasty emissions by using a hydrogen-rich gas. Second, they talk about increasing efficiency, but they are using bottled hydrogen.

So they increase efficiency without taking into account the cost of generating the hydrogen. That's the big difference between what the SAE article says and what Bob Boyce said. And that's where thermodynamics starts to have a problem.

You CAN split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn it and get water back. The only problem is, you never get back as much as you put in.


LeTank,

The difference with a "respected institution" is that, first, they won't get bought off. Even if they did, somebody else would try it. Sooner or later, you'll get somebody who tries it and for whom it works. If you consider all the respectable institutions in the world, there is no way the oil companies will be able to bribe all of them.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> The difference with a "respected institution" is that, first, they won't get bought off. Even if they did, somebody else would try it. Sooner or later, you'll get somebody who tries it and for whom it works. If you consider all the respectable institutions in the world, there is no way the oil companies will be able to bribe all of them.


lol harvard's endowment is larger than about half of the countries in the world's GNP (individually)


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Boyce bailed because he was caught with his pants down and could not and would not provide the proof he claimed he had about these devices. He did promote THE CELL and that is enough. The papers talk about Hydrogen being injected and reducing emissions and such but that was back in the 70's and 70's emissions requirements. Yes hydrogen can be burned in an engine and I and no one here said any different. What we said was that none of these devices including his and any he has promoted as working and providing upwards in the 30% increase in efficency and power are for real. They are total bunk none can provide enough on demand HHO production to make any increase in power or efficiency. OK maybe some improvement of emissions using 70's standards but no added power.

We are not closed minded but practical minded and practical minded is far better than impractical minded. I know of no one here that is closed minded but many show up that are impractical minded. Maybe rather than trying to make it work or making bullgarbage claims they may want to see if there is a more practical use for the devices. Since you can actually make hho and it is usable maybe there is a better use for it. Don't beat use up. Beat up those who continue to promote the garbage. Boyce promotes and promoted the garbage and left. I have nothing personal against him but I do have issues with the bull from him or anyone else. 

Pete : )


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Boyce bailed because he was caught with his pants down and could not and would not provide the proof he claimed he had about these devices. He did promote THE CELL and that is enough. The papers talk about Hydrogen being injected and reducing emissions and such but that was back in the 70's and 70's emissions requirements. Yes hydrogen can be burned in an engine and I and no one here said any different. What we said was that none of these devices including his and any he has promoted as working and providing upwards in the 30% increase in efficency and power are for real. They are total bunk none can provide enough on demand HHO production to make any increase in power or efficiency. OK maybe some improvement of emissions using 70's standards but no added power.
> 
> We are not closed minded but practical minded and practical minded is far better than impractical minded. I know of no one here that is closed minded but many show up that are impractical minded. Maybe rather than trying to make it work or making bullgarbage claims they may want to see if there is a more practical use for the devices. Since you can actually make hho and it is usable maybe there is a better use for it. Don't beat use up. Beat up those who continue to promote the garbage. Boyce promotes and promoted the garbage and left. I have nothing personal against him but I do have issues with the bull from him or anyone else.
> 
> Pete : )


You have a closed mind, gottdi. You may be "practical minded", but an open mind is far better than a closed one. You make me think of those that said man cannot fly. Of course we cannot fly, but then, some people can think outside of the box, and then miraculously WE CAN FLY.

You are in your box, where HHO cannot work, don't put down people who can think outside of your box, and can consider things like flying just may be possible. Your criticisms serve no useful purpose, and eventually someone WILL prove you wrong. Perhaps not on this, but eventually on something. You will join the ones who said we cannot fly and that the earth was flat.

I really don't care if HHO is possible or not, today, and I'm not worried about if it is possible someday. But, gottdi, your "I'm better than you" attitude and "he's a liar" comments suck.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Jeeze Louise what makes one closed minded anyway? 

NO HHO DEVICE PROMOTED TODAY CAN PRODUCE ENOUGH ON DEMAND TO MAKE A POWER OR MPG DIFFERENCE. PERIOD, AND THAT IS NOT CLOSED MINDED. 

It has been beaten to death and has been tried even in the 70's. It still has not worked. It is the ON DEMAND thing that is the problem with how they are trying it. The power required is not available to the vehicle and no way can a 12 volt or even an 18 volt high amp alternator produce enough power to produce enough gas volume to make a power and mpg difference. It can't. Try it. We used 120 volt house current and that did not produce enough. It was a fun project and over time it can produce enough but not on demand with such low power. House current is 120 volts and we had it hooked to a 30 amp breaker.

I could care less too if it works or not but what I disagree with is when someone claims this or that with out proof. If these guys want to continue trying to make it work that is perfectly fine but when they come out and tell me that it will do this or that and there is no way it can with what they have then that is fraud and it is not closed minded to confront that. 

That is only what I am against. The guy is a fraud. Just promoting it is fraudulent and total garbage. Some day maybe someone will find a catalist that will make it possible to use low voltage to extract enough hho to use in an on demand system. 

If you promote this I will confront you too. If you want to experiment then go right ahead and have fun.

Closed minded is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting the same result. That is closed minded. 

Who said I was better than thou? If youre a liar, cheat, or deciever then yes. If youre a liar, cheat or deciever then all here are better than they. And none here are closed minded. Only those who feel the need to move on because we don't buy the bull. 

Pete : )



Luckenbach said:


> You have a closed mind, gottdi. You may be "practical minded", but an open mind is far better than a closed one. You make me think of those that said man cannot fly. Of course we cannot fly, but then, some people can think outside of the box, and then miraculously WE CAN FLY.
> 
> You are in your box, where HHO cannot work, don't put down people who can think outside of your box, and can consider things like flying just may be possible. Your criticisms serve no useful purpose, and eventually someone WILL prove you wrong. Perhaps not on this, but eventually on something. You will join the ones who said we cannot fly and that the earth was flat.
> 
> I really don't care if HHO is possible or not, today, and I'm not worried about if it is possible someday. But, gottdi, your "I'm better than you" attitude and "he's a liar" comments suck.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Gottdi is right.

All we wanted was proof from a reputable source. As yet there is nothing that even comes close to break-even on HHO.

If you want to generate hydrogen at home, tank it up and then put that in your car to improve your range on a tank of gas, then go ahead. I don't know if that will pay off in the long run, but it might have an advantage of range or emissions even if the cost is higher overall.

If you claim that you can generate HHO and then use it again right in the car, and _actually improve your range on the same tank of gas_, then I will ask for proof, and/or call you a fraud when you can't give it. I do not deny that people can generate HHO and burn it in the car, I simply deny that you can get more range by doing so. Or even get the SAME range.

If somebody breaks even on HHO, _*It Will Be News.*_ It'll be on mainstream news in every country that has an independent news service. It won't be stuck on infomercials at 3:00 AM, it will be in-your-face news, on CNN and NBC and Fox and Reuters and whatever other agencies are out there.

The same thing goes for any other over-unity device or technique.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Actually, I want to go further here.

One of the things I read on this thread was that a secret catalyst allows hydrogen generation to be much more efficient.

That catalyst would be worth far, far more than any HHO generator would. Hydrogen extraction is used throughout industry, in every sector. Simply patenting and selling that catalyst for however many years the patent lasts would set anyone up for life.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Did you really read that paper? There's a huge difference between what that paper says and what Bob Boyce was talking about.
> 
> First, the paper is talking about reducing the nasty emissions by using a hydrogen-rich gas. Second, they talk about increasing efficiency, but they are using bottled hydrogen.


They didn't use "a hydrogen-rich gas" they introduced hydrogen gas to the gasoline.

Yes, I'm aware they used bottled hydrogen gas. I didn't think there were different types of hydrogen gas. Is stuff in a bottle any different than stuff in a...err...bottle?



1clue said:


> So they increase efficiency without taking into account the cost of generating the hydrogen.


Let's see...a few volts and a couple amps vs a reduction of noxious gases and more efficiency beyond the cost of the energy _they say they put in their reformer?_ 



1clue said:


> That's the big difference between what the SAE article says and what Bob Boyce said.


Did Bob Boyce say the cost of the energy to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen was free? I didn't read that anywhere...



1clue said:


> And that's where thermodynamics starts to have a problem.


Yeah...freaking observations made at a given point in time. They always get in the way of progress. I'm glad people chose to ignore them and discover and invent things anyway...

But I do know from first hand observation is that the HHO booster I later observed in use, was constructed with neutral plates that halved the amps and reduced the heat each time one was introduced between the annode and cathode plates.



1clue said:


> You CAN split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn it and get water back. The only problem is, you never get back as much as you put in.


When we get low on air, please let me know. I'll go plant a tree.



1clue said:


> LeTank,
> 
> The difference with a "respected institution" is that, first, they won't get bought off. Even if they did, somebody else would try it. Sooner or later, you'll get somebody who tries it and for whom it works. If you consider all the respectable institutions in the world, there is no way the oil companies will be able to bribe all of them.


You mean someone like Bob Boyce?? 

Rollseyes shakes head.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Jeeze Louise what makes one closed minded anyway?
> 
> NO HHO DEVICE PROMOTED TODAY CAN PRODUCE ENOUGH ON DEMAND TO MAKE A POWER OR MPG DIFFERENCE. PERIOD, AND THAT IS NOT CLOSED MINDED.


How efficient. You summed up closed minded AND in denial in the same paragraph.

Are you saying that anyone here or about half the internet are liers and cheats in regards to HHO? 



gottdi said:


> It has been beaten to death and has been tried even in the 70's. It still has not worked.


Says you... 



gottdi said:


> It is the ON DEMAND thing that is the problem with how they are trying it.


Or maybe how_ some_ are trying it?



gottdi said:


> The power required is not available to the vehicle and no way can a 12 volt or even an 18 volt high amp alternator produce enough power to produce enough gas volume to make a power and mpg difference.


[/quote]

Shakes head rolls eyes. 



gottdi said:


> It can't.


There's that denial thing again...



gottdi said:


> We used 120 volt house current and that did not produce enough. It was a fun project and over time it can produce enough but not on demand with such low power. House current is 120 volts and we had it hooked to a 30 amp breaker.


I think your problem is how you were trying it.



gottdi said:


> I could care less too if it works or not but what I disagree with is when someone claims this or that with out proof.


Proof, Proof, Proof.










gottdi said:


> If these guys want to continue trying to make it work that is perfectly fine...


 
The internet now thanks you for giving them permission to proceed.




gottdi said:


> but when they come out and tell me that it will do this or that and there is no way it can with what they have...


Nope... not close minded at all. 

shakes head some more; rolls eyes.



gottdi said:


> then that is fraud


And your allegation that they are fraudulent now makes you liable to prove that they are frauds.



gottdi said:


> That is only what I am against. The guy is a fraud.


How do you spell Libel with one L or 2?











gottdi said:


> Just promoting it is fraudulent and total garbage.


As is your opinion.



gottdi said:


> Some day maybe someone will find a catalist that will make it possible to use low voltage to extract enough hho to use in an on demand system.


A lot may have changed since you failed and quit with your experiment...



gottdi said:


> If you promote this I will confront you too.


Puff Puff Huff Huff Thump Thump. 



gottdi said:


> Closed minded is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting the same result. That is closed minded.


You mean like calling people frauds (even though they have no monitary interest to promote HHO) or that HHO can't work?

tired of shaking head; now has bobble head toy to do work; eyes permanently cross-eyed and damaged from rolling











gottdi said:


> Who said I was better than thou? If youre a liar, cheat, or deciever then yes.
> If youre a liar, cheat or deciever then all here are better than they.


So you saying anyone that says HHO works is a liar, cheat, or deceiver?

That's truly a close-minded and pathetic statement. 



gottdi said:


> And none here are closed minded. Only those who feel the need to move on because *we* don't buy the bull.


Shouldn't that be "you" don't buy the Bull?

I prefer to remain to be open-minded on this subject, thank you very much.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> They didn't use "a hydrogen-rich gas" they introduced hydrogen gas to the gasoline.


Here's the link again: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-0972

Here's the title of the document: 
*Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of An Ic-SI Engine*

The first sentence of the article says they inject hydrogen-rich gas to gasoline in their experiment.

Also note that _every time_ that the word "hydrogen" is used in the article, it is followed immediately by "-rich gas" and there is no space between.

So tell me exactly where that article says that they injected pure hydrogen again? Tell me exactly which paragraph, which sentence? Read the article before you prove your stupidity.



> Yes, I'm aware they used bottled hydrogen gas. I didn't think there were different types of hydrogen gas. Is stuff in a bottle any different than stuff in a...err...bottle?


The SAE article starts with bottled hydrogen, and their efficiency estimates are generated without including the energy cost associated with generating the hydrogen.

The Bob Boyce system pulls energy from the engine, generates hydrogen, and feeds it back into the same engine. There is an additional cost in the latter case. The SAE article does not support Bob Boyce's system.



> Let's see...a few volts and a couple amps vs a reduction of noxious gases and more efficiency beyond the cost of the energy _they say they put in their reformer?_


Are we reading the same article? The reformer oxidizes some of the gasoline, which means it takes some of the energy from it. That's taking pure hydrogen put into the reformer with gasoline to provide hydrogen-rich gas. During which the gasoline is partially oxidized (let's use the generic term "burned" although that probably isn't exactly accurate) and the overall efficiency of the experiment is higher than with regular gasoline.

They make no mention of the cost of hydrogen gas production.



> Did Bob Boyce say the cost of the energy to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen was free? I didn't read that anywhere...


No, not that I read either. What he said was that extracting it from water, in the car, using the engine for its energy took less energy than what was provided by the system in return.



> Yeah...freaking observations made at a given point in time. They always get in the way of progress. I'm glad people chose to ignore them and discover and invent things anyway...


Umm, do the inventors have to actually demonstrate that these things work? Sooner or later, they have to do that. The laws of thermodynamics apply to every part of every aspect of life. If somebody says they have them beat, then I want to see some extremely good proof.



> But I do know from first hand observation is that the HHO booster I later observed in use, was constructed with neutral plates that halved the amps and reduced the heat each time one was introduced between the annode and cathode plates.


As soon as you publish your article in a scientific journal and have some third-party lab build your device from that, I'll start giving your idea credence.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

A neutral plate? And you saw this being introduced? You witnessed an actual halving of the amps via a gauge? I am sure THEY said it was a neutral plate and you believed the bull. OUCH. 

Proof Proof Proof or are you going to blither and run like Bob Boyce. Get the proof before you boast. It is not even yours and you boast so about it. Odd. 

You have been called out on this one: BULL

We are not skeptics to prevent advancement but to keep the quackers at bay. 



> But I do know from first hand observation is that the HHO booster I later observed in use, was constructed with neutral plates that halved the amps and reduced the heat each time one was introduced between the annode and cathode plates.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



1clue said:


> Here's the link again: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-0972
> 
> Here's the title of the document:
> *Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of An Ic-SI Engine*
> ...


Bob Boyce's system introduces a hydrogen gas-enriched mixture to the combustion chamber which is the same thing the SAE article is doing. How it gets into the chamber is irrelevant whether it's fed from a pressurized vessel or fed from the vacuum created by the engine.

They're talking about the same thing... Duh... Maybe _you_ should _think _before you continue to prove your stupidity.



1clue said:


> The SAE article starts with bottled hydrogen, and their efficiency estimates are generated without including the energy cost associated with generating the hydrogen.


That's an assumption on your part.

_SAE Article



"which seems to be enough to compensate and overcome the losses due to the partial oxidation of Gasoline in the Reformer."

Click to expand...

_They must have used _some_ energy splitting the oxygen away from the gasoline. Kinda like using _some _energy seperating the hydrogen from oxygen in an HHO booster. 

Even with all that work, they still observed results in reduced emissions and an increase in efficiency.



1clue said:


> The Bob Boyce system pulls energy from the engine, generates hydrogen, and feeds it back into the same engine. There is an additional cost in the latter case.
> 
> The SAE article does not support Bob Boyce's system.


So does turning on your radio or headlights. So what's your point? Nobody ever said it was "free energy".

Actually the SAE article _does_ support HHO electrolysis. Hydrogen gas (no matter how it's introduced into an internal combustion engine) reduces noxious emissions and increases efficiency as indicated in their case study.



1clue said:


> The reformer oxidizes some of the gasoline, which means it takes some of the energy from it.
> 
> That's taking pure hydrogen put into the reformer with gasoline to provide hydrogen-rich gas. During which the gasoline is partially oxidized (let's use the generic term "burned" although that probably isn't exactly accurate) and the overall efficiency of the experiment is higher than with regular gasoline.


So in their test, they pull some of the energy out of the gasoline (making it less efficient) but yet they still get less emissions and more efficiency with the introduction of hydrogen gas mixed with the gasoline??

They are splitting off hydrogen and oxygen the same thing that HHO electrolysis does. 



1clue said:


> They make no mention of the cost of hydrogen gas production.


Maybe it was free or they pulled it out of thin air. 



1clue said:


> Umm, do the inventors have to actually demonstrate that these things work? Sooner or later, they have to do that.


Yeah, sooner or later, unless self-righteous condescending buttheads badger and belittle them to the point of frustration. Or in Bob Boyce's case, dealing with a couple closed minded hard-heads.



1clue said:


> As soon as you publish your article in a scientific journal and have some third-party lab build your device from that, I'll start giving your idea credence.


Like I give a rat's-ass about your or anyone elses credence...


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Bob Boyce's system introduces a hydrogen gas-enriched mixture to the combustion chamber which is the same thing the SAE article is doing. How it gets into the chamber is irrelevant whether it's fed from a pressurized vessel or fed from the vacuum created by the engine.


I think I'm missing it still.. are you claiming that the hydrogen comes from gasoline or from water electrolysis on the fly?

The SAE article is pumping hydrogen that they create elsewhere onto the car and then using it to inject into the fuel mix


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> A neutral plate? And you saw this being introduced? You witnessed an actual halving of the amps via a gauge? I am sure THEY said it was a neutral plate and you believed the bull. OUCH.
> 
> Proof Proof Proof or are you going to blither and run like Bob Boyce. Get the proof before you boast. It is not even yours and you boast so about it. Odd.
> 
> ...


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> I think I'm missing it still.. are you claiming that the hydrogen comes from gasoline or from water electrolysis on the fly?
> 
> The SAE article is pumping hydrogen that they create elsewhere onto the car and then using it to inject into the fuel mix


In matters not where the hydrogen was converted. In both cases gasoline is mixed with hydrogen gas before it enters the combustion chamber. 

Whether hydrogen gas is converted on a table in a laboratory or in a electrolysis unit on a car, hydrogen is hydrogen.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> In matters not where the hydrogen was converted. In both cases gasoline is mixed with hydrogen gas before it enters the combustion chamber.
> 
> Whether hydrogen gas is converted on a table in a laboratory or in a electrolysis unit on a car, hydrogen is hydrogen.


Correct, but it will matter to overall fuel efficiency.... ie. making it in a car system that uses the car's alternator is precisely the seemingly thermodynamic impossibility to increase efficiency.

If you tank it under pressure in your garage, I'm sure it could work out quite well actually.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

tj4fa,
To paraphrase somebody - you're such a jerk...

What gottdi and others is saying is simple
Great Claims require Great Proof
Thermodynamics is basic to just about every engineering device used, 
If somebody is claiming to have found some holes in the laws of thermodynamics them they need a lot of evidence, repeatable, controlled evidence


----------



## dolinick (Feb 4, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I hate to post here because I am a newbie. I read somewhere about rolling resistance and wind drag. I have been a local and longhaul truck driver for 12 years and I have driven on some REALLY smooth roads. I also have driven on interstate highways which were so bad the truck would pop out of gear and you felt like you were going to bounce out of your seat.

I don't know if drag can be reduced any more with new designs but have you seen the video of the arabians "surfing" on the road by hanging out of their cars wearing only sandals? 





 
I just filled up the little tires on my Chevette. If I used the best tires for rolling would it help much? Do they make solid tires to use instead of pneumatic. I understand the the ride won't be as smooth. A trade off?

Don't forget about the road. I haven't read this entire thread yet. 

(How much power can a human produce by using their body? Ok, it's not practical but someone once build a human powered airplane. It worked!)

Dan


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> Correct, but it will matter to overall fuel efficiency.... ie. making it in a car system that uses the car's alternator is precisely the seemingly thermodynamic impossibility to increase efficiency.
> 
> If you tank it under pressure in your garage, I'm sure it could work out quite well actually.


Sure it will matter to overall efficiency. Just as you load up your alternator with all the the electrical loads your car has on board, you'll take away some efficiency from the vehicle. 

But the HHO device is not just another device that places a load on the engine like your AC, heater, lights, or whatever. It actually gives something back. It gives back hydrogen that suppliments the efficiency of the original gasoline.

Since it's several hundred times more explosive than gasoline and burns faster it's like adding an octane booster to the mix.

The hydrogen or HHO electrolizer isn't using all the power being produced by the engine or the alternator, nor is it claimed to put back more electricity into the alternator than originally produced.

Keeping within the laws of thermodynamics, the HHO device generating the hydrogen is just using a small portion of the alternator's electricity to do some other kind of work.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Typical response of one who knows nothing and hates to be called out. 

Third paragraph from the link you sent of the article CLEARLY states the use of REFORMER GAS which is made from natural gas and it is pure hydrogen that is injected/mixed with the gasoline to make what they call hydrogen-rich gas. That is exactly what they are doing and CLEARLY NOT HHO gas being sucked in with the fuel mixture. This article has no bearing on the HHO devices being touted as being able to double your mileage and give better power performance. So yes GOTTDI WANTS PROOF AAACK. : )








tj4fa said:


>


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Sure it will matter to overall efficiency. Just as you load up your alternator with all the the electrical loads your car has on board, you'll take away some efficiency from the vehicle.



We already know what is being touted and said. It actually does not give back more than it takes. That is why it is not possible to get better mileage or power. So yes it is just another device that places a load on the system. : )



> But the HHO device is not just another device that places a load on the engine like your AC, heater, lights, or whatever. It actually gives something back. It gives back hydrogen that suppliments the efficiency of the original gasoline.


I will say you may get the benefit of some octane boosting but still I am not sure of that. No octane booster has ever given more power or better mileage but it does allow you to reduce ping. That is all octane does.

You still need a volume quantity of gas to per stroke per piston in the engine to see any measurable increase in power or mpg and NONE of the devices can produce that amount needed. It does not matter one iota that it is more explosive. Plus you only have x amount of energy in x amount of gas anyway. Hydrogen in not an energy dense form of fuel. 



> Since it's several hundred times more explosive than gasoline and burns faster it's like adding an octane booster to the mix.


Again we know it is not using all the power from the system and because of that there is no way in HELL that it can produce enough HHO gas to increase power or mileage and the energy used to create the meager (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meager) amount of gas is more than any benefit you'd ever see or measure. 



> The hydrogen or HHO electrolizer isn't using all the power being produced by the engine or the alternator, nor is it claimed to put back more electricity into the alternator than originally produced.


The alternator is doing work for the device with a small portion of the alternators power. What energy you get back is even less. Best to use that electric power to power an electric motor. You will have better efficiency than using it to convert water to HHO then burning it in an engine which is even less efficient. The device goes backwards as well as your thinking. 



> Keeping within the laws of thermodynamics, the HHO device generating the hydrogen is just using a small portion of the alternator's electricity to do some other kind of work.



It just might be time for you to take a walk------Aaaaaaack : )


Well I gota go make some real money.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Bob Boyce's system introduces a hydrogen gas-enriched mixture to the combustion chamber which is the same thing the SAE article is doing. How it gets into the chamber is irrelevant whether it's fed from a pressurized vessel or fed from the vacuum created by the engine.
> 
> They're talking about the same thing... Duh... Maybe _you_ should _think _before you continue to prove your stupidity.


A reformer is a place where a chemical reaction happens. A catalytic reformer converts low-octane gasoline into high octane gasoline. The SAE article says their reformer oxidizes gasoline with the hydrogen somehow, and they get hydrogen-rich gas. Note the difference between "gasoline" and "hydrogen-rich gas." There is no indication in the public summary that the hydrogen-rich gas is gasoline.

They are NOT just squirting raw hydrogen into the combustion chamber.



> That's an assumption on your part.


That they start with bottled hydrogen, or that they don't account for the energy required to get pure hydrogen? They state that they start with bottled hydrogen. They then say they use a reformer to convert it into a hydrogen-rich gas, and that oxidation with gasoline is part of the process. Normal scientific method says that measurements are done only on the parts of the process which are included into the experiment. In other words, the energy spent in production of H2 gas is not included in their energy estimates.



> _SAE Article _
> 
> They must have used _some_ energy splitting the oxygen away from the gasoline. Kinda like using _some _energy seperating the hydrogen from oxygen in an HHO booster.
> 
> Even with all that work, they still observed results in reduced emissions and an increase in efficiency.


What exactly they do in their reformer is unclear from their summary. We only know that hydrogen and gasoline go in, and hydrogen-rich gas comes out. They also say that they run their tests with pure gasoline and also with a gasoline/hydrogen-rich gas mixture. So the reformer doesn't process all the gasoline used.



> So does turning on your radio or headlights. So what's your point? Nobody ever said it was "free energy".


The headlights and radio take energy from the engine but do not claim to put energy back in. Bob Boyce said it was free energy.



> Actually the SAE article _does_ support HHO electrolysis. Hydrogen gas (no matter how it's introduced into an internal combustion engine) reduces noxious emissions and increases efficiency as indicated in their case study.


You are completely ignoring the amount of energy required to get hydrogen gas. You are also completely ignoring the amount of hydrogen gas needed to make any significant difference in power on a car engine.



> So in their test, they pull some of the energy out of the gasoline (making it less efficient) but yet they still get less emissions and more efficiency with the introduction of hydrogen gas mixed with the gasoline??
> 
> They are splitting off hydrogen and oxygen the same thing that HHO electrolysis does.


I saw no indication that they extracted hydrogen from gasoline. I saw them adding hydrogen and gasoline in a chemical reaction to get their hydrogen-rich gas, which is then combusted along with gasoline.



> Maybe it was free or they pulled it out of thin air.


Hydrogen gas does not exist in nature. All natural hydrogen on earth exists in a low-energy state in some other chemical, like water for example, or just about any organic compound. Hydrogen reacts with just about anything.

In order to get free hydrogen gas the way it is used in combustion, you need to crack the molecule which contains the hydrogen and that requires energy. The same energy you will get back out of it when you burn it. As with anything else, to go from low-energy in a molecule to high-energy hydrogen and then back to a spent hydrogen, you will spend more energy than you get back out.



> Yeah, sooner or later, unless self-righteous condescending buttheads badger and belittle them to the point of frustration. Or in Bob Boyce's case, dealing with a couple closed minded hard-heads.
> 
> Like I give a rat's-ass about your or anyone elses credence...


If you could give that rat's ass, why are you still arguing?


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

So you're taking an alternator, pulling power from it to generate hydrogen through electrolysis, injecting that hydrogen back into the engine to boost overall power?

OK, now let's insert realistic values for all this. Say our alternator draws a hypothetical 10 hp from the engine.

Automotive alternators are in the range of 40% efficient. So we have 4 hp worth of electricity.

Now we add that to electrolysis. Electrolysis in the real world is generally between 50% and 70% efficient, including catalysts, and that's in industrial processing in factories, so the car is going to be at the low end of that scale. So our 4 hp worth of electricity yields 2 hp worth of hydrogen.

Now we dump that back into our gasoline engine, which is on the order of 35% efficient. So we get 2/3 horsepower back, and it cost us 10 hp.

You're right, this IS a great deal! I could put in 100 hp and get back almost 7 hp to turn my wheels!


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Since we're into pictures all of a sudden, how about this one?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

LMAO!!

Took me a few seconds to figure out the relevance of that photo.

I like it - I like it a lot

Keith


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Sure it will matter to overall efficiency. Just as you load up your alternator with all the the electrical loads your car has on board, you'll take away some efficiency from the vehicle.
> 
> But the HHO device is not just another device that places a load on the engine like your AC, heater, lights, or whatever. It actually gives something back. It gives back hydrogen that suppliments the efficiency of the original gasoline.
> 
> ...


Nvm I was trying to be fair, but as shown before it's not a small portion at all (something like at least 2-3kw just to make 10L/min)


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hi dolinick,
I think you have mentioned something that is normally overlooked, the road surface can have a major effect.
This can be helped by your suspension system
When I was cycling a recumbent with no suspension and my body in a fiberglass seat the road surface could make a 3 mph speed difference (20 mph down to 17 mph)
you don't see that much difference with a normal bike as your legs suspend a lot of your mass.
I intended to fit suspension to my recumbent but I haven't gotten round to it

On your other question I estimate that a normal non athlete can produce about 50 watts continuous power.

The human powered airplane was designed to fly really slowly as the required power drops with speed - 5 mph I think


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Reformer gas is basically just distilled natural gas which cracks the hydrogen out. Yes it is more detailed than that but natural gas is usually used because there is more hydrogen and it is just easier to use. Yes, gasoline or any hydrogen rich substance can be used. With water the reforming process is usually electrical but it takes a lot of energy to bust it up. 

Reformer-Gas is hydrogen enriched gasoline. Kinda like adding in octane booster to gasoline like ethanol. So when the article talks of reformer-gas it is gas enriched with extra hydrogen and then used. Like Gasoline with and without ethanol mixed in. We actually use reformed gasoline everyday. Just it is not hydrogen enriched. Too expensive. So other items are used but the enrichment is to cause a little better burning for less emissions and maybe better octane ratings. It is not giving more power or more mpg. Enrichment is only for octane boosting and emissions improvement. I have no beef with those who use enriched hydrogen reformer gas to prove better emissions but you must remember that was a long time ago and there are better emission reducing additives. Not to say that they are better health wise but they do reduce the emissions they are trying to reduce. Hydrogen was not cost effective even though it did show promise. 


Aaaack! : )


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Sure it will matter to overall efficiency. Just as you load up your alternator with all the the electrical loads your car has on board, you'll take away some efficiency from the vehicle.
> 
> But the HHO device is not just another device that places a load on the engine like your AC, heater, lights, or whatever. It actually gives something back. It gives back hydrogen that suppliments the efficiency of the original gasoline.
> 
> Since it's several hundred times more explosive than gasoline and burns faster it's like adding an octane booster to the mix.


I will give a hint, hydrogen gas is used under pressure and heat to crack hydrocarbons into lighter hydrocarbons under high pressure/temps at the refinery, there is a very old paper floating around on a military research site that states hydrogen will not react with oxygen in the presence of a hydrocarbon, ester or high alcohol.

So your engine has pressure and heat; entropy wise the hydrogen will most likely react with whatever hydrocarbon is the longest breaking it down into smaller more combustable items.

There is one problem, there really isn't enough hydrogen being made to significantly effect much fuel unless it works as a catalyst which is not proven.

The main reason that some hydrogen / HHO systems work is because you can lean the engine out further without missing, they increase combustability of the gasoline enough that you do not need as rich of a mixture to light which translates into lower pumping losses, trouble is very very few HHO systems make enough gas to accomplish this. Also many HHO systems are very inefficient, there are a few that are better but there is no free lunch lots of work and in the end you have less power, potentially will burn your pistons but can get better MPG with fewer emissions if you can figure out how to change your motors fuel map to lean out enough but not too far.

Good Luck


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Jeepers, I step away for two months, and all hell breaks loose! 

I have just three things to say:

1. Requiring adherence to the Scientific Method is NOT closed-mindedness. Such adherence is absolutely essential to weed out all the silly stuff as we increase and continue to test our growing body of knowledge. Fundamental to this process is the notion that the one making the claim is the one required to supply the proof. Claims without proof are worthless. And statements of witness credibility, assertions of conspiracy, and pictures of animals are not proof. Thinking outside the box is one thing, but claiming to violate known and well-tested laws of nature without so much as a spreadsheet of numbers to back you up is quite another.

2. Anyone who designs an on-demand/on-the-fly HHO production system that actually increases range (or energy output in general) should be advised that a Nobel Prize in Physics will be his/hers in due time. Such an achievement would require nothing less than a total rewrite of our understanding of the way the Universe actually works, and it will herald a new age of world-wide industry based on the demonstrated method of over-unity hydrogen production.

3. And, finally, I thought the duck was funny.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Ok, Its like I said about the Ed Grey Motor. It has now been replicated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rFjrPo9mws


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ed Grey technology has been replicated. I told ya it was just a matter of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rFjrPo9mws

It uses the same technology as was used in Stan Meyer's VIC!


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beshires1 said:


> Ed Grey technology has been replicated. I told ya it was just a matter of time.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rFjrPo9mws
> 
> It uses the same technology as was used in Stan Meyer's VIC!


Oh no... here we go again.









It must be a trick or have some hidden wires to that big battery...aaack


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beshires1
I have an open mind which is not limited by the current body of Physics Knowledge. I watched the entire video.
All I saw was an electric motor running on batteries. Sorry, but it didn't blow me away. And it didn't prove anything to me.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> Beshires1
> I have an open mind which is not limited by the current body of Physics Knowledge. I watched the entire video.
> All I saw was an electric motor running on batteries. Sorry, but it didn't blow me away. And it didn't prove anything to me.


It wasn't meant to. If ya know nothing about EV Grey, then its just another motor.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Beshires1 said:


> It wasn't meant to. If ya know nothing about EV Grey, then its just another motor.


If it can be dreamt or imagined...it can be done.


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Oh no... here we go again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not necessarily, the real question begging is whether he stopped the motor because he was not collecting enough power back into the system, or it is running too hot. Also, the little central perforated column - called a CSET - does not seem to be operating as I would expect. 

It seems to be just being used as a spark gap generator, whereas, it should be a constant source of "avalanche" current with minimal spark. Thereby, supplying a cascade of power that could be almost embarassing.

Also, I notice a distinct lack of circuit explanation. Looks like the Patent circuit, which if it is, is unlikely to be working properly. EV Gray, did what this video did and that was all. No magic power out.

Keep a look out for experiment 2. Also, look for comments on start-up finance!!

Regards
Rob


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beshires,


Stop spamming the board. I have now found three places you put this friggin information and it's not allowed. YOU are a troll, go away. There is no place for you here. Might take your little dog toto with you. : )


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Guess I can then go back in time to visit my sister? 





tj4fa said:


> If it can be dreamt or imagined...it can be done.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Guess I can then go back in time to visit my sister?


It could be arranged to see her soon if you'd like...

----
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> It could be arranged to see her soon if you'd like...
> 
> ----
> I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.



He is actually just the beginning and the end. No where does it say time traveler. There is no going back. Only now and the future. Which was (past tense). Which is (present tense). and Which is to come (future tense). 

Not back to the future tense.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Beshires,
> 
> 
> Stop spamming the board. I have now found three places you put this friggin information and it's not allowed. YOU are a troll, go away. There is no place for you here. Might take your little dog toto with you. : )


Hey ass sniff don't screw with me. You won't like it! Whats that you a stickin in your sister?


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Far worse I fear than a troll has befallen you.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beshires,


Tis far worse than expected. : )


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

So, if YouTube counts as proof, how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vUQIynCNYU

Or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK2_R235wlM

Or, even better yet, this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uixeb5vBpvA


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beshires, how old are you? 10? 12? 
Seriously, from what I've read, my Nephew looks far more intelligent than you... and he's 5. Incidently he also understands the laws of physics and is far more polite than you as well.

Grow up please. You're an embarrassment to humanity (And the trolls!)


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Gavin1977 said:


> Beshires, how old are you? 10? 12?
> Seriously, from what I've read, my Nephew looks far more intelligent than you... and he's 5. Incidently he also understands the laws of physics and is far more polite than you as well.
> 
> Grow up please. You're an embarrassment to humanity (And the trolls!)


Button it up!


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

gottdi said:


> No load and battery powered magnet motor and it runs fine that way. And that sparkle tower is to do what? Distract you from what? No mention of any thing was given here in this video. Just a motor running with a sparkle tower and a multimeter. OK and we are supposed to be impressed? At what?
> 
> : )


Gottdi, There are people here who do know about this technology. There is a lot more to it. There are a lot of skilled people here who very well knows, the meaning of this simple motor and "sparkle tower". You can brush up on this stuff simply going back in THIS thread and reading a little. I know that might be hard for you to do but you could try.
Quite simply put, the EV Grey motor was a real working device, in fact he had developed several working motors. Then Our Government confiscated all his motors and equipment (nothing was returned). He had to start all over. But here is the catch. the motors were originally designed by Marvin Cole, who inconviently died, leaving Grey with the prospect of having to design the system without the help of its originator. Grey started to rebuild his business, then he also died. Techonology along with him. Now the patents have expired and are open source to those with enough skill to try to replicate what is described in the patents. Grey never touted his motors as free-energy. But claimed his motors could go 300 miles. Before the two sets of 4 - 12V batteries needed recharging. That's enough to cause any serious EV'er to take notice of this new development. No one has ever got as far into the replication, as this guy. If you read the comments on youtube, you would know that this motor is not finished, and the builder is asking if anyone having tried to do this replication, could offer any info that would help him complete the project.But from what I see, he is far ahead of any other researcher in this field.
http://keelynet.com/evgray/evgray3.htm
Here are photos of two motors that were found. But the people in these photos really didn't have a clue on how the motors worked. But hey, you could buy their video and find out for sure that they didn't have a clue. Oh yea after a demonstration of one of Grey's motors running for 57 hrs, in a field with no source of power other than the two battery packs, continuously pulling a load and powering TVsets, mutiple lights and a small oven. Then the government step-up and confinscated his stuff. Recon Why?


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

gottdi said:


> You know that making a small model and have it work is not the issue. The issue is the claim of 300 miles on a set of 4 normal batteries in an ev. How ridiculous is that statement. Does that mean I could build that motor and put it in a semi truck and go 300 miles pulling a full load? Does it mean I could put it into a VW Beetle and do the same? Has it ever been done? NO. Can you honestly make that claim? NO. Can you honestly really believe that claim? NO. Does the motor spin with voltage applied? Yes and many other different motors too. That claim of running for 57 hours and loaded up with tv's running and such is total bunk and that the Gov swooped in is bunk too.
> 
> It is the claims that are touted and not the fact that he has a different looking motor that can spin with the battery. However getting 300 miles is a far stretch and totally ridiculous. If you buy that and your cronies too then I feel sorry for you. The day you build a large format motor like this and take it to a neutral 3rd party for verification of the claim and then actually come take ME for a 300 mile ride on 4 friggin 12 volt batteries (which I will gladly provide) I will eat my words right here in front of all on this site. Untill then your claim is total bunk and just posting it and believing it is like saying it's your claim. You might get a few miles having it installed on a bicycle with 4 12 volt batteries. No more than any other electric motor with 4 12 volt batteries. Energy stored in the battery is finite. Power from a motor is finite and I guarantee not motor is good enough and can provide that kind of power for that long with only 4 12 volt batteries. Hell most motor are near perfect efficiency anyway so how could you squeeze out that much more? No way. No how. No different than that claim of HHO crap that was going around.
> 
> Sorry dude but you done been duped again.


 My post is for the interested and intelligent. You are neither.I don't have to prove Jack diddly to you.Take it or leave it . As usual your making statements about something you know nothing about. It you don't like the post its plain Polly. Don't read it. I really don't care what you believe. I got better things to do than be little myself corresponding with someone who lacks the intelligence to realize that this post doesn't have to be read. I ain't forcing you to read it. So why do you stick around for? Ya lookin for more Janitors?


----------



## GKnightBC (Sep 10, 2008)

I have no doubts that a motor of the type shown the video will rotate the equivalent of 300 linear miles before the battery is used up. That is a monstrous difference from propelling 1700kg the same distance. A well-balanced system could even spin freely for a mile or two before stopping. Get them to put a 200 Watt load on the system and then we'll talk. 

Also re: the Ed Gray website and photos, last time I heard the word 'repulsor" is was in Star Trek!


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Hey if your interested just Google up your self the answers. You don't believe me anyway.
But that is the claim made by the inventor. May not be true but then we will see now won't we. The motors has been replicated so now we do know that It did actually worked. You will just have to wait and see if it can do as the inventor claimed. The vehicle supposedly got 300 miles per charge because it had two sets of batteries. Starting off with two fully charged sets of batteries it is plausible that this could be achieved by rotating the emptied set with the next set of fully charged batteries, recharging the spent batteries to a extent before swapping again. Dude in the video I posted has labeled things to a extent so you can get a idea of what he is doing. This is a capacitor discharge motor. And runs on high voltage DC Discharges to the motors coils. But it is how these discharges are delivered to the coils and how they are produced that makes this motor special.I think dude in the video is using 16 - 3000V 23uf capacitors. Don't ya wonder how he is charging those large capacitors to maybe 2000 DC from those 12V Batteries.? I know how he does it.Ever used a disposable camera? The AA batteries charge the flash capacitor to a voltage that can kill you.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

You stand corrected. Most motors are either a generator or a motor that is true. But ... This is not a motor like anyone has seen in 30 years or more. Capacitors only need a difference in the positive potential to charge. Requiring far less battery for the power of the discharge than can be had from the batteries them self. You following me big guy? Watch the video . You will see two spools of wire. Look like they are just sitting there doing nothing. But looks are deceiving. Now watch this pay close attention so you can get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTEyu6aNXmA
after you watch this it will help me to explain more.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Attacking someone, just because they doubt the value you seem to think is there, is both childish and shows a lack of charactor.....

Wait that IS you.

You can't seem come up with a solid project, so you attack those that support the laws of physics. Hmmm, just how old are you?


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey Coodie! I've been Wondering Where you were! Tell me some more About Those physics. I'm going to see the Doctor marrow and take me one of those!!!!!


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I think you gave me the wrong video link.


No he was explaining how the resonant charging coils work. Now this one will give you a visual so you can see the effect with and without the charging choke. That Charging Choke actually doubles the power pulse that is put into the choke. But uses no more power drain from the battery. All ready you are getting twice the Bang for the same amount of energy used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N78E_qA4ws0&feature=related
Any Electricians out there can easily verify this. I'm going to allow time for this to sink in. But remember dude in the motor video is using two large charging chokes. To increase the capacitors charging time but it requires no more current drawn from the battery. But wait theres more!!!! ( Pay attention to what is happening in these videos.) Also watch the coil of wire he is using for the choke. These videos were used to develop the water spark plug. But that Resonant charging choke principal is key to the Grey Motor. There are no tricks, no magic just good old electronics.


Here is a link so you can get a full description of the Choke ,what it is, how it preforms, what it can and cannot do. http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html If your following this I hope you are beginning to realize, that there is no magic. These chokes have been used in big industry electronics, for decades. Now are you beginning to see how Ed Grey's motor differs from all others? Right from the start he is efficiently doubling power used to charge the capacitors from what is actually consumed from the batteries...... But Wait There's More.....


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

I think its clear now that this motor is doing nothing unusual, its only using the Battery's power more efficiently than running it strait from the battery source. Again the inventor made no claims of overunity. Yes the PWM work to do the job they were designed to do which is to chop up available battery supply current into smaller pulses ,that you can increase their down time to slow a motor down or decrease the down time to speed the motor up. They work fine for this job, But, they operate directly from current directly from the battery. You can't get the same output from a PWM as the battery can supply. So if ya are still following me, You can see a big difference in a PWM pulsed DC motor and what Grey's motor was doing. The PWM chopps up the current from the Battery but is still a drain upon the source. Grey's choke has used a difference in potential to charge capacitors to about 2000V that will be discharged thru coils in the Rotor and stator, and......Get this.... the rotor and stator coils are setup like a charging choke also. He is fixin to get the repulsion to turn the motor, and charge even more voltage to be sent to the recharging set of Batteries. Think on this fer a while. I come back to explain because of coarse....There's More....


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

Beshires1 said:


> You stand corrected. Most motors are either a generator or a motor that is true. But ... This is not a motor like anyone has seen in 30 years or more. Capacitors only need a difference in the positive potential to charge. Requiring far less battery for the power of the discharge than can be had from the batteries them self. You following me big guy? Watch the video . You will see two spools of wire. Look like they are just sitting there doing nothing. But looks are deceiving. Now watch this pay close attention so you can get it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTEyu6aNXmA
> after you watch this it will help me to explain more.


_Hello Beshires1, This is off context and I would ask that you please indulge me some . As I watched the video he says in the beginning that what he is trying to do with the bifilar coil / charging choke was to limit current and dump or increase higher voltage . That being limiting current as amps and as the video goes on to show his process of doing that with certain elements / parts that needs to be included later and I have no question with that part of video . However at the end of the video he says that later if after he has accomplished the desired effect afore mentioned that he was going to add a ( toroid ) to increase amps or current . So my question is can you tell me why is he limiting current or amps with the choke and then increasing amps at the end ? Is it that he is by doubling the pulse in the bifilar coil /charging choke hoping to square amps through the ( toroid ) — hence increase amps ??? Sorry but this video was a little hard to fallow .... Regards...Bob _


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

EVF, I was using this video to basically let someone elts explain about the Charging Choke. (There are a lot of videos showing this now) I think, what he is referring to, at the end of the video, that if that worked Charging choke, he was going to try a torrid as a charging choke. I'm not up to date on the hydrogen thing. But I do know that Bob Boyce uses a torrid in his hydrogen electrolizer circuits. If This explanition helps.


----------



## GKnightBC (Sep 10, 2008)

Why am I thinking of Archemedes Plutonium, now?


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

Beshires1 said:


> But claimed his motors could go 300 miles. Before the two sets of 4 - 12V batteries needed recharging..


Hmm OK then, a typical vehicle requires 200Watt-hours to propel it at 60mph, so 200WH x 300 miles = 60000WH.
Now lets be generous and say the batteries can hold 100Ahr, that’s 8 x 100 x 12 = 9600WHr.


Beshires1 said:


> Again the inventor made no claims of overunity.


Well 60000/9600 * 100 = 625% efficiency, or have I misunderstood the meaning of overunity somewhere?

So either.

1. It isn’t a typical EV, but as Gottdi suggested, it’s a super lightweight single seat, super aerodynamic vehicle.
2. The 12V batteries are bl**dy enourmous.
3. The inventor is claiming overunity, in which case the idiot should, having got this far, be able to make his device run without ever needing recharging.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Gavin1977 said:


> Hmm OK then, a typical vehicle requires 200Watt-hours to propel it at 60mph, so 200WH x 300 miles = 60000WH.
> Now lets be generous and say the batteries can hold 100Ahr, that’s 8 x 100 x 12 = 9600WHr.
> 
> Well 60000/9600 * 100 = 625% efficiency, or have I misunderstood the meaning of overunity somewhere?
> ...











This is one of Grey's Motors. The shaft on this motor is machined from a composite material and is 2" in diameter. The 3 Motor coils and motor shaft weigh in at 130lbs. diameter of the motor is 12", motor case is 16" long. One of these would be nice on a Bicycle, don't you think? The statements of overunity are yours and not claims made by the inventor.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

All I was doing was crunching the numbers. You stated that it propelled a vehicle 300 miles and I made a fair assumption that it would be a car, as we are on an electric car forum.

It could well power a bicycle for a large distance. I am sketching up an EV bike at the moment, though personally I think 130lbs is a bit heavy for a bike and that there are better alternatives.

So if the inventor is not claiming overunity, what does this motor offer that others don't?


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Yea, I guess your right It is a bit large for a bicycle. No room for those Batteries on a Bicycle either.


> So if the inventor is not claiming overunity, what does this motor offer that others don't?


 Efficiency, When you apply power to a regular DC motor, Thats a direct drain on the batteries. The Electro magnetic force created in a regular DC motor is actually a dead shorting of the battery thru the coils being energized. Powerful, but inefficient use of the available battery power. And it doesn't recover any of the energy spent in operation. Greys motors on the other hand run from capacitor discharge . Capacitors are charged from potiential difference, a charging choke is simply a coil of wire pulsed with a high voltage. Everyone allready knows that the collapsing field of a electromagnet induces a inductive spike from that coil of wire that electromagnet is made from.(This is wasted in a regular DC motor) Grey's motor collects this spike and sends it to a second set of batteries for recharge. And it does this without the dead shorting of the batteries. How? you might ask. The motor is discharging its capacitors back to the low voltage potiential of the Batteries. Which is the positive of the batteries. The system doesn't use the ground of the batteries negative. Now thats different huhhh?


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

Beshires1 said:


> EVF, I was using this video to basically let someone elts explain about the Charging Choke. (There are a lot of videos showing this now) I think, what he is referring to, at the end of the video, that if that worked Charging choke, he was going to try a torrid as a charging choke. I'm not up to date on the hydrogen thing. But I do know that Bob Boyce uses a torrid in his hydrogen electrolizer circuits. If This explanition helps.


_Thanks Beshires1 for the reply … I’m not sure if what sirHoax was saying was that he was going to replace the charging choke with the toroid to increase amps . However I have become interested in the idea of the use of a toroid in union with the bifilar coil / charging choke to increase amps and not volts . And I thank you for posting that video that has inspired me to do research and think along this line ….Regards ….Bob...._


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

Wow, almost 300 posts about such a stupid concept.

Friction losses in the bearings, windage from the rotating parts, and I^2R losses in every current carrying component of the whole system.

I can't take it, I think you guys with your free energy schemes are giving me a headache.

If you can't accept "the first law of thermodynamics" or "the law of conservation of energy" give it up. You have no business working on anything mechanical.

Personally I suspect you are all smoking some kind if pixie dust.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

joethemechanic said:


> Wow, almost 300 posts about such a stupid concept.
> 
> Friction losses in the bearings, windage from the rotating parts, and I^2R losses in every current carrying component of the whole system.
> 
> ...


_Hey Joe , What is the primus or theme of this thread anyway...? Is it maybe (*Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...* ) Or maybe instead is it really (*Opposition to* *Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...* )  Well Joe what is it or does the question also give you a headache ..........._


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh God, I guess this is another one of those things like the one where they make hydrogen by electrolysis powered by the alternator and then feed it back into the engine.

It's all a scam. This is why the world is going into a deep economic depression. The school system's policy of, science education is less important than kick ball has come to fruition.

Lets all sing "I believe I can fly"


----------



## lpite (Mar 6, 2009)

A simple experiment to do yourself, goto the local hobby store buy two small 6 volt electric motors, link their shafts together then wire them together.

Now try spinning them, they will not continue to spin.


----------



## lpite (Mar 6, 2009)

Hello,
I was wondering if I could just add an alternator to an ev and get a range extender. The alternator seems like a good idea, even an industrial one, now... I have no knowledge in this area whatsoever, so would anyone enlighten me?


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

lpite said:


> A simple experiment to do yourself, goto the local hobby store buy two small 6 volt electric motors, link their shafts together then wire them together.
> 
> Now try spinning them, they will not continue to spin.



That's because you don't believe it can be done. You damn non-believers LMAO.

When I was a kid, the kid next door's dad always told him you can do anything if you believe you can.

I said you can't fly. So after a couple days he convinced himself he could fly. He got up on the garage roof,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hey, what the heck, every boy gets a cast sometimes, right?

He said it was my fault for *not believin* while I watched.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

*Hey Joe, that’s very entertaining and all with the use of a metaphor . Really though are you going to answer my question or not ? Maybe you can only hear your own thoughts and can’t remember the question ? So I've made this a little larger to hopefully get past that problem......*


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

I've lived next door to Joe all my life. Infact I'm the kid in the garage roof incident and I'm still pissed at him over that.
I'm watching him from a window near my computer right now and it appears he is tearing an alternator off a junk truck in his back yard.
Wonder what he's gonna do with that?


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Has anybody on here actually reproduced a working overunity machine? Just wondering .....cuz I would love to reproduce my own and stop paying for electricity.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> Has anybody on here actually reproduced a working overunity machine? Just wondering .....cuz I would love to reproduce my own and stop paying for electricity.


No. Nobody, in all of human history, has successfully proved an overunity machine of any sort whatsoever. That's why those of us "who do not _believe_" keep asking for proof.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> Has anybody on here actually reproduced a working overunity machine? Just wondering .....cuz I would love to reproduce my own and stop paying for electricity.


I won't go so far as to call it overunity, but.... You could check this out. The guy who started this simply knows electricity. You can find your own how too's with step by step instruction on how to build these. This one which is by far the best device I've found to work, uses a auto accessory relay to preform its magic. http://www.video4viet.com/watchvide...e=Super Capacitor Imhotep Radiant Oscillator
Again, I wouldn't call it "Overunity" but this oscilator circuit can light 4 foot long floressant bulbs and run the light for quite some time, from a battery source that cannot by itself produce the power to run the light. Its all in knowing what you want then finding a way to achieve it. Think outside the box. No not the same box that "NoClue" is locked in.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

Beshires1 said:


> I won't go so far as to call it overunity, but.... You could check this out. The guy who started this simply knows electricity. You can find your own how too's with step by step instruction on how to build these. This one which is by far the best device I've found to work, uses a auto accessory relay to preform its magic. http://www.video4viet.com/watchvide...e=Super Capacitor Imhotep Radiant Oscillator
> Again, I wouldn't call it "Overunity" but this oscilator circuit can light 4 foot long floressant bulbs and run the light for quite some time, from a battery source that cannot by itself produce the power to run the light. Its all in knowing what you want then finding a way to achieve it. Think outside the box. No not the same box that "NoClue" is locked in.


I'll let him off that second multimeter displaying a negative voltage. He got the probes hooked up the wrong way round. No biggie.

Okay, so he has 100F of energy storage in his "Super Capacitors", and they're charging to 13.8v. That gives a total charge of 1380C.

The CFL bulb he has is a 22W unit (Giving the equivalent light of a 100W incandescent bulb - it's written on the box there), which means at 13.8V he will be burning 7.25A of power each second, and that 1380C of charge will run out in 3:10 (three minutes).

However, all that math work is for naught, as with the ballast removed, that CFL bulb will not function. It requires a high voltage kick to start it at the very least, and as fluorescent tubes have negative resistance curves (The more power they get, the less their resistance, leading to more power), the bulb would achieve runaway quickly and fail.

So, I'm sorry, but I'm calling shenanigans on this one.


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

> However, all that math work is for naught, as with the ballast removed, that CFL bulb will not function. It requires a high voltage kick to start it at the very least, and as fluorescent tubes have negative resistance curves (The more power they get, the less their resistance, leading to more power), the bulb would achieve runaway quickly and fail.
> 
> So, I'm sorry, but I'm calling shenanigans on this one.


Shenanigans? No. Have you built one of these? Its easy to say that It won't work If you Haven't built one. I have, They will work. Watch the "Imohtep Radiant oscillator" Videos on youtube, build yerself one then make your statements based on first hand fact. Your high voltage kick is comming from a self oscilating acessory relay. Now do yer homework and build one and come back wit yer report.
Here is you a nother video to analize. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1571927/imhotep_s_free_energy_radiant_oscillator_lite/
If you build this correctly it will work. If you been keeping up with my earlier posts you should realize that the relay coil is the charging choke in this circuit. There is no magic , no tricks, just knowing how and using the available power more efficiently than it is normally used.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*It's more possible than I thought*

This thread got me to thinking, just what has been done so far?

I've been impressed. Most "unlimited mileage" vehicles built so far have been solar powered, but not all.

Hundreds of cars, one drove 12,000 miles on solar alone, and one is not only practical but even has air conditioning.

Boats, over 1,000 in daily service world wide. Solar powered boats have crossed the Atlantic and Pacific.

The first solar airplane to carry a human, way back in 1979. Several are in use today, and more are being developed.

See a growing list of unlimited mileage vehicles at http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Just exactly why would you want an unlimited mileage vehicle for? I can't drive from Columbus, Ohio to Niagra Falls all in one shot without stopping for a bite to eat or to pee. Besides eventually your ass gets numb from sitting so long.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> Just exactly why would you want an unlimited mileage vehicle for? I can't drive from Columbus, Ohio to Niagra Falls all in one shot without stopping for a bite to eat or to pee. Besides eventually your ass gets numb from sitting so long.


Good point, Jason. Unlimited Mileage shouldn't mean you MUST drive forever without stopping, it should mean you get "unlimited miles per gallon", hence no fuel is used, or no fuel cost at least. Solar is one way humans have done this, as no one pays for sunshine.

However, since you bring it up, many detractors state that it won't work at night. The Sun21 solar powered catamaran http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/Boats/Sun21/Sun21.html that crossed the Atlantic powered day AND night, never stopping. They charged their batteries AND powered in daylight. While crossing the Atlantic I don't really want to stop anyway, it's not like driving on the highway.

We still have a long way to go, many of these vehicles are not practical, but remember the Wright brothers first airplane. After a day of practice, they managed to fly 852 feet before crashing. Few people thought flight would ever be practical, but look how we fly now.

If you prefer a big V8, that is fine. I have a V8 myself. The more people who can use a "no fuel" vehicle, means the more gas available for you and me, and the longer we can keep our V8's.

Electric cars are a partial solution, but that often just shifts the fuel from oil to coal.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Even charging an EV off a 100% Coal Powered grid is far more effecient in miles travelled than those same miles powered by Diesel or Gasoline.
An ICE is at best 25% efficient while most Electric Motors are 80% or more efficient.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> Even charging an EV off a 100% Coal Powered grid is far more effecient in miles travelled than those same miles powered by Diesel or Gasoline.
> An ICE is at best 25% efficient while most Electric Motors are 80% or more efficient.


And remember some grids may be powered off of hydo-electric, wind, and solar-powered steam turbine systems.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> And remember some grids may be powered off of hydo-electric, wind, and solar-powered steam turbine systems.


That is true, and I look forward to the day when photovoltaics, hydo-electric, wind, and solar-powered steam turbine systems are a larger part of our energy prodution. Electric vehicles that charge from the grid are an improvement, and will become very important as we change our power generation away from coal. At present, about 50% of the United States electricity is provided by coal fired generating plants.

Coal is a 19th century energy source, but this is the 21st century. Putting climate change to the side, the lead, mercury and arsenic production of coal power generation is enough reason to change to a better way to produce power. In the United States, 50 states recommend that pregnant women not eat fish, because the mercury levels may cause damage to their baby before it is are born. The mercury in the fish is caused by burning coal in the huge amounts we are doing right now, today.

It will take time to change our power source away from coal, and we have begun. Solar and wind and geothermal are growing, other countries are ahead of the US in many ways, even though we have more wind, more sun, and more geothermal than any. We have just begun.

Self powerd cars and other vehicles are part of a solution, but only a part. Any vehicle that derives it's power from the sun or another source, instead of from a power plant, is part of a solution.

Self powered vehicles are still limited, but progress is being made. The first solar powered flight was 1979, first solar powered crossing of the pacific was 1996, first solar powered flight across the United States was 1990, first solar powered crossing of the Atlantic was 2007, the record distance traveled for a solar car is 12,000 miles in 2008. First solar powered car with air conditioning, windshield wipers, doors and windows, 2009. The future is coming fast.

I do know for sure, that I do not know what this world will be like in 2010. It will be different than today, and it will be better, and killer coal will fade away. We will stop mountaintop removal coal mining, and stop burning it, we will stop poisoning ourselves. We will change, to a better way. This will take time, but we have already begun.

See what is happening today at
http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> 2010


What, that's just next year. You really don't believe that there is going to be shattering changes by then do you? Every converted ICE to EV is a step in the right direction. One step at a time. Things will change. No hiding anymore. It was pushed back 30 some years ago but no more. It can only get better. It will be a tough road but it will get better. 

Pete : )


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Luckenbach
I'm 100% with you on eliminating Coal Fired Electric Generation. But I suspect from your post you are not a proponent of Nuclear Power.
Here in New jersey we are fortunate as only 11.5% of our Electric Generation is from Coal. The bulk of our grid is Nuclear Powered aided by Natural Gas and Wind. Would I like to see total renewable generation? Sure who wouldn't. But in the meantime Nuclear Power can bridge that gap for us.
Nukes have taken a sometimes deserved bad rap over the years and yes they are not without their own special set of problems. I have first hand knowledge of Nukes having lived on one for two years. Yes, I actually lived on one...it was a Nuclear Submarine called the USS Thomas Jefferson SSBN. That was longer ago than I care to remember (late 60's) and the technology since then has improved dramatically.
We can now recycle spent rods instead of burying them and we learned from 3 Mile Island and Chernoble how to redesign the systems to prevent future mishaps. 
Even given that I am not, however, a proponent of building new plants in high population density areas. As good as the engineering fail safes now are they are still at risk of terrorism. I feel new plants should be located in
remote areas to make them less likely targets and instead of loaning money to Wall St Brokerage Houses our govt. should lend that money to power companies to buildout the grid to transport that energy to our cities. Then as we buildout our renewable sources...wind, solar, hydroelectric we could retire those Nukes in high population areas and eventually all of them. If the NRC would fast track the paperwork mill to build a Nuke Plant, a power company could possibly complete construction in as little as 2 years.
We need a coal generation alternative and we need it by yesterday.
Roy


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

*No Virginia*

No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Your parents lied to you. They thought it was cute that you were so naive that you believed in a bold face lie involving flying reindeer.

I guess they never thought that your belief in the lie would make you look like the world's biggest fool.

So Virginia, open your eyes and face the truth. There is no magical man giving out pink electric Barbie Corvettes and Jeeps that never need charging.

You got played for a fool. 

Work the resentments out in group therapy.












PS; They plug it in at night while you are in bed with visions of sugarplums dancing in your head.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Voltswagen said:


> We need a coal generation alternative and we need it by yesterday.
> Roy


Yes, Roy, you are correct, we need it yesterday.

Nuclear will be part of our generation for the foreseeable future, but to replace coal plants across the planet would require 14,000 new nuclear plants. If this was feasible, and we built one new nuke per day, every day, we can build 14,000 in 38 YEARS. 

However, we are researching other solutions. We do need a solution yesterday, but there is hope. If you can watch this long video you will learn a bit about what we are doing today to change the rules of the game. Part of it is how the work on converting sunlight directly to a liquid fuel is progressing, I learned a lot.

http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/Other/SpaceshipEarth/NateLewis/natelewis.html


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I have been keeping up with www.infowars.com and they like to bring up the real news that no other news agency likes to bring up. The idea behind the cow fart tax is to just to use the excuse of global warming to tax people more, of course mother nature will always fix itself and now we are in a cooling down period till the earth gets back to normal in a few years.

Now, if they want to carbon tax every vehicle on the road, I would think EV's would be exempt, not to mention any home that uses solar and has a solar charging station should be exempt from being taxed. Now add in the all the other things that do not release pollution (hydrogen engines included), how many would switch from gas just to avoid being taxed up the arse?

Nuclear is good, but when the ground starts to shake and cracks open a few Nuclear Power Plants I am glad I live hundreds of miles from the nearest one.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> Just exactly why would you want an unlimited mileage vehicle for? I can't drive from Columbus, Ohio to Niagra Falls all in one shot without stopping for a bite to eat or to pee. Besides eventually your ass gets numb from sitting so long.


Ok, say you put $10k in your electric vehicle, but it doesn't have unlimited mileage, you have to find a place to charge up. Now say you are going through a State that has nothing for hundreds of miles and you need a place to charge up, what then? Plug into a plant? Unlimited mileage is saying you have it when you need it even if you stop and take a pee or need to sleep, at least all you have to do is hop back in your EV and go and nothing else to worry about. The idea behind unlimited mileage vehicles is just that. No money spent paying for electric or having to worry about a pace to plug into.
LeTank was trying to get that across from the beginning and many are also looking for the same solution. The ideas here have been great and I truly think each entry that gives ideas is worthwhile, even links to websites that prove it can be done provide such. If obimba would focus on this type of bill to create unlimited mileage vehicles or at least fund the research to perfect it the problem of auto pollution would be solved within a few years and including some electrical need problems. Yes, just a standard EV does do the trick, but getting away from any power grid to charge with is an added bonus I think. 
However, everyone has their opinion and you have your God given right to that.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

And don't forget some politicians are wanting to impose a mileage usage tax that would track your vehicle (likely targetted at hybrids or other vehicles that get more mpg who are/will be using less tax at the pumps).


----------



## scott mckie (Mar 26, 2009)

To those of you here that doubt the ability of producing over-unity power output, deal with the following established information and available back- up documentation. 
In 1982, electronic power circuitry that I designed and put together, produced 103% while powering a load.
In 1984, a revolving generator and it's attached powering/controlling circuitry that I designed, constructed, and had independantly professionally tested, operated at a maximum rate of 293% while powering a load. It produced an output of 120 VAC @ 60 Hz/pure sinusoidal sinewave/with zero harmonics.
In 1992, I was granted US Patent 5,146,395, which was the first over-unity patent granted. It's designed output was a final 120 VAC @ 60 Hz/200 amp/sinusoidal sinewave output and could be started from a momentary connection to a couple of series connected 9 VDC Radio Shack batteries.
It's operation was based on the works and researches of Nicola Tesla, specifrically his US Patent 464,666.
Consequently, over the time frame from then to now, the system has been revised and updated, as electric solid state components have become available,, to where a full sized house power system is now being finalized. It operates continuously even when the home connection(s) are disconnected, by operating in "stand-by".
This is all documented history; and the basis for the operation of the system; which specifically does not violate anything concerning Classic Physics, can be found in main stream freshman level college Electronics textbooks. Furthermore; if one takes the time to actually look; there is written verication in major college level Physics textbooks as to the viability of this type of electronic power generation. 
Also, if one cares to really look; specific verification as to the viability of this specific type of power generation can be found in a major Thermodynamics college level textbook; so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which actually deals with steam power and not with anything that is as small as an electron, or anything that moves as fast as an electron) can be found. 
So much for Physics and Thermodynamics being used for the supposed "proof" that this specific type of power supply "cannot" exist.
I thought some of you might be interested in this information.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

scott mckie said:


> To those of you here that doubt the ability of producing over-unity power output, deal with the following established information and available back- up documentation.
> In 1982, electronic power circuitry that I designed and put together, produced 103% while powering a load.
> In 1984, a revolving generator and it's attached powering/controlling circuitry that I designed, constructed, and had independantly professionally tested, operated at a maximum rate of 293% while powering a load. It produced an output of 120 VAC @ 60 Hz/pure sinusoidal sinewave/with zero harmonics.


hmmm interesting....
So you are now the richest man in the world? No? Thought not! 

While we're on the subject of creating impossible stuff, can you give me the plans for a time machine so i can recover the 1 minute of my time that i wasted reading your post.


----------



## GKnightBC (Sep 10, 2008)

Scott Mckie, somehow, with all this technological marvel you created at your fingertips, you still are not the richest man in the world, nor are all the coal-burning plants extinct? Post your circuitry and blueprints here, and lets create this amazing machine, and we will never need batteries again! 
Not a likely event? Why? The secret agents/aliens who planted thier monitoring device in your head not gonna let you?
How about the basic law of energy = TANSTAAFL ?


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Scott
As an inventor you must accept that there will be challenges to your creations and claims.
So just kindly list here all the Universities or Technical Organizations who have recreated YOUR (not something similar) invention and their results. Also include the sources where one could obtain their test results and any
companies who have contracted with you since 1982 to mass produce your invention.
Thank You


----------



## scott mckie (Mar 26, 2009)

To the readers,
It's really too bad that you people are the way that you are. Attack, Attack, Attack, that's your montra. Don't try to find out anything new. Don't investigate anything new. That just might show you just how inept you actually sound.
I was hoping for better, but you have shown me that you are not worth trying to have a conversation with. Enjoy your circle-jerk guys. That's all your good for.


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

You don't understand.

There is a plot perpetrated by the Freemasons to keep this man's invention from foiling their plans for total world domination.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Hello Scott , — Don’t let the attackers bother you ....Their just doing their job as orthodox types . So as a heretic to them - when you openly make strong assertions you have to expect a certain railing cynicism and of corse demand for proof . Even if certain ones are to lazy or not to look these things up you need to be specific sense you made the assertions ........But wait I think maybe you were specific when you stated about your US Patent # 5,146,395 ......Sorry guys but I’ve got to much going on right now to research it so could someone check this out please . Thanks ......EVF_


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

I had some weird thoughts while was sitting here laughing and reading these posts.

In all truthfulness if someone ever did develope a source of free energy you all realize the one of two things would happen. 

First Version.
If an actual, simple, working, free energy device were ever to be released to the general public the world's economy would collapse in short order. There is no way that anyone could retain control of such a device, unless it was so complicated and expensive to build that the breakeven would be Lifetimes. Otherwise everyone would build their own powerplant. The plans would be plastered all over the internet within hours. No patent law or team of lawyers could maintain control.

Oil and power generation would be worthless, the trickle down disruption to all economies would take years to settle. The inventor would probably be the most hated person in history.

Second version,
As soon as the power brokers in government got wind of this device, the plans, patents and person would disappear into a black hole. He wouldn't die a misterious death or go missing with rumors of his accomplishments tossed around. He and all associated would just be gone. 

Those in power want to stay there. If everyone could be self sufficient they would loose that power.

In either case the person who developed it would recieve nothing. In one case they might be famous on the other case they would be just gone.

Those of you out there messing with this stuff. Be careful you might suceed.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

I am waiting on the ad from WalMart, so I can go get my house unit.

Thanks so much for the enlightenment. 

Do you still take your pills?


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Google search US "Patent 5,146,395"

All it is, is a claim that this works....Patents are given out these days whether the invention works or not.

This looks like 2 batteries, recharging themselves and they might, but not for long......diminishing returns are a problem.

Waiting for the Menard's ad, so I can go get my house sized unit.


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

Really, it is a Masonic plot to keep order in the world. I just checked with the Grand Lodge and they confirmed it. It was in one of the newsletters. It must have got mixed in with the junk mail from Harbor Freight and Lane Bryant and got thrown out. Things like that happen sometimes.


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

You know I got to admit. I had some great ideas for an over-unity device back in the summer of 1978. 

I was sitting in my room with this "free spirited" young lady in a pyramid constructed with some PVC pipe and hose clamps I found back in the woods. It was well known back then that sitting in a tubular pyramid focused your thought energy.

So this young lady and I were smoking this herb known as Panama Red out of a water pipe that I constructed out of that PVC pipe I found in the woods and electrical tape. I had a fan running in the window to blow the smoke out so my mom wouldn't smell it.

So I "touched" this young lady during an inspired moment and she let out a playful squeal. My mom heard it and yelled "What are you guys doing up there" in a really nasty voice. So the young lady jumps up to put her bra back on, and while doing so she knocks over my lava lamp and pulls the extension cord that is powering the lamp and the fan out of the wall socket.

Well I look at the fan and it seems like it kept spinning for a really, really, really long time. I swear the lava lamp glowed a strange color and stayed lit the whole time the fan kept spinning.

So I got to thinking. The fan and the lava lamp were being powered because me and my friend were being so positive, and my mom was being so negative. There had to be an energy flow. It was inevitable.

I never could recreate what I had observed that day. I just could not get the conditions right. I suspect that it was because my friend started hanging out with some older guy who had his own apartment.

But I'm telling you guys, I know what I saw.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Hey gottdi, From the "Junior Member" _
_Well I was under the impression that Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the_ United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office(USPTO) _has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion / over unity machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states: With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiners, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing. So when he said he was granted a patent that was the reason I requested someone who had the time to check it out ...Maybe he was granted the patent in 1992 prior to the afore mentioned policy implementation when he would not have needed a working model ...that would maybe explain some things too...At any means there must be proof not just the Idea only....Granted however it does start with the IDEA first.......EVF.........._


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

EFV
An individual does not have to state that his device is a Perpetual Motion Machine to be granted a Patent. In fact Nicola Tesla stated that it would be wise *not* to describe a machine as such due to the widespread objections even back in his day.


----------



## bipolar (Mar 11, 2009)

> I was sitting in my room with this "free spirited" young lady in a pyramid constructed with some PVC pipe and hose clamps I found back in the woods. It was well known back then that sitting in a tubular pyramid focused your thought energy.
> 
> So this young lady and I were smoking this herb known as Panama Red out of a water pipe that I constructed out of that PVC pipe I found in the woods and electrical tape. I had a fan running in the window to blow the smoke out so my mom wouldn't smell it.
> 
> ...


Our simple lives would be pretty boring if it wasn't for the memories


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

Voltswagen said:


> EFV
> An individual does not have to state that his device is a Perpetual Motion Machine to be granted a Patent. In fact Nicola Tesla stated that it would be wise *not* to describe a machine as such due to the widespread objections even back in his day.


_Yes that’s true you don’t have to actually call it a perpetual motion / over unity (machine). What you have to do is give in detail a qualitative description as to what it is and what it is for etc.....That is a legal description . Also the (USPTO) will classify as to category and patent group application by that legal description given ....And they aren’t likely to miss classify sense they deal with patent legal language all the time.....But you don’t have to take my word on the matter just come up with a description of a PM/OU device and call it something else and apply for a pattent ........EVF................._


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

EFV
If you read his patent no where does he claim 293% power output.
The patent is classified as a Power Supply alternating between two sources.
No mention of Perpetual Motion or Over Unity.
One could be granted a patent on a Battery Charger and later claim Over Unity.
But being granted the patent doesn't doesn't prove the Over Unity claim.
I don't know if his device is Over Unity or not and so I asked for 3rd party verification.............
.........and we all noticed..........none was forthcoming.
????????
_just come up with a description of a PM/OU__ device and call it something else and apply for a pattent ........EVF................._ 

....and that is exactly what he did. Your suggestion proves my point.
Roy


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

Voltswagen said:


> EFV
> 
> 
> > If you read his patent no where does he claim 293% power output.
> ...


_Actually Roy as to my suggestion proving your point ......My suggestion in its context was TIME BASED in that in 1992 when he got the patent there was probably not the policies and __examining practice that there are today, so it was quit possible then to as you say be granted a patent on a Battery Charger and later claim Over Unity.......My suggestion in post #314 to just come up with a description of a PM/OU device and call it something else and apply for a patent Today 2009 and see if you get one...Today as in most cases upgrades to patent laws have been implicated for legality and efficiency purposes as well as to not waste (USPTO) time...__But as I said you don’t have to take my word on it just try it and see for yourself.....Like in this forum when someone starts a thread or posts a line of thought in regard to the conversations of this thread they are redirected here *Re: Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...*.........EVF _


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> And don't forget some politicians are wanting to impose a mileage usage tax that would track your vehicle (likely targetted at hybrids or other vehicles that get more mpg who are/will be using less tax at the pumps).


haha, exactly. I would rip the unit out, put a little motor cycle battery up to it and hang it over a cows back while I traveled then take it off when I get home. That way, about 2 miles the cow had covered is less tax then the 1200 miles I would have traveled. Plus, the idea of anyone tracking me where I go is invasion of privacy, stalking, harassment and the list goes on.

If they get to the point they have to have it professionally installed and I can't take it out, I disconnect everything that can be destroyed by electricity and shock the darn thing with a taser gun. Ooops. haha


----------



## tomev (Mar 29, 2009)

Hey guys just a heads up on anyone looking to implement a transmission to their ev,ive looked at all options and so far the only one that makes sense is a sequential gearbox (dog box), like the one iil be using in my first ev project and open wheel racecar,as they only use the clutch to take off,obviously evs dont stall like ice so a simple drivshaft from the input shaft of the gearbox to the output shaft of the dc motor,assumed they are exactly inline will provide a perfect gearbox system, and assuming the output shaft of the motor turns the same way as what is needed for the gearbox,

also good to see alot of ideas being thrown ,one i had was to attach an alternator to my driveline setup,perhaps storing in capacitors and using when needed,as apossed to the sort of system involving the brake setup like they have introduced in f1, kers (kinetic energy recovery system) or maybe to use both. its very interesting the thought of a never ending car lol, perhaps even storing enough power so on arrival at a recharging station the government paying us for puting power back into the grid,lol.


----------



## EVF (Jan 18, 2009)

_Hello tomev, Welcome ....Yes its very interesting the thought of a never ending car ....If you have read much of this thread you have to know that this line of thought has been brought up before, but I’m not saying you should not entertain such thoughts. You will soon realize the discontent with some as to your dreams and aspirations in this direction . However don’t be rattled for it is there job to contend with anyone who wants to dream the impossible dream .......EVF..............._


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

I stand corrected. I am sorry I keep making light of your efforts to break the laws of physics.

Last night I ate these little tiny pictures of Jerry Garcia that my friend left sitting on my end table. I thought they were some kind of candy, but they kinda tasted like paper.

So I wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and I looked out the front door and Ken Kesey was standing on the moon beckoning to me. I walked out the door and he sent a moon beam down to my patio and beckoned to me again.

So anyway I walk up this moonbeam and meet Ken on the moon. We sit down and he gives me a glass of Kool-Aid and we sit on some bean bag chairs and start to talk about this over-unity energy.

Well Ken shared some secrets about how he powered his bus FURTHUR.
I kept some notes but he told me to be careful what I post on the internet just yet. He told me to just let all you guys on here know that free energy is possible if you believe in it.


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

The problem is you naysayers are just not on the bus. You are either on the bus, or you are off of the bus


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

I'm not criticizing anyone's claim to Over Unity......I'm just asking for 3rd party verification. (lots of it) I try to keep an open mind.

Imagine what Bardeen & Brattain must have thought when they discovered that a voltage applied to a Germanium Crystal resulted in a larger output than input. Ut oh! Over Unity? 
What if they had discarded the whole project out of fear of criticism by their peers? We might not have the modern transistor.

But they didn't and further research proved that the result was within the Conservation Laws of Energy. This is keeping an open mind.

McKie does have a patent....no one disputes that. What is in dispute is the claim to Over Unity and will remain such until he provides 3rd party verification (lots of it). The fact that he never returned with any verification has been duly noted by all.

If despite that you believe his claim then, by all means, go build the device and happily power your house and everyone else's in your neighborhood. I wonder if his house is powered by the device? Hmmmmm...he didn't mention that did he?
If reading this thread upsets you....then go read a different thread.
I personally enjoy reading this thread...........and Joe, I'm currently "off the bus" but I'd like to see the schedule.


Roy


----------



## joethemechanic (Feb 26, 2009)

Well Roy, there may be a few delays in the schedule. Furthur is down for a little preventive maintenance. But I am sure with a little positive thought and some of that Kool-Ade for the autobody guy she will be up and running soon.

The schedule is to run from NY NY to Haight Ashbury with passenger stops in Freehold NJ, and Bensalem Pa at the Cornwells Park & Ride.

Since Furthur does not have to obey the conventional laws of physics, and being that time is just am illusion, Jerry Garcia will be driving. 

Oh and just so you know, There will be no stops at the Altamont Speedway.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Joe
No stops at Altamont? 
Whats the point in going back in time if we can't see Mick?
Roy


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey, I think we missed one of the Brits Promising electric cars from 2008 that is supposed to come out. 
http://www.gizmag.com/britains-lightning-gt-electric-supercar/9059/

Of course there is that darn advertisement junk that pops up you have to close, but the story is interesting.









Has anyone heard more about this or even heard of it at all? Wonder what is going on with the car now or if it is now in the crush pile.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> Hey, I think we missed one of the Brits Promising electric cars from 2008 that is supposed to come out.
> http://www.gizmag.com/britains-lightning-gt-electric-supercar/9059/
> 
> Of course there is that darn advertisement junk that pops up you have to close, but the story is interesting.
> ...


I think I'm in love...


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Beautiful car, but this is the kicker:

"Nanosafe's Li-ion cells using nano titanate structures instead of traditional graphite give the GT an incredible 250-mile range, a full recharge time of only 10 minutes,"

If that's true, there's only one barrier left to an all-EV auto market, and that's the recharging stations. That'll not be a hard one to overcome though, if the current standard house service in use today can provide enough juice for the recharge. This is another step down the path complete, just hope this is a real product that can be produced and not just a concept that they are working bugs out of.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Being able to recharge quickly would be an advantage, true. But just because a car "can" recharge quickly doesn't mean it has to. Think about it, out of 24 hours, how long is your car just sitting there? A few of us really do drive for 12 hours a day or more, but my pickup sits in the driveway most of the time, day after day. 

My pickup has an hour meter built in, so I checked it, and I've driven it for 1,036 hours in the 39 months I've owned it. Less than one hour per day, so I could charge it on average for 23 hours per day. If I had a 250 mile range, I would rarely need a "quick charge". In fact, most of the time, a few solar panels would keep it charged enough to drive whenever I wanted. If I used it more, a leisurely charge on 110 volts would be plenty, only a few times would I have needed a "fast charge" when I took a long trip.

Today, an electric car would satisfy all the needs of many people, leaving more gasoline for the rest. Those who have two cars, can have one electric to use most of the time, and a gas vehicle for those long trips. An electric car doesn't need a big range or quick charge to be feasible. If we just convert PART of our nations fleet to electric, we wouldn't need to import any oil. 

However, the "quick charge" battery mentioned would also have "quick discharge", meaning you could power a vehicle fine with a smaller battery than we use today. I don't need a 250 mile range for a second car, 100 miles would be plenty. With a battery only 40% as big, and only 40% as costly, and 40% the weight, we'd have a huge improvement, so I hope these batteries are produced, or some other type of energy storage system with similar capabilities.

Let's get electrics on the road, stop our oil imports, and have a CHOICE so we can CHOOSE to go gas or electric.

More vehicles all the time produce their own power, with no need to charge OR fill up with gas. Every one we put into service, is that much more gas for the rest of us. It is just a part of the solution, but it's a part that is available today.

http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/

By the way, the distance record for a completely self powered vehicle is now over 13,000 miles, by the Power of One. Don't know what it's going to be, because it's still driving. Presently approaching Phoenix on it's way to Texas, with plans to drive to the Artic circle for the 2nd time on this trip, Marcelo is going farther than he thought.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Luckenbach, what most people need isn't what anyone wants. Even I as an EV supporter will not give up my ICE because right now, I can drive from here to either coast at the drop of a hat. I can't do that in an EV, I can't afford to insure and maintain a vehicle for emergencies only, and I see no reason why I should rent a car when I own one. Besides, there's a lot more people with commutes that would exhaust an EV than there are that don't. 

If you want the people to accept the electric car, then it is going to have to be BETTER than the ICE it replaces, because the ICE is familiar and people aren't going to trade down. An overnight recharge vs a 10 minute stop at the gas station is a DOWNGRADE. A 100 mile range is a DOWNGRADE. It may not be for you, but consider that there are a lot more people that only care about getting where they are going than whether it's gasoline or electric that does the propelling. 

This new EV with the fast recharge and the 250 mile range is an UPGRADE. People will go for that. 

Something I don't understand is why so many people think it's a virtue to spend hours recharging their rig but bad that people want a fast recharge.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

For you to choose an electric, you do need an upgrade, I agree. You choose to have a vehicle that can cross the country, I choose to have a truck that can pull my boat, let's preserve our choices. You are right, that many people will require an upgrade to choose electric, but we can't FORCE an upgrade on them. In many ways the Tesla is an upgrade, but the cost prevents most from choosing it.

People should be able to choose a vehicle that suits them, they should not be "required" to buy electric, or gas, or diesel. I don't want people to tell me what to drive, and I don't want to tell others what to drive. Any vehicle has it's advantages, and it's disadvantages, I like being able to make my own choice. The more self powered cars people choose, just gives us all more choices. Those like you and I that need a versatile vehicle should have that choice, and the longer oil is inexpensive, the longer we will have that choice.

A "fast charge" electric with 250 mile range would indeed be nice, but the expense is also a factor, and the towing capacity. We have a wide selection of vehicles, and they are all needed. A wider choice is just more choices for us all.

The new model S from Tesla is planned to have a choice of 3 battery packs, similar to a ICE with three engine choices. Still rather expensive, and not yet available, what surprised me was the 520 people who reserved one in the first week Tesla took reservations. Apparantly the demand for the vehicle is real.

I wonder if it would pull my boat?

I'm not saying a "fast charge" isn't a good idea, but if it costs three times as much as a "slow charge", perhaps having a choice is a good idea. I hope these energy systems are built, and the cost isn't too much, only time will tell.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Oh OK, I think I see the issue then.

I've never seen an instance where there was a problem with charging a battery at a slower rate than its max capacity, only when you try charging it faster than its max. I've also never seen an instance where an electric motor was picky about the source of power it gets. Yes, it wants the power to come in its intended range, but it doesn't care if the power comes from a battery, a specific battery type, fuel cell, generator, wall socket, what have you. So, there would be no reason for YOU specifically to change how you do things now. 

But, the fast charge system will move the EV from the "pain in the ass" category to the "I can use this every day, just like my ICE" category. That change in perception will change how people see EVs in a positive manner, and they will for the first time see that they have a choice between clean, locally generated electricity to power their vehicle, or be subject to using a polluting motor fuel whose price goes up and down at the whims of Middle Eastern shieks and daytraders. I, for one, am firmly convinced that our current economic problems were caused by oil prices skyrocketing. Well, let me qualify that. We were standing on the edge of the cliff already through irresponsibility, incompetence and criminal intent, but it was the oil spike that pushed us off the edge. Anyway, I digress. When the EV and the ICE share the same usability and convenience rating to Joe Sixpack, and Joe sees he can fill his gas tank for 75 bucks a week or fill his batteries for 10 bucks at a fast charger or a buck if he remembers to plug in overnight, you can buy a lot of beer on that 65 bucks a week. 

I still see this as a positive. The ten minute recharge with 250 mile range will increase the number of people driving EVs astronomically, which will make them mainstream...

Just saw another issue folks here might have with this, if everyone's driving EVs then EV drivers won't be unique. But that'll be OK, there will still be a place for forums like this. What an OEM builds, boards like this improve, and this board will just shift from being a how to build site to a how to make it faster/stronger/more efficient. And really, that's a better place to be.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Telco said:


> Luckenbach, what most people need isn't what anyone wants. Even I as an EV supporter will not give up my ICE because right now, I can drive from here to either coast at the drop of a hat. I can't do that in an EV, I can't afford to insure and maintain a vehicle for emergencies only, and I see no reason why I should rent a car when I own one. Besides, there's a lot more people with commutes that would exhaust an EV than there are that don't.
> 
> If you want the people to accept the electric car, then it is going to have to be BETTER than the ICE it replaces, because the ICE is familiar and people aren't going to trade down. An overnight recharge vs a 10 minute stop at the gas station is a DOWNGRADE. A 100 mile range is a DOWNGRADE. It may not be for you, but consider that there are a lot more people that only care about getting where they are going than whether it's gasoline or electric that does the propelling.
> 
> ...


Telco
Not to be argumentative but, both the DOT & AAA report that the average American drives 29 miles per day. That puts a lot more people in the potential EV Commuter catagory than you have allowed for. And it tells us that most people live within 15- 20 miles of their workplace.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> People should be able to choose a vehicle that suits them, they should not be "required" to buy electric, or gas, or diesel. I don't want people to tell me what to drive, and I don't want to tell others what to drive. Any vehicle has it's advantages, and it's disadvantages, I like being able to make my own choice. The more self powered cars people choose, just gives us all more choices. Those like you and I that need a versatile vehicle should have that choice, and the longer oil is inexpensive, the longer we will have that choice.


Well of course you should be able to choose but if you step back a moment and open your eyes you will see that you have been told what to buy for all these years. You only have the choice to buy what the auto makers say you can buy. Ever been able to buy that real cool prototype you always wanted? They have all been gas or diesel too. You are mistaken but you are being told what to do and what to buy. All products are controlled by the makers and not the consumers. I want those real cool prototypes but I have never once been able to get my hands on some real cool design that COULD be made and produced. I'd bet my bottom dollar that most folks would like to purchase nice cool designed cars rather than the plain jane boxy garbage that comes out of the auto makers shops. A car does not have to be a race car to be cool or too look good and get good mileage. It does not even need to be gas, diesel or propane. It can be electric and it has been proven. 

You are correct in one thing. Every one is conditioned to want a car that is equal or better but I'd say that that is a very narrow and selfish attitude but it is true. Some day all you who think that way will have no choice but to change. You will always bitch and complain. I bet you can find a bunch to complain about with a normal ICE powered vehicle too. 

I find that electric is not going to take care of 100% of my driving but it can and does allow me to jet into town and get some things and I don't waste any gasoline. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with being able to go 20 miles before needing a 4 hour charge either. I usually don't jaunt into town every day either and taking a few hours to charge is not a pain in the ass either. It is actually pretty easy and I don't have to deal with all the a$$ hole$ at the fuel station. It is getting worse and I really hate that. 

So if you think you are not being controlled then go have a real good drive in your gasoline powered car and when you realize you have been taken for a ride then come back and we can help you build your first ever EV and watch you smile with a mile wide smile. 

Pete : )


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I see that if we can make or buy an electric vehicle that has a possible 10 minute charge I think there would be a huge demand to have recharge stations across America once it becomes a booming industry. If Ford, Chevy and Mopar were to produce such cars, their stocks would go through the roof and they would save their own markets. Why they don't is a question that bugs me. How many even with a tight budget would buy one of those cars that gets 250 miles per charge and charges in 10 minutes, even if recharge stations were not Nationwide yet? I would be first in line. 

If they do start selling that car in England, I will go there and buy it and ship it back here. But, I am willing to just save a few bucks too and try to convert my car to do the same. (Although the other car looks like a James Bond hot rod and I do like the style.) Difference between what I want and what I only need. 
However, if they are saying those kinds of batteries are able to give you 250 miles (which engine it may be that works better with them) and we can pretty much get the same in our own current EV's. Even convert a hybrid to do the same with a little modification. I mean I like Tesla's idea, but I don't want to spend hours and days soldering little batteries together to make a huge battery pack with about the same expense or more of just buying a good battery system (Nanosafe or LI) that does close to the same thing, but a little cheaper perhaps. Easier to install without days of soldering.

Then there is the old idea mentioned a few months ago about the Perendev motor. Yea, I know the rapid fire it caused, but Josh has been building several units all winter and the last email from him was he went from using wood to plastic, then had to use a different shielding on the magnets because the shielding was causing a flux in the magnetic field, so he has found that a thick piece of cardboard and the hard thin layer of foam worked best and was not magnetic like other shielding that caused the lag. So, whether he has finished it or not I will have to find out, but he is keeping it under his hat until he finds the perfect solution to bring back here to everyone. He doesn't want to make a false claim and also wants to back up his work. (I think he is planning some video and photos to add). 
A determined man who is throwing a huge amount of time into trying to find a solution to an unlimited mileage EV. 
Even if only a few people want it, but he is not making it to sell since he does not own the Patent, but making it for himself to use and for others to know it works (if it works) and then they can do the same. I think that is the whole idea of why he is doing this. 

I think Ghoddi and a few others in here pushed him to the brink of "either I should do it or shut up" kind of thing. lol I know he was surely determined to make a 90 Amp alternator put out as much as it could using that Perendev motor to recharge batteries on the go, while it sits in the trunk of the car. 

I actually support him on this, heck he is not just doing it for anyone else, but for himself and if it works for him when he is done then it will spark more interest in it. 

Anyway in the mean time I am always looking for other alternatives and enjoying the thought, however it comes out, at least he tried.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Voltswagon, no worries. But, average means they take the number of miles they think everyone drives, add them all up, then divide by the number of drivers. It's far from accurate. And, it assumes that people drive straight to and from, and not those that run errands during lunch or on the way home. It also doesn't take into account anyone that has to go home, then leave right out again for whatever reasons. A 29 mile round trip average indicates that most everyone would be good with a 40 mile range. In reality, a small percentage would be able to manage like that. Most of them are here  . 

Really I don't see where the issue is here, or why there would need to be an argument. The 10 minute recharge/250 mile range will put a new face on the EV to the general population. These things may not be an issue to one who knows how to put wires to batteries and make their car move, but considering that many people have to be shown by the salesman how to put in gas or check the oil, and trade their cars in when the warranty runs out because they are scared that they won't be able to afford a dealer tech without it and won't go to anyone but the dealer for repairs. These people make up the general population, and these people are the ones that must be convinced of what the folks here know.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

None of the Perendev or any other magnetic motor designs I see on the web will work, as designed, because the rotor will find a spot where all of the magnetism will cancel out movement and just set there. That is fact.

You can't use cardboard to block magnetism, or anything else.

What you need to do is redirect the energy of the advancing magnet until
it is just past center on the opposing magnet.

This will give you an attracting action up to the point of just over center and then the opposing force will carry it past.

It is done with a small strip of steel that covers the opposing magnet with a few thousands clearance. The end of it comes just to the point of center of the rotor.

This piece of steel is .020/.030 thick and acts like a S pole between the rotor N and the main opposing N poles, thus it will attract the magnet coming toward center. Once this magnet passes the past center point it picks up the opposing N and is pushed away in the direction of rotation.

I give you that much to work with.....................


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> What you need to do is redirect the energy of the advancing magnet until
> it is just past center on the opposing magnet.
> 
> This will give you an attracting action up to the point of just over center and then the opposing force will carry it past.
> ...


I can see where you are going on this and it does make sense. I do know that Josh was using 3 different rotors in which each set of magnets were off center from each other to create the equal force pushing in the same direction and zeroing out any lag spots. Each magnet was around 32 degree angles in the same direction with all N facing out. The two paddles on the outside were all N facing inward at 45 degrees (I think was the last noted degree factor). 
Last I heard he was using 62 lb pull magnets (1 inch x 1/2 inch button magnets). 
He just needed something a little extra to place between the magnets to lower the field in between them just a little, which increased the speed of the rotors which were connected to the alternator on the shaft with some kind of Ujoint. 
I am hoping for the best because I am anxious to know the results.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You can use as many layers (rotors) as you like, but they will still cancel out and come to a stop.

Angling the magnets has no effect either.

Redirecting the force of the main opposing stationary magnet, to the approaching rotor magnet is the answer.

If you assemble your motor, see if it will turn from a standing start. It may rotate a ways, but then stop. When this happens, you are not redirecting enough.

A properly built magnetic motor will start to rotate on its own and not need a "push"........

Conversely, if you stop it and then release it, it begin to run on it's own......


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> You can't use cardboard to block magnetism, or anything else.


But it is possible to shield it and redivert it. At least that is what I have read. 

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x89.htm

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae512.cfm


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Both of your articles state the same thing.

You can't block but you can redirect.

"No material can block a magnetic field"


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

How about using superconductivity such as in the MagLev trains?

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/magnetacademy/superconductivity101/index.html


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> How about using superconductivity such as in the MagLev trains?
> 
> http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/magnetacademy/superconductivity101/index.html


Well it does seem like a magic bullet but what has been done is actually make a super powerful magnet. You super cool the coil and apply power and you have an electromagnet but with the super cold condition it becomes a super conducting magnet and as long as you keep the cold the coil will remain magnetized. It is not a motor but just a magnet that is super strong. Think of an MRI machine. It is nothing but a super magnet. Remove the cold and the magnetic properties just disappear. POOF. Cool it down again and apply power and you have your magnet again. The fun part is that you can remove the power after it is cold and energized and it will remain magnetized. Again, remove the cold and it is gone. 

Remember it is not a MOTOR. To energize one of these super conducting magnets requires lots of power. If it is not cold enough it won't work. It must remain super cold. That is the magic. 

When or IF we EVER find a naturally occurring superconducting material will we ever have hope of getting an efficient system going. But a super conduction material is not a MOTOR but a super strong magnet. 

Super Conductivity is just a way to make ordinary material become super magnetic. That is all. 

Mag Rails are just magnets to keep the machine held up. It is not a motor. 



Pete : )


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Perhaps I am taking the previous posts wrong, but you can decrease a magnetic field (not on the magnet itself) but by applying a non-metallic material which in this case was foam and cardboard to create less drag between the magnets. This I have tried myself and found it does work.
Simlpy the explanation by LeTank was the the magnets come shipped in cardboard and foam and that the magnets at 62 lb pull (100 of them) were all placed together, but they did not stick to a metal door, which helps in the shipping to prevent them from sticking to things along the way to your home.
This is where he got the concept from. Now, only putting the cardboard on the edge of the magnet and in between the magnets on the wheel did help a lot as what I am told. The whell did spin freely and at around 4000 RPM, however he going to use plastic instead of wood to get the vibration out. 
Less wear on the bearings.

For what Ghottdi is talking about, he is right, no way of making that work with the wheel, that is just a magnetic rail setup. 
Maybe someone will figure out something different with that in the future.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

He must have been spinning it with an air hose to get that RPM figure.

A fellow from Texas phoned in to WLS Radio the other morning and claimed he had solved the world's power problem.
When asked what it was, he called it a "perpetual motion machine" that he had invented.
The radio host "Mancow" said "Right" and hung up on him.....


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Coley
I know it may be hard to believe, but I think it may work. At least he is trying.
I took a 28 lb pull magnet and tried it with the cardboard. I was able to get closer with a nail before the magnet grabbed the nail towards it in the field. It did work. It did decrease the field just enough to let me get a lot closer, so this would make sense when using it on a wheel of magnets to decrease any drag to make the wheel keep going. 
Since the other magnet paddle is about 2 inches away, there would be such a slight drag that it would be inaffective to cause the wheel to stop. So it keeps going and going and going. 

I am convinced it may work. I want to see how far he gets and wont be surprised if it does work.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

That might help some, but what I have been proposing is using a steel strip to turn the repelling force into an attracting force, just until the rotor magnet passesthe center line of the opposing magnet. 
This way you "attract" the upcoming magnet, then "repell" it on its way.
This is better than shielding.......it is redirecting.....


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Sounds good in writing but won't the steel strip take on the properties of the magnet it is touching or close to touching? From what I have actually read here it is nothing but hearsay that it works. No one here has actually done it and is just parroting what someone else said could be done. Bet they have not done it either and I bet they are just parroting someone else too. The cycle goes on and on. I have never seen a working model of this idea and I am quite sure no one here has either. 

Pete : )


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Sounds good in writing but won't the steel strip take on the properties of the magnet it is touching or close to touching? From what I have actually read here it is nothing but hearsay that it works. No one here has actually done it and is just parroting what someone else said could be done. Bet they have not done it either and I bet they are just parroting someone else too. The cycle goes on and on. I have never seen a working model of this idea and I am quite sure no one here has either.
> 
> Pete : )


Steel takes on the characteristics of any field it's in... ie. it's a ferromagnetic material but generally can't be magnetized permanently

as far as cycling on and off in steel it has the nasty side effect of causing heat in the steel (flux shifts) until the point the steel loses it's magnetism (around 800C)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The redirecting is what I have been working on & off, on for a few years. 

To test this out I put a magnet on a swinging stick that could only swing out and in in a straight line. This is supported by another wood stick that is fastened to a base.
On this base is another magnet with a N pole facing the pivoting stick. 

The swinging stick has the N pole facing the other magnet on the base.

When the swinging stick is raised and let go, it goes almost to the base magnet and then bounces back and forth until it just stays a certain space from the base. 

Sorta like a magnetic yo yo.

When at rest and standing away from the base magnet, if you put a thin strip of steel between them ( I used a piece of hack saw blade), they will attract each other and clamp onto the strip.

If you practice putting the strip in between them in an up and down chopping motion, you can make the swinging magnet bounce away and and then come back only to be repelled when the strip is not there.

I have shown this to many visitors to my shop, but it didn't register with any of them as to what it could be used for.

One fellow did, however, and he and I made quite a few attempts at making a running magnetic motor, over a period of 5 years or so.

He passed away a few years ago and I have not tinkered with it much since.

His used a verticle rotor approach and I used horizontal rotor approach.

I mounted mine on an old 4 1/4" computer disk drive flywheel, because of the free running bearing on a disk drive.

Putting an aluminum disc on the flywheel gave me a 6" base for my magnets, all with the N poles facing out.

So, in fact, we have made a lot of experiments with magnetic motors and no, we were not successful.....but neither has anyone else......


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Coley,
Sounds like you have been doing some hard work at it. I have also tinkered with a similar device in the past, but haven't played with it in a few years. I stumbled across the Tesla idea a few years ago, which was a unique patent in itself which looks actually like what you are describing, but was thought to be an AC motor from the patent. (that is pretty much what everyone thinks when looking it anyway.) I thought, what if that patent is really a self running magnetic motor instead. However, after so many failed attempts in the past I never tried to put the Tesla theory to the table and see if it worked or not. I also thought of the sphere magnet on a rod spinning within a coil of magnets, but never tried that either, hence trying to find a sphere magnet was hard to find. 

Then came along the Perendev motor, which striked my interest as I watched the videos. Sure it could be hoax, but it did put some ideas into my head that it may have a benefit in its design. So I wondered if by chance you have to put the wheel of magnets in the center and use three off centered magnets to run the wheel. Pretty much what the working (supposedly) concepts today are working with. So, I may still try it later this year just for kicks when I am not so busy, but I have everything here to try it and don't need to spend a dime in that effort. Just time. 

Now, there was that company in Europe called the Perendev that is selling similar free energy machines so it must work. However, they are very expensive and nobody is able to outright purchase one since they also come with a lease agreement, which you are paying more for that machine then just buying standard electricity off the grid. (Unless you are not near the grid). So it must work, otherwise they would be having law suits up the ying yang. However, the DIY versions that we are trying may need that little extra bit of key info to make it all work correctly. I also think of the solar system when trying to make my unit work in the past in that our solar system is run by magnetic forces, but finding the key element to make it all go around and not stop was just finding that missing link. So I think it can work, but if I can get past the rejections and keep working on it, who knows. 
If Letank get anywhere close to making it work, I am surely going to be inspired to try it again. Till then I will see what he comes up with and go from there. Saves me time anyway.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You bet it works. They send you a lease contract to sign and you pay the money and they go by by laughing all the way. It works and every day someone is suckered into the scam because they know that folks want that and they provide at least on paper and hoax videos that these actually work. It is a total scam but hey who am I to tell you how to spend your hard earned cash. If you spent as much time dinking with stuff that does not work and put that energy towards something that does then you will be saving loads of money and have your power too. Why mess with that old stuff that has been proven already to not work? To each their own I guess. I'd rather spend the money on solar panels and get my power that way. If you really look at it how much money these folks spend on empty promises for free energy when all along they could have purchased one solar panel every few months and over a course of a year or two could have had a working productive electrical power plant on their own roof. Guaranteed to last a long long time. Spend wisely and use your own energy wisely. There are plenty of ways to harness usable power and save a buck or just know you have the power and not someone else. Forget those tesla things. If he actually had a working patent that would have saved the world from oil I guarantee that the government has that one under wraps. Remember upon his death they seized all his work and only gave back some. What does that say. So they give back that garbage that did not work and kept what did. Mmmmmmm. Seems like you got the short end of the stick. Maybe, ,maybe not. But it is something to think about. Maybe much of his stuff like others has actually not worked in the end. Edison I am sure has plenty of patents that did not pan out. 

Hope you do better but until you do I will continue to use solar, wind and water. Perfect non polluting power at a reasonable price and it is mine. 

Pete : )


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

It doesn't make any difference how many magnets you put outside the rotor or if you angle them. It will still just rotate a bit and then stall out.

The perendev and the bowman motors won't work either.

The bowman expecially has way too much drag with the shafts and all for such a small motivation magnet.

The redirecting metal strip is still the best bet.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Metal strip will magnetize and therefor be useless. It still won't work. Try it if you don't believe it. It is as simple as that. Trust or waste your time. Learn from others mistakes. Saves lots of energy. Now that is conservation of energy in play. 

Pete


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Metal strip will magnetize and therefor be useless. It still won't work. Try it if you don't believe it. It is as simple as that. Trust or waste your time. Learn from others mistakes. Saves lots of energy. Now that is conservation of energy in play.
> 
> Pete


DUH! ( I really hate that saying), BUT it is supposed to magnetize!!!!!

It turns into an ATTRACTING magnet for the incoming magnets of the rotor.

Prove it for yourself....

Take 2 strong magnets and face the N pole of each. What do they do..?
They repel each other. Now place a small steel strip between them.
Now what do they do???

In operation, the don't actually touch, just space them a few .001s apart.

That is the answer......................................


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well if I just stick a bit of steel strip between it will act like n/s and attract. But that still leaves you with the same problem as using n/s magnets. Sorry but it still wont' work. It will stop. I understand the concept but it won't work. What has not bee talked about is using computer controlled electromagnets. That would require power but you may make it work and have fairly decent results. But with plain magnets and steel that you have no control over it won't work. Damn dude people have been toying very seriously for decades trying all these same ideas. None are new and all have been tried. I am sure with perfect computer placement and precision. Dude it just won't work. Sorry. Learn from others who have been before you. 

There are things that magnets are good for. One is using them for either a field or stator and couple it with an electro magnet to make a decent electric motor. But wait, those already exist and work. Oooops can't do that one. The make for good levitation. Natural or man made are limited on what they can levitate but electro magnets are very good at that. They are good at holding things too and good at making electricity if you move them over or through a copper wire or coil. Ooops these already exist too. Mmmm, I guess I must waste time trying once again to build a self running magnet motor. Oh please! Sorry so many don't yet see. Oh well. 

Try again if you will. Can you provide a diagram of exactly you are talking about because my diagram and my actual experiment with a piece of metal between two n/n magnets says they will stop and they actually did stop. They did not continue. They were attracted to the metal and then stopped. 

Pete : )


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Well if I just stick a bit of steel strip between it will act like n/s and attract. But that still leaves you with the same problem as using n/s magnets. Sorry but it still wont' work. It will stop. I understand the concept but it won't work. What has not bee talked about is using computer controlled electromagnets. That would require power but you may make it work and have fairly decent results. But with plain magnets and steel that you have no control over it won't work. Damn dude people have been toying very seriously for decades trying all these same ideas. None are new and all have been tried. I am sure with perfect computer placement and precision. Dude it just won't work. Sorry. Learn from others who have been before you.


I really don't know what he even thinks will happen... to remove a piece of steel from between two magnets will take more force than the force holding it to the magnets... ie. an energy loss.

the only way to use permanent magnets in a motor is just like the PM DC motors you know of... by spinning a shifting polarity coil between magnets.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I actually think you all have something there, but there is a saying.
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860

So, there is that age old question, what if there is a series of things you can do that will make it work, such as spacing, alignment, angle, how many on each end, etc. Ok, perhaps it don't work, but we never know until we try every theory and that is done by many people taking time who want to do it to figure it out from their prospective, then adding onto theirs you might get a little further, etc. I feel just saying it wont work is not enough for me. I still have a theory or two, but may tinker with it in my own time and no money is spent since I have enough magnets laying around to play with it. All we have on this planet is time anyway. Of course I spend a lot of that time fishing if I am not working. I think coley has some good points and I think Ghottdi has a few good points, but it is infinity of argument without proof and that is why I am always curious to know someone elses progress in any of these cases. 

I do think solar is easier since you can go down and buy it as well, but I do like new toys to play with. I did put up three solar panels last summer in my shop, which saved me on my lighting bill for the shop anyway. I do believe our technology is still young and there is a lot undiscovered yet. Solar panels are becoming more effective in producing more power, wind power is advancing over the years, but we still don't know will come forth in the future and perhaps we may have an ion engine or plasma engine the gives free energy for a lifetime. Who knows, but we must never give up on ideas or theories that may become a reality in the future. I cant count how many inventions came from a garage and just from someone who had an idea and just tinkered around with it until it worked. I love to tinker and will probably till I fall off the earth. I surely am not doing it to become a rich man and I just do it because I find it interesting. Some play computer games or chess, I tinker. That last thing I had to tinker with was building a new computer wire harness for my SUV which burned up and melted because of a short. I think I made one that was far better than the plastic junk they had from the factory. It is like, what the hell you know, what else can I build.

Oh, I want to ask you guys something. Why is it when I hook an alternator to my AC motor that it takes the same amount of energy with a larger pulley than it does with a smalelr one to turn the alternator, which in turn gives me more Amps from my alternator. The Amps from the battery pack stays the same in drop as it did with a smaller pulley, but I am getting more Amps to my single battery for my radio and subwoofer amp. That is a wierd one to figure out.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Evidently my idea of the use of the strip is still not understood, as I guessed it would not.

I wanted to build an arc welder that ran on 120 volts and could weld 1/4" steel. It was back in 1963, I was just married and didn't have enough play money to buy one.

I found an old article that told how to convert a 120 volt (input) battery charger into a large enough amp welder to do 1/4" thick metal.

I built it and still have it. I use it around the farm.

The point to this, is that as I was welding some parts up for a trailer, a friend came by and askd where I bought the charger.
I explained that I had built it.
He owned an old battery charger that would qualify for a better welder that mine.
I gave him the design information, which he took to work at the steel mill and asked an "electrical engineer" to look the design over.
The engineer flatly told him it was impossible to build a welder from a battery charger.

When my friend gave me the plans back and said he couldn't use them, I turned on my welder and welded some scrap together and told him to break the weld. Having seen it weld, he still told me it wouldn't work!!!!

Part of my success in life is being uneducated enough to NOT know that something can't be done.

Some must be more educated..............


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> Oh, I want to ask you guys something. Why is it when I hook an alternator to my AC motor that it takes the same amount of energy with a larger pulley than it does with a smalelr one to turn the alternator, which in turn gives me more Amps from my alternator. The Amps from the battery pack stays the same in drop as it did with a smaller pulley, but I am getting more Amps to my single battery for my radio and subwoofer amp. That is a wierd one to figure out.


what makes you think it takes the same amount of energy? the energy comes from the crankshaft not how much energy you get out of it.

Likely all that means is your alternator is current limited...


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> I gave him the design information, which he took to work at the steel mill and asked an "electrical engineer" to look the design over.
> The engineer flatly told him it was impossible to build a welder from a battery charger.


 A welder is just a big AC-DC converter... so why couldn't you make a welder with it? sounds like a moronic engineer


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

That's what I thought.
What got me, was that my friend saw me weld and still didn't think it would work....!!

Back in the 90s I was asked to make a mold and part for the Ford Motor Co.
It was a shift boot that had vinyl texture on the outside.

No one in the Michigan pattern/casting shops could make a copy of their prototype CNC steel pattern.
The problem was that they want a dipping mold with no parting lines.
The parts were to be zinc castings and each dipping machine needed 600 of the molds to dip per hour.
I came up with an idea of how to make the parts with no parting line.

Again, I didn't know it couldn't be done.

Ford called it the "Gaphider" and used them on the late 90s Ford cars and then pickups.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> I also think of the solar system when trying to make my unit work in the past in that our solar system is run by magnetic forces, but finding the key element to make it all go around and not stop was just finding that missing link.


Again with the solar system analogies!

The solar system is maintained by gravitational, not magnetic, forces. And there is no "key element" beyond simple angular momentum that keeps it going around without stopping. The solar system is just a great big flywheel, with no energy input required to keep it going, and with no energy extraction possible without slowing it down. There is nothing perpetual or over-unity about it.


> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


While many truths may have passed through this process, it does not logically follow that everything that is ridiculed will eventually be regarded as a self-evident truth. Far more notions that are ridiculed will _never_ be elevated to self-evident truth because they really are ridiculous.

Claiming that your pet theory that everyone laughs at must be correct because they once laughed at Einstein is a logical fallacy, because they also laughed at Bozo the clown.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Astronomer said:


> The solar system is maintained by gravitational, not magnetic, forces. And there is no "key element" beyond simple angular momentum that keeps it going around without stopping. The solar system is just a great big flywheel, with no energy input required to keep it going, and with no energy extraction possible without slowing it down. There is nothing perpetual or over-unity about it.


In fact, the solar system is slowing down. It's almost imperceptible, but scientists have measured rotational decay in our very own planet (Which is why the ultra-accurate atomic clocks have to have a "Leap second" every few years - It's not that they're inaccurate, it's that the Earth's rotation is slowing).


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Fourth, it is proven incorrect.

After all, for over a thousand years it was held as self-evident that the Earth was flat and that the heavens revolved around the it. Indeed, there were even "Scientific" models that demonstrated such, and those truths were taught to generations.

Let's see what other "Truths" we can apply this rule to...

The moon is made of cheese
Aspartame is a highly toxic carcinogen
Microwave popcorn can kill you
The Apollo missions were faked on a Hollywood backlot
Playing the Beatles backwards summons the Ghost of Paul McCartney
Home taping is killing music
The iPhone is powered by gold-plated unicorn poop

Just because you say something, don't make it so. Let's have some empirical proof (At the very least).

And, incidentally, how exactly are you going to move these steel strips between your magnet layers? You're going to rotate them with a motor of some kind, I'm guessing. And just how much torque are you going to get from this? I'd say (As a conservative guess) not much at all. Potentially the strength of the magnets, doubled. As there's a finite limit to that, you may want to try using some kind of electromagnet system, for more torque. Then, to simplify the design (you won't need the steel strips to be able to "Reverse" or "Turn off" the electromagnets), you can simply use some kind of, oh I don't know, position-related switching system, or even the much simpler brush-and-commutator system, to control which electromagnets are repelling, which are attracting, and which are negated. This will also mean you won't have problems with strips heating up because of the magnetic flux (You know, like an induction cooktop does to the bottom of a steel pan), making this motor run faster and cooler. And, you know, if you replaced both sets of permanent magnets with electromagnets, you could even vary the intensity of one set, so you can decrease the power needed when torque isn't required, and run one set of windings in reverse to get regenerative braking.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The strip of steel doesn't move. It is put in place to act as an attracting pole and that is all it does.

It is is so simple that, that must be why it is not understood by most.

I will go quietly now........


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> The strip of steel doesn't move. It is put in place to act as an attracting pole and that is all it does.
> 
> It is is so simple that, that must be why it is not understood by most.
> 
> I will go quietly now........


It is so simple it stinks. Yes a piece of steel will attract a magnet and so will a magnet. The magnet moving over the piece of steel will act exactly the same as if it were over another attracting magnet. The steel does not have any pulling power but the action of the magnet over it is the same. It won't work and it will cog. There is no way around that. 

It is that simple. : )

Why do you think we do not see?


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The reason a magnetic rotor will not go past center on the opposing magnet is because the main (N) or stationary opposing magnet, "sees" it coming.

The metal strip turns part of the main opposing magnet to a (S) pole which attracts the rotor magnet until it gets past the center line of the axle and the main opposing magnet (N).

The steel strip is just a redirector from N to S so the rotor will pass center...

That's why a strip of steel between 2 facing N pole magnets makes them come together instead of repelling each other.

A basic fact that you can demonstrate for yourself......................!


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> The reason a magnetic rotor will not go past center on the opposing magnet is because the main (N) or stationary opposing magnet, "sees" it coming.
> 
> The metal strip turns part of the main opposing magnet to a (S) pole which attracts the rotor magnet until it gets past the center line of the axle and the main opposing magnet (N).
> 
> ...


Basic fact: A strip of steel between two magnets will take on the same north south properties of the magnets that it sits between. It will be in effect just another magnet. 

Basic fact: A strip of steel which is far enough away from two magnets will only attract with out it's self attracting but will still act like a magnet in that if the moving magnet as it goes over the strip will want to be attracted to it and will cog back to it as though it was just another weak magnet. 

If it was such a simple thing to test it would have been proven and there would be no argument. But it does not work. It is an interesting idea but just an idea that does not work. 



> A basic fact that you can demonstrate for yourself......................!


Maybe you should take your own advice and then make a move of it and show all us. We are not skeptic on this one. It just does not work. 

Pete


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

In fact, I have already done it. Why else would I present the idea?

If you haven't tried it, then I will just stop and go no further with this topic.

Too bad.....


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> In fact, I have already done it. Why else would I present the idea?
> 
> If you haven't tried it, then I will just stop and go no further with this topic.
> 
> Too bad.....


Hey...I believe you, so don't let others discourage you because they don't understand what your saying or doing. I'm still here listening...

I'm still stuck on the maglev motor thing though and not sure if it's science or magic...

http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to/video/how-to-make-a-maglev-motor-268715/


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



tj4fa said:


> Hey...I believe you, so don't let others discourage you because they don't understand what your saying or doing. I'm still here listening...
> 
> I'm still stuck on the maglev motor thing though and not sure if it's science or magic...
> 
> http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to/video/how-to-make-a-maglev-motor-268715/


Nothing special or amazing about maglev propulsion... simply an example of a pulse width modulating lateral track


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> In fact, I have already done it. Why else would I present the idea?
> 
> If you haven't tried it, then I will just stop and go no further with this topic.
> 
> Too bad.....


Coley what the hell do you expect to make out of the fact steel conducts magnetism?

Sure stick a piece of steel on top of the N side and it will have a "south pole" at the magnet and a north pole on the opposite side... what good could that possibly do?


----------



## Harold in CR (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Coley
I'm also interested. I believe the info you are trying to describe, is the same way Howard Johnson did his design, Right ???

If the others are not interested in learning something different, that's THEIR loss. Please keep up the info on this thread. Thanks


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Coley said:


> In fact, I have already done it. Why else would I present the idea?
> 
> If you haven't tried it, then I will just stop and go no further with this topic.
> 
> Too bad.....


Can you show it? Will you show it? Can you prove what you have done is because of the steel strips? Give me your design so I can go reproduce it exactly as you have done so I can then get the exact same results. If you won't provide that then, no, I do not believe your claim. I know what magnets and steel do and like I said, you put a piece of steel between two magnets that metal will become magnetic with the same north and south poles. Putting one between two magnets for the purpose of an attractor will not work. 

I guarantee if I put a design together using strips between two magnets you will say it is not the same as my design and so if mine proves it won't work you will still claim yours will. So, present us all here with the design so we as a neutral party can build it and get the same results as you and put to rest forever this argument. That is the only way it will be resolved. I can do some vid footage and show you what happens with some steel and magnets. Pretty much child's play. But if you insist that I disprove your claim, I will do my best. 

The games afoot : )


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I'm all for this, if it works. But personally I don't see how it can. Without something in the system varying things, it's all going to find it's equilibrium point, and stay there, until something changes within the system to disturb that equilibrium.

And, as I mentioned before, I see this system being severely limited in torque by the strength of the permanent magnets you use to build it. It will also have problems with heating of your interference strips by induction, coupled with the motor having to be built massively strong so the repelling forces don't make it explode outwards (If it's going to have enough repelling force to be able to turn with any kind of torque).

Colour me interested, but skeptical.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Technologic said:


> Nothing special or amazing about maglev propulsion... simply an example of a pulse width modulating lateral track


Yup. One might even think of it as a big, laid-out-flat electric motor. Where the "Rotor" is the train, and the "Stator" is the track.


----------



## Frank E. Drews (May 2, 2009)

Perpetual Energy:
NOT Possable even the Sun will burn out someday,
That said I have under construction A charging system for EVs That Will keep a battry pack Charged even during use.
My Problems are:
1) Funding (I'm Not Rich)
2) AN EV to put it on (48-72 VDC Road Legal 55+MPH)
3)Finding the parts I need at a price I can afford.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Coley,
I like the idea myself. I tried it, but I do still get lag. However, I also tried cardboard and foam and it worked better than steel or the small piece of magnetic shielding (nickel and some other metal). Tried tin and it wasnt much help either. The best of all these was a nonmetallic object (cardboard and foam), but havent tried it on any type of wheel. So perhaps LeTank is on to something, or maybe you are using something in the gap that works just as good in your design. 

I am also interested in these conversations and a good complete convo about these topics is good to know. I do like to tinker with these ideas no matter how out there they are at times. (I like to see if it works or not.) 

I also liked the Howard Johnson motor, three moon shaped magnets i the center (off center of each other) that spun around the magnets on the sides which the entire outside was just a bunch of tall square magents going around the case. It was featured in Popular Science (or mechanics ..forgot which one) a while back running a generator. It is probably on the net somewhere. 

Great stuff to know about and I am always ears for both sides of the arguments. 

I found something interesting about the Perendev. I noticed the wheels (three of them) were spaced apart about an inch and each set of magnets on the wheels were off center from each other. In this case, I wonder if the magnetic fields with the shielding are just enough to cross over each other and overrides any lag keeping the wheel spinning. I also noticed that half the magnets surface was covered with some sort of shielding, perhaps it was Coleys steel or LeTanks nonmetal shielding, that is the mystery. 
I will try to get a snap shot of the wheels and post it on here to look at from the Perendev video for comments on it.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Hightech said:


> I also liked the Howard Johnson motor, three moon shaped magnets i the center (off center of each other) that spun around the magnets on the sides which the entire outside was just a bunch of tall square magents going around the case. It was featured in Popular Science (or mechanics ..forgot which one) a while back running a generator. It is probably on the net somewhere.


http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*










Sorry for the large picture, but I dont know how to change it on here.
Anyway, it gives a great look at the perendev motor and the arrangement of the magnets and how they are set up on the wheels.

This next picture is of the whole unit, which shows the sides slide down over the magnets, which also have the same assortment of magnets on them, but off center to the magnets on the wheels to make it spin.


----------



## Luckenbach (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The Perendev "motor". Videos show it accelerate as the outer rings come together. Never shows contiuous operation. Possibly because the acceleration is caused by the force needed to bring the outer rings in. A good demonstration, but only shows the acceleration initially, never continuous operation.

Close, but no cigar.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Luckenbach said:


> The Perendev "motor". Videos show it accelerate as the outer rings come together. Never shows contiuous operation. Possibly because the acceleration is caused by the force needed to bring the outer rings in. A good demonstration, but only shows the acceleration initially, never continuous operation.
> 
> Close, but no cigar.


I dont know which video you watched, but the one I had seen was over 5 minutes long and the unit ran for over 3 minutes of it, but the person who was running it was afraid the magnets might go flying through the air because of the speed and that they were still testing the unit to make sure it would stay together and not fly apart at those speeds. I saw continous as in the unit ran by using the magnetic propulsion and not just from putting the sides inward to create a startup and draw down affect, but it was continuous in what I had seen. 

At least it is something I can mess with in my tinkering time to see what happens. What the hell right?


----------



## caseyr7 (Jun 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Nuclear powered cars....Unlimited miles. Until a wreck


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hey sorry everyone that I havent been in here a while. Got sidetracked by summer projects and enjoying the warm days. You know how that goes.

Well a few nights ago I was roaming through more vids on youtube about perendev, seems others have been making videos and some are in other languages, but fun to watch. 
I did find one that was interesting to the same concept as perendev motors, it is worth watching and gives some ideas.

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

I can see some new ideas already coming from this one. What a nice video I think.


----------



## jeromio (Oct 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> I dont know which video you watched, but the one I had seen was over 5 minutes long and the unit ran for over 3 minutes of it, but the person who was running it was afraid the magnets might go flying through the air because of the speed and that they were still testing the unit to make sure it would stay together and not fly apart at those speeds. I saw continous as in the unit ran by using the magnetic propulsion and not just from putting the sides inward to create a startup and draw down affect, but it was continuous in what I had seen.
> 
> At least it is something I can mess with in my tinkering time to see what happens. What the hell right?


This thread is hilarious. We do all realize that what's being discussed (mostly, there are a few little diversions into legitimate topics) is perpetual motion.

It is possible to create a permanent magnet "motor" that will spin - for a set time. Just as I can wind up a clock and it will turn, for a time. Gradually the energy I expended and stored in the winding will reach equilibrium and the clock will stop. The Perendev motor is just a rotating magnetic pendulum. The energy of putting those outer magnets in place is akin to swinging the pendulum. It will eventually wind down as it reaches equilibrium. It's a very clever performance art piece.

I also read the "HHO" stuff early in the thread. Equally hilarious.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



jeromio said:


> This thread is hilarious. We do all realize that what's being discussed (mostly, there are a few little diversions into legitimate topics) is perpetual motion.
> 
> It is possible to create a permanent magnet "motor" that will spin - for a set time. Just as I can wind up a clock and it will turn, for a time. Gradually the energy I expended and stored in the winding will reach equilibrium and the clock will stop. The Perendev motor is just a rotating magnetic pendulum. The energy of putting those outer magnets in place is akin to swinging the pendulum. It will eventually wind down as it reaches equilibrium. It's a very clever performance art piece.
> 
> I also read the "HHO" stuff early in the thread. Equally hilarious.


It doesnt stop unless the bearings wear out or the magnets loose their magnetism, in which case it takes about a hundred years for the magnets to lose their magnetism, and only trolls are out there to debunk the perenedev motor and free energy to keep the oil flowing. 
If you believe the physics you were taught in schools which is nothing more than brainwashing to keep you in control and believing it is not possible to do certain things, but if you would do some deep research you will find even the military has had success in free energy machines such as the negative charge generator that was used on an early Navy ship that worked, but do to its no need for fuel it was later shelved and gas engines were used instead because it keeps the economy going with fuel. 
But another debate, at least look through the evidence before just assuming.

The perendev motor is sold in Europe at the current time, but they not only sell it for lease at a very high price, they also want you to pay monthly to have it as well. www.perendev.com I believe is the site.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Build the motor and put a load on it that is more than the energy of the magnets and it will come to a halt. The physics taught in school is solid and you did not listen or test it. I have no problem with folks who are skeptical but before you go spouting off you will need to test the device in question. If you can't test it then you should remain skeptical. Physics is proven. The motor is not. Sure it will spin but it will stop under any load. The lighter the load the longer it will run but with a load it will stop. Not before the bearings wear out either. Just normal friction will do for a basic load. It may run for a long time that way. Hook up some light bulbs and watch what happens. I guarantee you will become a believer in physics and you will know you were not lied to. The government does that not science. 

Have a nice time trying out your motor. 

Physics rules. Can't deny gravity now can you. Basic physics. 

Pretty simple stuff if you really look at it. Simple to understand too. 

Motors are designed to do work so give this motor some work and be amazed at reality. 

Pete


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

I drive to work 160 miles round trip twice a week so I was wondering if this generator would work as a exstender on those days.

http://cgi.ebay.com/3-KW-ST-Generat...66:2|39:1|72:2103|240:1318|301:1|293:1|294:50


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

What about this generator ?
http://srx.main.ebayrtm.com/clk?Rtm...MT=1000&VK=&op=112597&rk=4&cpc=0.41&id=112597


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Those 1200 watt generators typically put out 110v AC or 12v DC.
The problem is that all battery packs are DC and your battery pack would probably be 120v or 144v. So you could only slowly charge one 12v battery with that generator. It won't put out 120v DC.

And when it comes to EV's, 1200 watts (1.2kw) is hardly enough energy to run a small ceramic heater.
For a 160 mi round trip....you'll need a large Lithium Pack.


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

Lets say they allow me to plug in at work and I would like an emergency option. Can you tell me how manny watts the generator would need 2 put out to have a small effect?


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

Im thinking of going with 240V 100AH lifepo4, with 2x11" motors. In a 914 I would not have enough room to install a motor generator combo. I honestly was thinking about converting a generator to CNG and using this to produce power. But you are right it would be more efficant to send it strait to a motor, instead of having the loss going to the cell. I wanted to hook up a system high in the back so I can unplug it and yank it when I so not need it. I am in the buisness of energy conservation and this would be cool to pick up my customers but they do not pay me enough to drop 100G.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

IMHO you don't need 2 11" motors. One would be sufficient. 
Don't think you could pack enough Lithium into a 914 to go 160 miles round trip unless you could recharge for 6 hours or so while at work..


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

What are the odds of scaling up this technology 1000-fold (or more) for use in EV's?
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/143945
It seems to me that the amount of power produced would be too small, but if scaled up significantly and if the space requirements aren't too huge, it could be a viable way to get a few extra miles?


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

I like overkill, ok maybe 2 8"


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



caseyr7 said:


> Nuclear powered cars....Unlimited miles. Until a wreck


miniature nuclear reactors are no joke... in the future we may even further the portability...

http://www.nuscalepower.com/


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> If you believe the physics you were taught in schools which is nothing more than brainwashing to keep you in control and believing it is not possible to do certain things


And exactly how many physics classes have you attended to qualify you to make such a statement? I don't often trot out my accreditations in informal, online discussions, but I'll make an exception in this case. Since I have actually put forth the considerable effort to earn a degree in physics, I think I'm qualified to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## judebert (Apr 16, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



namyzarc said:


> What are the odds of scaling up this technology 1000-fold (or more) for use in EV's?
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/143945
> It seems to me that the amount of power produced would be too small, but if scaled up significantly and if the space requirements aren't too huge, it could be a viable way to get a few extra miles?


Back when it looked like this thread wouldn't be about perpetual motion, I asked a similar question: is there enough energy broadcast in the entire radio spectrum to usefully harvest any of it? I was dismissed with a "why don't you try it and find out for yourself?" 

Your article claims that "the energy in any given wave is infinitesimal". This makes sense, since you need a powered amplifier to even hear the signal it carries. 

Having said that, beaming power directly to a car might work reasonably well. You'd want to focus it in a laser, so it wouldn't dissipate so much with distance; therefore you'd need some way to keep track of the car's exact position. And you'd need to convert the laser to electrical energy. 

All in all, it doesn't seem technically feasible. Harvesting ambient electromagnetic energy for trickle charging is probably as far as it'll go.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



judebert said:


> All in all, it doesn't seem technically feasible. Harvesting ambient electromagnetic energy for trickle charging is probably as far as it'll go.


That's what I was getting at. No perpetual motion here, just harvesting existing energy, like sun, wind or in this case existing elctromagnetic waves. 
However, trickle charging for a long enough time can actually replenish a not-too insignificant amount of electricity. Especially since this technology is not sun or wind dependant, or very space-intensive. If this device, which fits in a conventially-sized cell phone (and thus pobably takes up very little space) and produces 20 milliwatts, were multiplied in size by 10000, which I estimate would sill only take up about as much space as a couple of conventional LE batteries, I would assume that you could then produce 10000 X 20 = 200000 milliwats or 200 Watts (per hour?). Not much, but assuming my car is at a standstill for about 22-23 hours a day, thats 200 X 22 = 4400 Watts or 4.4 Killowats in any given day - are my calculations correct? What kind of extra range would this give a your average 2-door hatchback?


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Did you know that you have usable energy coming into your home via the phone line? It is a low voltage line but it can be tapped. Could use it maybe to power some low amp/voltage LED lights. Happy lighting for your room. Don't over do it.


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

I can build a 75 amp generator that small and portable. Do you think this item would give me an extra 10 miles? on a 55 mile 80% capacity system allready?


----------



## judebert (Apr 16, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



namyzarc said:


> were multiplied in size by 10000, which I estimate would sill only take up about as much space as a couple of conventional LE batteries, I would assume that you could then produce 10000 X 20 = 200000 milliwats or 200 Watts (per hour?)


The math looks right. But I don't think these devices work on volume. They basically absorb the magnetic wave, converting it to electrical energy. So, if two were on top of each other, only the top one would make any power. 

You could cover the car with them, of course. 4kwH / day is significant; in my inefficient car, that'll run for 12 miles or so.



gottdi said:


> Did you know that you have usable energy coming into your home via the phone line? It is a low voltage line but it can be tapped. Could use it maybe to power some low amp/voltage LED lights. Happy lighting for your room. Don't over do it.


Actually, I believe its 48V, or 96V while ringing. But the current is pretty low.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I am not talking about the wires connected to the phone. I am talking of the other two in the box unused. 

The microwave sucker is limited like a solar panel is limited. You'd have to have a huge machine built to extract enough usable power and I think it would not be too practical. Then if you got a machine large enough to extract enough usable energy you'd be interfering with communications and the FCC would be at your door in a heart beat.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Did you know that you have usable energy coming into your home via the phone line? It is a low voltage line but it can be tapped. Could use it maybe to power some low amp/voltage LED lights. Happy lighting for your room. Don't over do it.


Funny thing about that.. I powered a TV from that once. The phone company figured out that my phone was "ringing" 24 hours a day and got 

On a side note.. The big boxes at the end of your road could charge an EV


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



namyzarc said:


> That's what I was getting at. No perpetual motion here, just harvesting existing energy, like sun, wind or in this case existing elctromagnetic waves.
> However, trickle charging for a long enough time can actually replenish a not-too insignificant amount of electricity. Especially since this technology is not sun or wind dependant, or very space-intensive. If this device, which fits in a conventially-sized cell phone (and thus pobably takes up very little space) and produces 20 milliwatts, were multiplied in size by 10000, which I estimate would sill only take up about as much space as a couple of conventional LE batteries,


Find a patent or a schematic, that would be a nice device to have on each of my batteries to prevent them from sulphating while I sit in the parking lot.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



rmay635703 said:


> Find a patent or a schematic, that would be a nice device to have on each of my batteries to prevent them from sulphating while I sit in the parking lot.


Anyone considered running a cord to your neighbores box at night


----------



## rmay635703 (Oct 23, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Nomad said:


> Anyone considered running a cord to your neighbores box at night


Given the neighbors box is in my yard as well as the 2 behind my property I guess I already do.

In any event if the patent for their device can be located it will provide insight into what they are doing to tap off a little radio power.

THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL WITH PROOF OF CONCEPT OF A PATENT FOR PERSONAL USE OR TESTING!

Also if a cellular company is making it, its very likely there are thousands of similar patents and devices already proto'd anyway that could be tested.

I am quite certain that the 50mv my desulphator circuit takes could easily be supplied by a device or two like the one on the phone. Thus keeping my batteries from crapping out when I am gone a few weeks at a time during the summer and keeping the desulphator running.

Cheers 
Ryan


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

It's a free Energy Video...

But what is more important is it's a old 90's eletric car.

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

I should note the invetor of this engine died from natual causes.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf1IesrHBh0&feature=fvw

OK... Figure this one out...


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Nomad said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf1IesrHBh0&feature=fvw
> 
> OK... Figure this one out...


Easy, the magnets are neo and they are stronger than what is needed to power that little dinky motor and the light is like a 1.2 volt supermini light that takes no power to operate. The load of the light is not more than what the magnets can produce. Bump that power requirement and this goes out the window. In a way you could say (FREE) but not at all practical. The limitations of magnetic motors is the magnet and how much it can power under a load. You'd have to have one hell of a large magnet motor to power lets say a house or car. 

The magnet motor from the link above is just another PM motor. It does not run it's self. It takes a finger under low voltage to move the armature and it does not cog. Just a PM motor. In the car it is powered by batteries and not it's self. 

Parlor games and tricks, these things are to dupe you into believing that there is FREE ENERGY. 

Yes and some people REALLY think the world is FLAT.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Nomad said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf1IesrHBh0&feature=fvw
> 
> OK... Figure this one out...


I think someone already explained this video a while ago. The narrator holding the magnet in his hand adds energy to the rotor by moving the magnet toward the rotor. He must overcome a magnetic force to do this, which sets the rotor spinning. But once this is done, no more energy is added to the rotor without continuing to move the magnet in his hand, which requires additional mechanical energy. 

If the video had continued, you would have either seen the rotor stop for lack of additional energy input, or you would have seen his hand moving against the magnetic forces, converting the energy of the motion of the magnet in his hand to rotary motion of the rotor.

Are you old enough to remember those spinning top toys from the 60s? You would push a plunger at the top, and a descending helical shaft would cause the top to spin. The harder you pushed, the faster and longer it would spin. 

Well, this is exactly the same thing, except the forces are magnetic instead of mechanical. He's just winding the top by bringing the magnet in his hand toward the rotor, which is equivalent to pushing a plunger in the mechanical version. Without additional pushes of the plunger -- magnetic or mechanical -- the top will inevitably come to a stop.


----------



## racingbrett (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

this thread is making for very interesting reading, still got 50 odd pages to go 

just wanted to put my 2 cents in on the "over unity" / "free energy" thing now i am neither a believer or a disbeliever so this is from an open perspective. Iv read a lot into overunity machines and the majority are hoax's or people that dont understand simply electronics (im an electronics engineer) but heres my personal beliefs.

Science/Scientists are not always right (plenty of past proofs of this)

Free energy. What is it, to me this term means any form of energy i dont have to pay for (excluding set up costs) in simplest terms solar and wind would be the most common forms of free energy.

over unity.. according to science it cant exist. my belief here is that "if" someone did manage to achieve OU that there not actually achieving it in a way that we know or understand, it stands to reason that everything in this world is made up of energy in one form or another and maybe they have "tapped" into another form of energy in some way, who knows. As i said im not a believer or a disbeliever but i have an open mind, lets face it rewind back some years and suggest to the scientific world that we can get electricity from the sun/wind/waves and people would shun u, call u a hoax and your proffesionalism would come under question.


now on to the topic how to make the car travel further.

basic ones

less rolling resistance
less weight
better aerodynamics
better bearings (these can actually make a difference)

when it comes to trying to re-charge the batteries as your driving i think this has been covered by the solar and regen breaking (motor breaking been the easiest) one thing to watch for on the solar is the heat the panels produce.

my personal vision would use a removable generator running on hydrogen, for one its a clean burning fuel and for two it can be produced for free in an off grid house, we have a house and i know of a few others that run off grid all year round on solar and wind. without fail each and every day there is a period of 2 - 3 hours where there is excess electricity that has to be dumped usually either to open air heaters or to a water heater, now i know it wont make masses of hydrogen but it will make free hydrogen that over time will build up to usuable amounts and lets face it, its not everyday that we need to drive 200 miles +.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



racingbrett said:


> rewind back some years and suggest to the scientific world that we can get electricity from the sun/wind/waves and people would shun u, call u a hoax and your proffesionalism would come under question.


wind: Windmills for turning wheat into flour, and sailboats have been using free wind energy for ages.

waves: well not waves, but watermills have also been used for ages.

donkeys: My grandfather in Greece had this donkey back in the day. He tied the donkey in a different field every day, so that he could eat the tall grass, making it easier to collect olives, and later to till the field. He collected the donkeys poop, and used it as fertiliser for his vegetable garden. He used the donkey as his main mode of transportation. Now granted, the donkey could not do 0-60 in < 5secs and did not have 100+ mph 1/4 mile times, nor could it compete with the Nissan Skyline GTR on the Nurgburgring, but on the other hand, I can't use a Skyline to till a field, mow my lawn or fertilise my garden...

So, if anything, I'd say humanity at one time actually did harness "free" energy - it's only fairly recently we've gone away from it.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Science/Scientists are not always right (plenty of past proofs of this)


Scientists aren't always right because NOBODY is always right. (However, it does not necessarily follow that, since scientists have been wrong in the past, that they are now wrong about what they say about over-unity.)

So how, then, do we determine whom to trust in such matters? Obviously, scientists -- and intellectuals in general -- shouldn't be blindly trusted solely on the basis that they are smart. Certainly, smart people have a lot to offer, but, to put it bluntly, they have just as much capacity to fool themselves as anybody else.

If only we had some kind of objective process -- a method, if you will -- that could eliminate our dependence on our unreliable and subjective proclivity to believe whatever makes us feel good at the moment. Then we wouldn't be at the mercy of "smart people", who often get it wrong, to tell us what's fact and what's hoakum. 

Imagine what the world would be like if we had some sort of objective method whereby we could test our ideas -- theories, if you will -- and increase humanity's body of knowledge, not on the basis of what smart people tell us to think, but on, oh, I don't know... maybe objective data and experimental results. Why, then even the dumbest person among us should be able to apply this process and arrive at correct answers about the Universe without ever having to ask a smart person's opinion. And people all over the world could apply this process independently, and since it's objective, they would all arrive at the same conclusion, thereby bolstering the reliability and dependability of their conclusions. 

What a world that would be, where all our knowledge of nature is evidence-based, and not just what some "smart person" thinks.


Oh, well. It's too bad this mythical "Scientific Method" doesn't exist. I guess we're just stuck here debating our opinions on the matter, doomed never to discover whether over-unity permanent magnet motors are possible. 

Dang.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Oh, well. It's too bad this mythical "Scientific Method" doesn't exist. I guess we're just stuck here debating our opinions on the matter, doomed never to discover whether over-unity permanent magnet motors are possible.


You can just post your opinion or you can go out and prove US wrong. Over Unity means you create energy from nothing. No one on this earth can do that. No one on this Earth has ever done that. 

Oh! I forgot to mention that we do use The Scientific Method to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It is used all the time. The results must be reproducible and then be confirmed by neutral third party so the results are not tainted. 

So your saying that every test has been nothing but a parlor trick and that proof does not exist that proves over unity is not possible! 

Well go have fun making energy from nothing. 

Not one of the hoaxes on the internet prove the existence of over unity that can be reproduced by anyone. NOT A ONE.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Oh! I forgot to mention that we do use The Scientific Method to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It is used all the time.


Pete, re-read my post. I think you missed the part where I was being cynically ironic.


----------



## racingbrett (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> "if" someone did manage to achieve OU that there not actually achieving it in a way that we know or understand, it stands to reason that everything in this world is made up of energy in one form or another and maybe they have "tapped" into another form of energy in some way, who knows


this would mean it isnt really energy from nothing just energy from an unknown, not true OU but maybe what will give the result and perception of being OU. The whole energy from nothing is a huge scientific debate, we are surrounded by energy in one form or another, where did it come from? the big bang? so where did the energy come from to make that where did the energy start and what created that energy.

scientific mistakes, 2 that spring to mind would be the belief that all dinosaurs were lizard like creatures, its now believed all 2 legged dinosaurs were feathered. 2nd would be on glaciation and the way valleys/glaciers are formed despite all the evidence in there face despite the fact there current belief was totally flawed it took 10-15 years before the true facts were acknowledged and held to be true, why? so many scientists believe, preach and experiment in one way, if they were proved to be wrong they will look bad either for coming up with a flawed "theory" or for following that theory blindly.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Astronomer said:


> Pete, re-read my post. I think you missed the part where I was being cynically ironic.


My bad! Sometimes it's hard to read cynical in words.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



gottdi said:


> Sometimes it's hard to read cynical in words.


That's definitely true.  And I made the mistake of thinking that my reputation alone would be sufficient to convey my intent.

Next time, I'll use a smiley. (But not one of those CUTE ones. I Hate those! )

It's all in good fun!


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

every one has awesome ideas, and great theories, i think in order to make an EV 100% efficient you have to get rid of batteries totally,now Nikolai Tesla created a single phase generator capable of making a constant 110 volts at i think 6 - 800 rpm, linking 4 of them makes 440 volts, and to spin them you use a pernedev magnetic motor which is a set of 3 6" rotors with magnets every 10 degrees on the rotor and every 20 degrees on the stator ( housing) and putting all the magnets on one side of the outer housing north and the other side south you create a push-pull in the magnetic motor and using permanent magnets they recharge and dissipate the magnetic flux that destroys permanent magnets so the motor will last a full 400 years, now wiring this up like you would wire a home you can "plug in" your EV motor and have the generator power it without the need for batteries or any type of hybrid system. so essentially it will be like you've just plugged your Ev into the power grid ((lol imagine how long of an extension cord you'd need)) and now have all the power you need for any sustained speed, NO fuel of any kind and NO need to buy expensive batteries, for safety sake use a liquid cooled EV motor and a quality controller, and a cut-off switch between your generator and motor. everything should be as easy to set up as plugging in a toaster in your house. *THIS IS NOT FREE ENERGY OR PERPETUAL MOTION* Tesla's single phase generator simply spins strong magnets over coils of copper wire to generate large amounts of electricity at a high RPM and the magnetic motor works on the principals of magnetic repulsion and attraction. depending on how close you move the housing to the 3 inner rotors the faster the motor spins.(it's made it's rounds around the web) *AND if you want to deny these facts fine you can also turn your drive shaft into a generator by putting magnets on the drive shaft and an odd number of wraps of copper wire (20 - 28 gauge) around the magnets on the shaft(9-11 wraps should generate 12 volts at 100 rpm) . spin the shaft magnets through the coil of copper wire, BiNgO you have a generator that doesn't use any extra power from the motor or pack. This should generate all the energy you need to keep a steady charge on your battery packs and extend your range exponentially. possibly infinitaly. the faster the drive shaft spins the more electricity it generates...*

this is MY theory, it uses the K.I.S.S. method or "Keep It Simple Stupid" =) happy motoring


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

gottdi said:


> FreedomVoltage,
> 
> A theory it is but now you need to put it to the test. Build one just like you said and then put a load on that magnet motor and see what happens. By load I mean a load that would move a vehicle down the road or a load that can power your home. That is a LOAD. You know what I think? It's a load of garbage. If it were so you and every person on the face of the planet would have one.
> 
> ...



well first, the techknology was covered up and labels of "quack" were given to brillent men like Nikolai Tesla... now the actual load on the magnetic part of the motor will be no more than a wind generator spinning at 9000 rpm... what ever that load may be..., it's sole job is to spin the single phase generators, which just send electricity to the electric motor, so the "load" won't be enough to stop the magnetic motor, the main power rotor has 3 disks on a shaft that rotates inside 3 arms, each arm pivots at the bottom so you can "squeeze" the top together thus starting the rotors spinning( as seen on the Perendev magnetic motor which works on the proven fact that when you push two magnets togather with the same poles it pushes in the opposit direction.), the rotors should generate 648 foot pounds of torq per revolution and since it is only spinning a set of Tesla single-phase generators (which are like wind generators in that it is just a disk with copper coils and a disk that turns over it with magnets), which does not put a strain on the motor, there is no way you could load it enough to stop it, with a top speed of 9 - 10000 rpm, you could generate enough Kw to power a whole house, at least until the copper coils over heated and burned out... so the best application for this would be an EV with a 440 volt motor.

the magnets i am using are rare earth neodymium magnets grade 52 with 12lbs of force per magnet and as the rotor spins it always has one magnet pushing full force on rotor 1 on rotor 2 the magnet is pushing at 2/3 force and rotor 3 has a magnet at 1/4 force which pushes the next magnet into place, on one side north poles another set south poles, on the other half of the stator pulling with the same force, because of the spiral pattern magnets on the rotor disks it can start it's self spinning if you bring the arms in ... sort of like a bear hug... each magnet is a disk type magnet and angled at 30 degrees to get the most pushing force possible. *This method has been tested over and over again by many many other people and i am just reproducing there work.*  "My theory" was just the putting magnets on the driveshaft of an EV and having them turn inside a coil of copper wire to generate electricity... it should work, your turning a magnetic field through a coil of copper wire.. that's how electricity is generated right? 

i got my basic idea/s from here(Perendev magnetic motor - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGiWiXMHn0) and researched the rest of it all over the net.


My first project is a subaru justy 4 wheel drive, i'm going to power it with this set up(tesla/perendev) and enter a drifting contest to test and prove all theroies and make them scientific facts... now i just need to learn how to "drift".... wish me luck 

Happy motoring


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

OH! lol NONONO you misunderstand me i am not going to replace the regular Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) with a regular PM motor, no that will be the work of a high-efficiency electric vehicle motor, i agree you can't us a PM motor to move the car that's not what i'm proposing, what i mean is making a better "battery" by making the PM motor turn a disk of magnets over several coils of copper wire. it will be like an electric generator in the trunk of the car powering the motor/controller/pot-box set up exactly like a normal electric Vehicle only you won't need a bunch of batteries or fuel to power some sort of a hybrid system.

here's what i'm trying for:

(my version of electric start for this EV)small electric DC motor powered by 12volt accessory battery turns a worm gear and pulls the arms close to the inner rotors of the PM motor (about 1 millimeter gap between the armature and rotor) and starts it spinning up to the desired RPM (RPM controlled by gap between magnets on rotors and magnets on the armature 1 millimeter is max speed further away the slower it is and less powerful)

think of the little PM motor (about 12 inches long and 6 inches tall, so fairly small) as the "wind" (like a wind generator) and on the end of it's shaft is another flat plate with magnets pointing out towards one last plate that does not move (again like the shaft in a wind generator), this final plate will have several coils of copper wire around the face of it and will be about 2 millimeters from the magnet plate, so essentially it will be a "windless-wind generator" with the PM motor doing the job of the wind turning magnets over copper coils to generate electricity, since these are not electromagnets they don't draw power from the system and thus can generate all the electric needs of the *http://www.electroauto.com/catalog/acmotors.shtml*<- high performance electric motor. 

And yes with magnets always pushing in one pole due to magnetic flux building up in the permanent magnet it causes it to loose it's magnetic properties completely or weaken it to the point that it stops HOWEVER by having magnets that "push" and magnets that "pull" you can actually strip off the magnetic flux that builds up and keep the PM motor running, but it doesn't go faster and faster like perpetual motion nor does it grab "magic energy" from thin air, -- it is using force to generate movement which moves magnets through copper wire and generates electricity -- .

And there are no "dead spots" like in a normal single disk PM motor, there are 3 disks working together so that one magnet is always being pushed and one is always being pulled and one is in a state of beginning push cycle, so it'll never find "equilibrium" and stop movement unless you pull the armature away from the rotors. in PM motors Odd numbers are what make it work, Even numbers cause it to stop.

so it is sort of like a generator and a battery in one compact light weight container and you could use the power immediately and never need to charge it.


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

gottdi said:


> Ok so you are going to use a self running magnet motor to run another magnet generator to produce power for the motor to allow you to run your motor with out any batteries. Again, it won't work. If you put a load on that magnet motor it will stop. That ends that idea like right quick. If you could create a magnet motor that runs itself and can run a small and I mean really small generator it won't produce enough to supply your regular motor to motivate your vehicle.
> 
> It takes lots more energy than you may think to spin a generator that is producing electricity. Even a magnet generator.
> 
> ...


** oops i was mixed up in my terminology, when i say PM motor i mean a magnet motor, so it is still only 2 forms 1 magnet motor turning 1 magnet generator, replacing the batteries. Giving power to the rest of the car.

but i see, well my second concept is sandwiching the copper coils between the rotors, so i'll have a magnet passing over a coil on both sides, that should generate a bunch of energy...

i'm just using concepts i saw in videos and read in books, one was using a drill to turn a tesla single phase generator and when added a load the drill didn't bog down and it still turned out 110 volts constant at 60htz and probably 800 rpm. the PM motor can at least make that kind of power... if anything i can always replace my electric drill >_>

as with the other idea of attaching magnets to the drive shaft and having the coils around it in some circular form, the motor is still going to turn it and it's still going to generate electricity, way more than it takes to move it, so you can regen regular battery packs like that and extend your range.. 

all these are already proven means of generating electricity even under load. 

you'd be surprised just exactly how strong a rare earth magnet really is, used under the right circumstances.... lol it defies physics  i'll have a car drifting soon.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

I talked to a friend a while back, that told of a guy that wanted some monetary backing for an invention that will put out 8 times the power put into it!!!!!!!!!!

My friend was wise enough to tell him that, that was not possible.

When asked for proof, that he could check out, the guy just walked away...

I went to this "sponsor site"
http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=holtebook2

Why are we even letting this crap get on DIY????????????


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

> AND if you want to deny these facts fine you can also turn your drive shaft into a generator by putting magnets on the drive shaft and an odd number of wraps of copper wire (20 - 28 gauge) around the magnets on the shaft(9-11 wraps should generate 12 volts at 100 rpm) . spin the shaft magnets through the coil of copper wire,* BiNgO you have a generator that doesn't use any extra power from the motor or pack.*


This appears to be a common misconception on this forum. 

I'm not sure where this notion comes from, but it is not true that there is no force to be overcome when spinning a generator. Once you begin to use the electricity from a generator (put a LOAD on it, as Pete says), the generator gets harder to spin. The reason for this is that the current you draw from the generator sets up a magnetic field in the coils that opposes the generator's spin. The more current you pull from the generator, the harder it is to spin. Your car WILL slow down because of the EMF forces placed on the drive shaft with this setup.

And, in fact, you'll discover that the mechanical energy required to turn your drive shaft generator will be more than the electrical energy you get from it. You'll lose energy every time with this setup. People all throughout history have tried it, and nobody has achieved the goal of making a "generator that doesn't use any extra power".

But hey, you might be the first!

Do like Pete suggests and perform small-scale proof-of-concept experiments on your kitchen table first before building a full-scale EV. Doing this will help you to characterize your Perendev motor and better understand and scale up its capabilities. See how long you can keep it running. Read up on some physics and learn the differences between force, energy, work, and power, and you'll be able to make headway a lot faster.

Good luck. If you succeed, you will literally change the world.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

I guess not many people ever had a bicycle with it's own generator to power the headlight. I had one as a kid. 

The generator was small perhaps 3 or 4 inches long and maybe 2 inches wide. At the end of the armature was a small rubber wheel which when engaged would ride on the edge of the front tire and spin the generator to power the headlight. 

That little generator produced so much drag I had to nearly stand up to peddle that bike. It was like having a dragging brake. And what was the power output? Maybe 20 watts?


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

But, like, that's just a bicycle, and everyone knows THOSE are just toys, right? 

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem--few people understand or have experience with any kind of generator. The ones that do usually already have an idea that it's going to be at least difficult, if not impossible, to even get the same power out that they put in, and understand that it *will* take energy to make energy. (or more accurately, to convert it from one form to another). 

I have seen very few bikes with any kind of headlight in the last 30 years (don't really know about before that, as I never paid attention), even on those people that ride frequently at night. (in fact, many of the kids around here right now even take off their reflectors, because they think it makes them "cooler", where it will really just make them dead one day). 

Even those that have headlights are usually battery-powered, especially nowadays. Many are like my spare bike, with LED flashlights clamped to the handlebars, helmet, or elsewhere, or using actual LED bike headlights made for the purpose. Although I've never seen anyone else use CCFL lights as I do, to be very visible, and get a wide-angle short-range light. 

But using batteries means that they don't have experience with generators. One of the most common comments I get with my electric assist bike setup is "why don't you just put a generator on the pedals, so you can have the motor without carrying all those batteries?". 

Yeah, right. 
________
Live Sex


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

and that's where everyone goes wrong they try to draw too much out of the <insert device name here> and over tax it, your not going to be powering the world with a 6" magnet motor, these devices work best at a LARGE scale like to power a city i would build a magnet moter 50 feet in diamiter...BUT I just want to power 1 car. i'm well aware of the magnetic field that builds up, only that will simply aid the magnet motor in pushing it's self around, if the coils are between the rotating disks, one half of the magnets go north the other half go south there for there is always a force pushing and always a force pulling. plus depending on the coil size it can ONLY generate a cretin amount of power, so you might need two or three of the magnet motors spinning through copper coils or spinning magnet generators. i'm not saying one technology is the be all end all fix, we need ALL the technologies to fix our problems. currently we have wind and solar power, but what about the ability to collect static electricity from the air? ben franklin did it... and what happened to the photo-voltaic paint that is used to collect power for satellites? NASA loves the stuff, they've been using it for years now... apply it to an EV and you have a nice around town never-have-to-plug-in mode of transportation...

i'm sure anyone can "fake it" and make something look like it works but that's not the challenge, the challenge is for people to climb out of there "Little Boxes" and make the stuff work. "many hands make light work" stop saying "IT can't be done" and start posting "things that might work" OR "TRY this!" ... some constructive criticism is great, but some people are down right DEstructive...every one wants more proof more prototypes more evedence, ALL the proof/evedence/prototypes have already been put out there, it's our job to improve upon those ideas and make them feasable. i don't want money or fame, i just want a better world for my kids and there kids and so on... *Permissum is fio*


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

> and that's where everyone goes wrong they try to draw too much out of the <insert device name here> and over tax it, your not going to be powering the world with a 6" magnet motor, these devices work best at a LARGE scale like to power a city i would build a magnet moter 50 feet in diamiter...BUT I just want to power 1 car.


Fair enough. But don't be fooled into thinking that energy is free if you just extract a little bit. To any extent you load the output -- even a little bit -- the input will require that much more energy (and more) to compensate.


> and what happened to the photo-voltaic paint that is used to collect power for satellites? NASA loves the stuff, they've been using it for years now... apply it to an EV and you have a nice around town never-have-to-plug-in mode of transportation...


Ah, now who's trying to draw too much our of the PV paint?  You do realize that most communications satellites run on less than 300 watts? PV paint, while it has many cool applications, isn't very efficient. You'd be lucky to go a single mile on a sunny day.

Seriously, open a physics book, learn your units, and learn the energy conversion formulas. I understand and support your determination to experiment, but wishful thinking is no substitute for basic knowledge. That's the best constructive criticism I can offer.


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

Astronomer said:


> Fair enough. But don't be fooled into thinking that energy is free if you just extract a little bit. To any extent you load the output -- even a little bit -- the input will require that much more energy (and more) to compensate.
> Ah, now who's trying to draw too much our of the PV paint?  You do realize that most communications satellites run on less than 300 watts? PV paint, while it has many cool applications, isn't very efficient. You'd be lucky to go a single mile on a sunny day.
> 
> Seriously, open a physics book, learn your units, and learn the energy conversion formulas. I understand and support your determination to experiment, but wishful thinking is no substitute for basic knowledge. That's the best constructive criticism I can offer.


olrighty see now that some real constructive criticism  but kinda missed the point, i didn't mean paint the whole car, maybe just the roof, hood and trunk, install the hi power li-ion battery of your choice, add a wind generator of some sort put solar panels on the sides, add a drive shaft generator... etc.. etc.. it's not going to be one thing that helps us further along it's going to be everything. 

and i have opened a physics book and i say there's more to it than what's in the book. the power and torq ratios of a properly constructed magnet motor have over come every build-up of magnetic flux in every simulation it's just impossible to stop a "Properly constructed" magnetic motor by JUST applying a full load on the coils. it's physics at it's best, "for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action"


----------



## grayballs (Aug 27, 2008)

'Sounds like,,, (destructive criticism),,, "It's a crock of s**t and it stinks",,, or (constructive criticism),,,, "It's strong and promotes growth"


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

FreedomVoltage
I have an open mind. Let me know when you get it built and if it works under a load, I'll be your first investor. We'll make millions and save our kids future at the same time.
But......you have to stop just talking about it and actually build this prototype car.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

Yes, by all means, please keep us posted. I'm eager to hear of your progress. If it works, I'll be your second investor.


----------



## FreedomVoltage (Jun 28, 2009)

=) well thank you, i will keep you all posted, and it would be perfect to be an investor, as i don't want any money, just your old scrap laying around in your shops.


----------



## celig2000 (Aug 17, 2009)

I've been tinkering with an EV motorcycle design. I've been trying to incorporate an alternator to prolong the battery charge. I DON'T WANT TO GET FREE ENERGY THROUGH PERPETUAL MOTION, SO DON'T GO THERE. All I'm trying to do is give a little juice back to the battery pack to get further range between charges. The problem is I can't figure out how to wire it up. Anyone have any ideas on getting the charge to the batteries? It wouldn't be a problem if they were car batteries but they're an NiMH rechargeable bank. It looks something like attatched.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

Your controller has to support regen if you are using the motor itself as the generator. Otherwise you will need a separate regulator and charger driven by your generator or alternator, if that is a separate thing from your motor.

BTW, I suggest *not* posting this question in this particular thread, because it is specifically about the perpetual motion type of question that you say you are not asking. The title might be a bit misleading in including the word "alternators", because it is not about *ALL* alternators, just usages where people are trying to get more energy back out than they put in, or using them to recharge batteries while driving down the road (rather than just during braking, which is called regenerative braking and is not uncommon). 

However, if you *are* trying to run an alternator or generator *all* the time while driving, then you might as well be asking about perpetual motion, because the energy you lose trying to run the thing will be greater (by significant amounts) than the energy you will get back from it. 

It only makes sense to use such a thing to help *stop* or *slow* the vehicle, and to *never* run it while actually driving down the road.
________
WEB SHOWS


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Whut he said! If it would work we'd all be doing it.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Heres a question or thought. All motors run on a basic principal of electro-magnetism, right?(rhetorical) All this magnetic flux surrounds the rotor and stator (or induced in the rotor)and the interacting forces create motion. We only use the forces that are directed inwards to the rotor. What about the outside of the motor, where all the flux is either wasted or absorbed into the iron. What would happen if we ran a normal ac induction motor, 115v for testing of concept, and on the outside of the motor, we place a coil of high turn, thin wire, is the voltage produced free? Or just a negligible byproduct?
Everyone, to the garage!


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

The flux is essentially a circuit. If you pull power out of it, it's pulled out of the whole circuit.

Practically, I don't know what effect it would have.

I do know that PM motors can use Halbach arrays to minimize that external field, which increases the torque available to the motor by concentrating the circuits of the flux within the core of the motor. 

If one were to design the field coils the right way, the same thing could be achieved without the magnets, more or less, I suspect, preventing leakage of that "wasted energy" in the first place.
________
PreciousDee cam


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

> Heres a question or thought. All motors run on a basic principal of electro-magnetism, right?(rhetorical) All this magnetic flux surrounds the rotor and stator (or induced in the rotor)and the interacting forces create motion. We only use the forces that are directed inwards to the rotor. What about the outside of the motor, where all the flux is either wasted or absorbed into the iron. What would happen if we ran a normal ac induction motor, 115v for testing of concept, and on the outside of the motor, we place a coil of high turn, thin wire, is the voltage produced free? Or just a negligible byproduct?


I can tell you what it would do the voltage produced in the outer coils would also create a back flux against the motor, same as a alternator or generator would. The motor would run fine until a load is drawn from the outer coils. Then the motor will lag as if it were a alternator. But this could be designed to work as regenerative braking.


----------



## Stunt Driver (May 14, 2009)

FreedomVoltage said:


> And there are no "dead spots" like in a normal single disk PM motor, there are 3 disks working together so that one magnet is always being pushed and one is always being pulled and one is in a state of beginning push cycle, so it'll never find "equilibrium" and stop movement unless you pull the armature away from the rotors.


 
Looks like you've done much thinking? Can you share some drawings or calculations you've done to prove the theory?


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Update:
Well its been over a year now and I feel it is safe to say that LeTank did succeed in his Perendev motor, but was making a few for friends and got a mysterious phone call which led back to some oil company. The remarks made were for him to shut his mouth and that he should think seriously about what future he has making such a free energy machine when it will just piss everyone else off and put so many out of work. There was more said, but you get the picture. Basically, it was a threat phone call, but enough to make LeTank sell out and move to a very remote location where he does still use his Perendev motor in silence. 

I guess its all for us to learn from, that if we do make something that others feel is a threat to their job, to industry or to the stock market or some stupid thing they feel is important to them, then if we do build it to just keep it to ourselves. Otherwise some blabber mouth out there will spill the beans even when you are trying to do them a favor. 

So live and learn I guess. 
So if you make your own, just don't say a word and enjoy the free energy.
Found this on youtube that may give you some inspiration for those who are still interested. 

PRANK VIDEO ????????????? ...

Don't let the name of the video fool you, but its very interesting and shows the principle of magnets working to create energy. 

Just thought I would pop in and let you know what happened.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

No.

What really happened is that it didnt work and he doesnt want to come on here and admit it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> I feel it is safe to say that LeTank did succeed in his Perendev motor, but was making a few for friends and got a mysterious phone call which led back to some oil company. The remarks made were for him to shut his mouth and that he should think seriously about what future he has making such a free energy machine when it will just piss everyone else off and put so many out of work.



Let's let Le-Tank come and speak for himself about this. This is so common. Words spoken third party. 


How quaint. The brother of his best friends cousins father said ............... I swear it's the truth. 

I agree with Gavin1977 on this one. 

Pete


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> Well its been over a year now and I feel it is safe to say


You "feel"? Are you merely _assuming_ this is what happened because it's been so long? Or do you actually know this to be a fact?

Edit: Also, the physics of that video have been explained numerous times on this forum. There is no free energy production being demonstrated in that video.


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> Update:
> Well its been over a year now and I feel it is safe to say that LeTank did succeed in his Perendev motor, but was making a few for friends and got a mysterious phone call which led back to some oil company.


Also, why do all these perpetual motion stories end with a threat/buyout from an oil company? Cant you use your imagination and change the record? How about something like this.

We were gathered in LeTank’s workshop to witness the 1st test of his perendev motor. After adding the final magnet we all watched in awe as the motor came to life and the 100W bulb stated to glow brightly. We all started to celebrate the success but then the bulb failed and the generator, now with no load went from 1000rpm up to 10,000 rpm almost instantly. LeTank immediately hit the emergency brake, but it was too late, with the motor already spinning in excess of 20,000 rpm the brake pads failed instantly. LeTank tried in vain to shut it down, but as the tacho passed 50k rpm the rest of us ran out of the workshop and jumped in our cars (ev of course) for a speedy getaway. We got about half a mile away when we felt the shock wave of an enormous explosion as 100Gjoules of energy vaporised everything in the area.

Now we do have the plans for LeTanks work, but after seeing the potential destructive power of the device and realised what could happen if it fell into terrorist hands, we have decided to let LeTanks free energy motor die with him.

There isn’t that more interesting than “We made a device and an oil company told us to shut up”


----------



## PHAT_pudding (Oct 8, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

see attached


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Gavin
I'm laughing so hard I can barely type.
I wanna have your baby!
Roy


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Humor is acceptable and I was also a skeptic, but just too many out there are making devices that create energy from magnetic fields without using electricity to run it -batteries not included sort of thing. 

I have been playing around with some of the concepts just in my spare time too, but its slow going since time isn't always there to work on anything by the time I get home. 

I know LeTank was a very active member of this forum and for him to just up and vanish off the forum is not like him, but I will send him an email and see if he will come and explain what happened himself or at least come back to the forum and be active again. I did like his ideas and he did have some good knowledge of other things that helped others including me. However it turned out - I give him credit for trying.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> I have been playing around with some of the concepts just in my spare time too, but its slow going since time isn't always there to work on anything by the time I get home.


You know the secret to free enegy, but do not have the spare time to build one? Wow, talking about priorities. Wow.


----------



## mnorval (Dec 10, 2009)

Look I think this will work. I know we all want it to work because someone would be extremely rich. Unlimited energy right!? What I am not is an engineer so I can not construct anything cool but I do have a thought to try out.
Stop thinking about connecting a battery to run the alternator. If you think about it you could produce a couple of watts yourself by connecting a bike to a fan wheel that connects to an alternator that produces electricity enough to light a light bulb etc. Now with that thought take 1-4 alternators connect them to something that is always moving when you drive (the wheels or the axle. Some thing that is always moving when your speeding up or slowing down. This effect is similar to the bike peddling. Now this might now produce enough energy to keep going thousands of miles but if tested what if it produced enough electricity to extend 20-30 miles before you have to recharge your batteries. I don't know the math behind it how much an alternator would produce to extend the life of your drive but of course I would like to think it would make a difference. 

This is my theory if anyone thinks it would work let me know. Stop thinking that simple stuff like this wont work and it involves perpetual motion and that that does not work either. Anything is possible in life laws of physics have been broken before so that's what I have to say about that. Keep pushing.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Ha, Thats genius!
So, what youre proposing is an alternator thats charging the batteries while being driven by a motor thats running off the same batteries?
Wont work, not at all
Set up the alts to charge during braking, as in regenerative braking. That will do a little. The drag of any charging system would use more power than it could produce. 
Read the very start of this thread.


----------



## esoneson (Sep 1, 2008)

mnorval said:


> ............... Keep pushing.



Why, I think you've got it! By Gosh, I think you've got it!!!!! Keep pushing! Why didn't I think of that? Simply get out and push when you are starting to slow down. You could go for thousands of miles without ever charging your batteries.

Where would this world be without dedicated people like yourself. 

Oh yes, when you are done pushing yours, you can come over and start pushing mine too.

Remember this, an IQ of 100 is average. 50% of the population is below that average. And there is no IQ filter on this forum. Just stating the facts, M'am.

.....keep on pushin'..........


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

mnorval said:


> Look I think this will work. .................Anything is possible in life laws of physics have been broken before so that's what I have to say about that. Keep pushing.


Did you read through this thread before you posted? I think that you need to take yourself for a ride in a wheelbarrow before you post more about this. 

Seriously, just sit down in it pick up the handles and push yourself around. After all, "anything is possible in life."

I'll watch and take notes,
Keith


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Come on guys, take it easy  Don't tell me you never pondered silly things when you were young. As a kid, I always thought that UFO's worked on the principle that there was some sort of vibrational frequency which counteracted gravity. I was pondering of building a saucer out of paper and putting a large speaker inside and playing different tones... of course I was too small to actually be able to do it. 

Mnorval, I have one suggestion. You need to realize that there are incredibly, incredibly intelligent people in this world. And most people do "keep pushing" without your encouragement. To be able to compete with them, you have to hit the books and educate yourself as much as possible. Knowledge is the key, not experimenting on a personal hypothesis or theory, because chances are, someone's already tried your experiment before and you'd be wise to learn from other's mistakes/experiments and not waste your time re-doing it. 

And no, the laws of physics haven't been broken before. The only exception was Einstein modifying the law of gravity because that law was incomplete, although not innacurate.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

mnorval,

Sorry if I came off a bit heavy there. I just think that your first post should be an introduction. I also think that everyone who joins should take the time to read at least a bit of what was posted in a thread before replying to it.

I was on this forum when this 38 page thread was started. You just challenged us to "think outside the box" with the same idea that the original poster did. 

Keith


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Mnorval
I hope you have a thick skin as the majority of responses to your suggestion here have been sarcastic and negative.

In a small defense of those criticisms, you should read more before posting an idea. This very long thread at the outset does deal with your suggestion and the reasons why it will not work with the components which you presented. 

We are all here to further our knowledge of electricity as it applies to conversions or creations of Electric Vehicles. In that spirit, I try to keep an open mind to all ideas remembering that in a debate there is nothing to be gained by silencing the other man.

Fear of criticism, however, should never handicap thinking and knowledge of the existing Laws of Physics should not prevent experimentation. I ask all here to recall to story of Bardeen & Brattain at Bell Labs in 1947.

These two scientists were working with Germanian Crystals and discovered quite by accident that voltage applied to these crystals resulted in magnification. The output voltage exceeded the input voltage by a measurable amount. This of course defied the know physical laws of Conservation of Energy with which the two scientists were quite familiar.
They were also well aware that a claim of "Overunity" would subject them and their employer to a barage of criticism and ridicule by the scientific community. 
But they could not deny the evidence before them and despite repeated attempts to prove their initial results false, the crystals continued to produce extra voltage. After months of testing they finally submitted their results to their supervisor, a scientist named William Shockley. 

Shockley did not reject the results out of hand but continued to work with Bardeen & Brattain to explain their curious findings. 
For scientific reasons which I don't pretend to understand, Shockley was able to make their findings conform with rather than defy the Conservation Laws of Energy and his work gave rise to the modern Transistor for which he claimed the credit.

So my point is that even though an idea might seem on the surface to break the known Laws of Physics, we should not summarily reject it without further investigation. 

Mnroval, your idea has been tested and doesn't work but....don't stop
investigating new possibilities.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Just to point out, voltage by itself isn't energy. A microwave has a transformer which converts the standart 110 volt AC into thousands of volts and it certainly doesn't break any laws of physics. 

Thinking outside of the box is a good term but I think it's overused nowadays. This is life and we do live in a metaphorical box. Unless you're a particle physicist, I would suggest you stray away from trying to find "free" energy as it'll be a waste of your effort and time. But by all means, if you're still young and eager, study hard and become a particle physicist...


----------



## _GonZo_ (Mar 23, 2009)

> Fear of criticism, however, should never handicap thinking and knowledge of the existing Laws of Physics should not prevent experimentation


Nice phrase.


----------



## mnorval (Dec 10, 2009)

Well first of all I did read a lot off this thread. And I kinda like the hard criticism. It's always funny to hear what people have to say so it does not hurt my feelings. 
One thing about if people could do it then why are they not doing it right now? Well is that not obvious? There is always someone who stops the process. For example and I do not recall any information of where this came from maybe who killed the electric car DVD. There is a man who is an inventor and created something that could change the industry had something to do with battery life extension maybe he built a better battery. Well when big companies like Car and Oil companies catch wind and are threatened things like this die. The life of a battery will always be less than expected because it takes so much energy to make movement. 
My true thoughts about this who thing. We will probably never figure out how to do this. Regen braking, shock obsorb recharging, whatever we come up with will never be enough. So my goal is to eliminate foreign oil out of the picture. The toyota prius is the best concept to take. Have a battery that is recharged by an engine. But we are trying to eliminate a bad byproduct of the gas engine. So this might sound far fetched even though people are already doing this to some extent is take the concept from gas prius and use a diesel gen. Well then you are using dirty diesel right? Instead of that start using WVO straight WVO one man is actually using used rice oil from his restaurant. Now I know this has nothing to do with free energy but at least you will get extended range with no pollution and is could all run off the batteries in the end.

Thanks

MNorval


----------



## tazdotnet (Apr 9, 2008)

but i do get free energy! i have a trailer hooked to the back of my bike that i ride in, i make the neighbor kid ride the bike and since i don't pay for his food it's free energy!... LOL


----------



## kennyterrell (Dec 27, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Unlimited Mileage! I designed and patented an electrical system for full sized vehicles. Almost like doing a conversion. The system basically works by hot swapping battery packs, and using a custom generator to power the drive train not the batteries. At any rate I’m still trying to get funding to build the prototype. I've noticed that when explaining the system, mentioning unlimited mileage doesn’t help to sell the idea. Go figure.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well it's because we all know that there is no such thing as unlimited milage. Even the uneducated know that! 


Damn another one to bite the dust ;0


----------



## kennyterrell (Dec 27, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I agree with you almost entirely with the exception that being Unlimited can't be done when component failure is equated into it. What I mean is even if a system was devised to operate in such a manner. The world doesn’t have the material technologies available that could sustain a system that could operate 24/7 for years without eventually breaking. HA!


----------



## kennyterrell (Dec 27, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The vehicle we are building has limitations due in part of component endurance. We have figure out a way to keep the system cycling without breaking voltage, or power output for a drivetrain. 500 miles will be nothting. The question is how long could you drive before YOU need to rest? How far you wanna go is not matter of factual. But hey guard your IP and dont help the little guys. how bout the little guys dong want your IP how bout they might be trying to help out the industry by bringing a technology to it that may change every thing.... anyway.....just venting...mybad.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

SamsonReen is a spammer. Originally all his posts had "happy new year" for the signature, and now is a link to car insurance.
________
Live sex webshows


----------



## GT2 (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I'll start by saying this is my first post, and most everyone here is way smarter than I.
I have been a metal fabricator / tinkerer / mechanic all my life but electronics, math, and physics are not my strong suite.

Wow, I just read thru this entire thread ( well I skimmed the HHO suffering and the metal strip section as well), took two days.

I would like to visit a couple ideas about simple things to help extend range or usefullness.

1st. 
The energy expended pushing the nose ( bumper, grill, headlights, hood, etc.) of the car thru the air is lost. 
Lets call this "nose" area the "wasted energy envelope" or "WEE".
Does it make sense that any type of aero generating device put in this area would not take up any more energy to operate? Well at worst maybe a little more because of altering air flow around the "WEE"?
It seems to me that you could put a small prop'ed PMA in the radiator area and use it to power the acc's. 
Looking at the specs of the PMA's on LeTanks link, they seem to have a fairly strong output, and may be suited for this.

2nd.
The "generating shocks" got me thinking about a different angle. How about a push rod connected to a suspension arm that would actuate a ratcheting mechanism turning a light weight flywheel tied to a PMA?

If I dont get completely shot down on these ideas I can expand.

Also does anyone know how I can make the thread go to the last post I read?
Thanks, Tim


----------



## gss99 (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

has anyone tried stuffing as many A123 batteries as they can into a car? Maybe $20,000 worth? What kind of range would that get?

I got a 1996 Kia with only 1100 kg curb weight. Imagine if I stuffed $20,000 worth of A123's in it. I'd probably get some good mileage. Wouldn't I? Those old Kia Sephias are very light cars.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Note to Mods - I originally put this answer on another thread sorry for duplicating

Here's my 2 cents to this question 

(sorry I'm trolling a bit - haven't read the thread in its entirety)

All quotes from Wiki - 

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

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

Isolated System
In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with a open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.
*Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality* (except perhaps for the universe as a whole), because, for example, there is always gravity between a system with mass and masses elsewhere. However, real systems may behave nearly as an isolated system for finite (possibly very long) times. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V8's and V12's shut down half their cylinders when in cruise control (apparently) and they save pertrol. So surely an electric car with less frictional losses (no engine) would also save power.Surely this principle could be used as as an automated range extender for freeway driving.

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


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Cheers Gottdi

But surely the car itself has built momentum and is in fact acting as a fly wheel. So why can't you tap that back to extend your range.

I realise you understand the PWM but the controller doesn't take into account momentum or air drag - its not programmed too. There could be a sweet spot where frontal air drag is at its least but forward momentum is considerable enough to overcome this allowing you to switch off power?


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Pi3141 said:


> Cheers Gottdi
> 
> But surely the car itself has built momentum and is in fact acting as a fly wheel. So why can't you tap that back to extend your range.


You are.... by not instantly stopping. Momentum = innertia = keep going untill something exerts a force on you. Realize that these forces we're talking about aren't so small such that we can't detect them. A car going 50mph will be pushed back by air at about 17 killowats of energy (based on numbers I've read on this forum) so you'd need to exert 17 killowats, or 22hp towards forward momentum to maintain your speed.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

icec0o1 said:


> A car going 50mph will be pushed back by air at about 17 killowats of energy (based on numbers I've read on this forum) so you'd need to exert 17 killowats, or 22hp towards forward momentum to maintain your speed.


Thanks Icec0o1, I realise this is the logical explanation, the force acting is equal too the opposite force, but surely this isn't always true. If it were then Tesla coils would not have been providing line scanning in our TV's for last X number of years. Tesla's principle and the applied science seems to suggest, if you time it just right then the momentum contributes to the force in the sytem and you gain energy.

Too be completely honest here I am drawing on the work of Tesla and two others - John Bedini and Nassim Haramein. Bedini's idea was tried out on a mythbusters episode about free energy but I think their experiment was flawed. Nassim is a fairly new on the scene and in his videos are available online where he explained about the law of conservation of energy only applying to an isolated system, which don't actually exist. The law of conservation of energy is therefore a tool for modelling systems but not neccessarily empirical for all systems. As an electronic engineer I know about the existence of line scan transformers and their theory of operation. Other reading has lead to my understanding of Tesla coils. I am simplifing Bedini's work but it is my interperation and understanding of his work that I am presenting.

As a footnote, the frontal drag only takes into account the wind resistance due to size of frontal area. But the vehicle contains mass and therefore weight and I am asking if this weight would overcome air drag for a short period. (I think)


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Pi3141 said:


> If it were then Tesla coils would not have been providing line scanning in our TV's for last X number of years.


If Tesla invented a device to create energy, we wouldn't be running cars on oil right now.


----------



## Stunt Driver (May 14, 2009)

There was one man, referenced to in books, who could bring free energy into this world, converting it to materia, but he hasn't been seen for last 2010 years.

That is why i'm a bit in doubt when some one on internet claims he can repeat this miracle.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Hi Gottdi

Sorry for not responding last night but unbeliveably afetr my last post I went downstairs and found some one had come into my house through the back door, stolen mobile phones, wallet and wifes handbag, took the keys to my Lotus and main car and driven the car (not Lotus) off! I literaly must have disturbed them. I found my wallet and wifes handbag outside the door, stuff I was taking to the dump which was in the boot of my car on the drive and my garage door half open! I obviously called the police and they discovered whoever it was tried to get in to nexxt door as well. Thankfully someone found my wifes purse up the road and we've got that back - minus small change but credit cards etc are still in it!

Waiting for locksmith now to change locks as front door keys are missing and so are my keys for the Lotus, but thats still in the garage. Unbelievable!!

Anyway, Gottdi, quickly reading through your post and you may have misunderstood - I am not (initially) saying to generate while you drive, merely that by turning off the power to the motor you can coast and then re apply power to maintain speed. Think of it like a childs swing, it takes a lot of effort to get going but once you are going it takes a small push at the right time to maintain momentum of the swing.

Tesla new this principle and did indeed utilise it to design his famous Tesla coils which we use today - line scan transformers being one application. Hence, I feel it is proven concept.

Hi icec0o1, I'm not suggesting Tesla invented a device to create energy, although many die hard Tesla fans will tell you he did, I am just saying he discovered and utilised a principle in building his Tesla coils which are very well documented to work perfectly and utilised in many applications today which works on the principle I describe.

Also, please note the American engineer called John Bedini who builds high end amplifiers and CD palyers, designed the Bedini Audio Spectral Enhancer, designed the B.A.S.E sound system used at Glastonbury festival and used by radio stations and he also is the engineer who laid out the CD data structure format as well as holding many other patents. The idea I present is really his but it is not well known. Both Bedini and Tesla are far more competent engineers than I am and they say it can be done and the Tesla coil is a reality used in modern technology so therefore a proven principle.

Hi stuntdriver - lol, ok point taken, but as I just explained above, its not my idea, its the idea of a man who revolutionised electricity by inventing/discovering the AC electrical system we use today, has the Tesla units of magnetism named after him and whose invention of a Tesla coil to produce extremely high voltage is replicated by many amateur engineers and inventors all over the world - it is a proven principle.

Again, I am not saying (yet - but Bedini is) that it is easily possible to generate whilst you drive and get more out than in (I beleive it is however) I am merely saying that these principles should be able to help extend range on freeway driving.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

What is a "line scan transformer"? I tried googling it but nothing. Can you explain it in more detail and where you read/heard it?


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

icec0o1 said:


> What is a "line scan transformer"? I tried googling it but nothing. Can you explain it in more detail and where you read/heard it?


Try "flyback transformer".

Pi3141, when you cut off the drive power to the car, it doesn't maintain its driven speed for even a split second... it starts slowing down right away, so the only way to maintain speed is to maintain the motor drive at the power level required to overcome air drag. The PWM pulsing that the motor controller applies just regulates the power with minimal loss. 

The only possible applicability of Tesla's ideas is that when the PWM pulse ends, the inductive nature of the motor windings causes the current to lag the voltage drop, and that in turn can cause a flyback spike unless you have capacitance or a big snubber diode in the circuit that can absorb the current. Using a resonant capacitance could in fact store some of the energy that would otherwise be lost, and if you can return that energy to the circuit when the next PWM pulse starts then you improve the efficiency. BUT the efficiency of the circuit can never equal or exceed 100 percent, on a power basis. 

I think that a lot of folks confuse power, energy, and voltage... and that opens the door for apparent violations of conservation laws.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

In pulse circuits (or pulsed applied power, etc,) it's important to look at more than the amplitude or duration of the pulses. If you look at just the duration, it's easy to say, "Hey, pulsing at 20% duty cycle, I got to work just as quickly, so I'm saving energy!"

You have to look at the integral, or area under the pulses. This is the actual energy required. You'll find that the pulses will need to be of sufficient amplitude so that the area under them is equal to or greater than the area under a steady line in order to do the same amount of work. So you're not saving anything by doing this, and, as Pete has said, you're probably losing. This is just as true of a Tesla coil as it is of a car on a highway.

Also, as far as isolated systems go, while it's true that it's difficult to find a truly isolated system, unless every trip you take is downhill, you'll find that the net energy input into your system will impede, rather than increase, your performance.

The Universe stacks the deck against us.


----------



## Stunt Driver (May 14, 2009)

Pi3141 said:


> I am merely saying that these principles should be able to help extend range on freeway driving.


that is called - increasing efficiency of electric motor. The most you can get is ~100%, when no elergy is lost to heat the windings or to sparks.

However, unless you are driving in no-air world - there will be air drag, and for the normal car moving at steady speed - it accounts for 70-80% of energy used to maintain speed. That is why Aptera is going to be so efficient - it's airdrag is minimal


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Hi again,
sorry for the delay in responding, had a lot to sort out yesterday and went driving around with a neighbour last night looking for my car at the local dumping spots. No luck.

Anyway, 
TigerNut, yes Flyback Transformer is the correct term although they are also referred too as line scan transformers. You say when you cut power the car doesn't maintain speed for even a split second - really, that seems unlikely unless the friction and air drag are massive. I would have thought a body in motion would develop enough momentum to maintain speed for a short duration - I guess that depends on speed and frontal size. However, I have not built an EV so I really am only suggesting this design for you guys to consider. Like I said the theory comes from Bedini (and to an extent Tesla) I'm only interperating or modifying the idea for use in EV.

Please nobody make to much of the Tesla coil analogy - it is just an analogy as to why this idea seems to me to be possible. Tesla was basically saying a short nudge at the right time would maintain momentum. This seems logical.

Astronomer, thank you, I understand what your saying, however is there no possibility that shorter duration higher amplitude pulses would be equal to a steady line of power? If it was timed and measured properly could you not get the same amount of work from both set ups? This being the case I do not see why there would not be a short duration of time where the momentun of the car continues the forward motion - even for a short duration. This would obviuosly be applicable to a car with low frontal area and not say a truck on a windy day where obviously the air drag would have huge effect. You say by doing this (as Pete said) you would 'probably' be losing - so it has not been confirmed by tests? I beleive there are drivers who think by modulating their gas pedal on and off they do extend range. As I stated before I also have heard that some V series cars shutdown petrol to half their cylinders at certain speeds to conserve petrol but that the reamining half are sufficient to maintain speed, I accept that in those cylinders are probably taking slightly more petrol than when all cylinders are firing but it seems there is still an overall saving in petrol - so how does that work and why will it not work for EV's?

Stuntdriver, I had not hear of Aptera, just had a quick look and it looks great, that would be the type of vehicle I would have thought this idea of pulsing would work very well on due to low air drag. I realise you will not get more than 100% out, I am just thinking that it should be possible to extend range on freeway driving by being more efficient as is the case with V8's shutting down cylinders (not sure where I read that) etc. However as stated before Bedini seems to be getting more out, however, that is a motor with a circular flywheel bolted on the end of the shaft and as such there is minimal/virtually no air drag to the flywheel and may well explain why it works.

I have attached a diagram of the Bedini idea from a website 

Here is a link to the page it was taken from - 

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/bearden.html


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

Pi3141
1st, The claims of that website, along with Stan Myers and all the others are bogus and fraudsters. What they are saying is NOT POSSIBLE in this universe. It has nothing to do with oil companies or governments or any other conspiracies.

2nd Listen to the people giving you advice here. There are some extremely skilled engineers here who know what they are talking about.

A V12 may well save fuel by switching off 1/2 its cylinders, but that is a horribly inefficient ICE. We are talking highly efficient electric motors here, with efficiencies of +90%.

In an ideal world, if you ignored all the losses in the electrical system, then yes pulsing the motor would use the same amount of energy as having it run continuously. But thats it, it would be THE SAME energy, not less. Now onto reality, as soon as you start pulsing it, you start drawing LARGE currents out of your batteries, so your I2R losses increase, the puekert affect on the batteries increase, the mechanical wear on the motor increases.

I suppose the best way of comparing your V12 scenario would be if you had two electric motors for acceleration, then when cruising, you disengaged and switched one off. That might save you a tiny bit. (Or it might not, motor efficiencies at different loads is not my strong point)


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

> This being the case I do not see why there would not be a short duration of time where the momentun of the car continues the forward motion - even for a short duration. This would obviuosly be applicable to a car with low frontal area and not say a truck on a windy day where obviously the air drag would have huge effect.


You have to appreciate that the rules are the same for an Aptera as they are for a semitrailer. Momentum is the product of velocity and mass, kinetic energy is the product of mass and the square of velocity. Drag is a force that is the product of the drag coefficient times the frontal area. That force, acting over the distance traveled by the vehicle, bleeds off the kinetic energy of the car.

For an Aptera, the mass is low, so even at highway speeds, it doesn't have that much kinetic energy. On the other hand, the drag coefficient and frontal area are very small, so it will be able to coast for a long time - but it will still be losing energy from the instant you let off the throttle.

For a semi-trailer truck, the frontal area and the drag coefficient are large, but the mass is huge, so once you get one up to speed it will coast for a long time despite the drag.

As to the electrical side of it: In the link you referenced, they state that they "charged 12, 12 volt batteries to a potential of 14 volts" from the one 12 volt battery that was discharged from 12.5 to 9.5 volts in the process. However, what they don't say is how much energy they got out of the first set of batteries in the process, and that is the critical thing. Anyone that repeats this experiment with truly rigorous instrumentation, will see that the batteries that were charged by the "magneto generator" cannot in fact deliver more energy than was pulled out of the primary 12 volt battery in the process of charging them.

If it was truly the high-voltage pulsing that produced some magical effect on the cell chemistry, then we could do away with the mechanical components and just build a pulse generator, driving an inductor, similar to what you could do with parts from an automotive ignition system. When the current from the primary battery is shut off, you can easily generate 60 to 100 volts on the inductor output, and you can dump that into the secondary battery. This scheme would let you charge a high-voltage battery pack from a low-voltage battery, but careful accounting of the current, voltage, and pulse widths will show you that the energy put into the second battery is less than the energy removed from the first battery.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Gavin1977 said:


> Pi3141
> 2nd Listen to the people giving you advice here. There are some extremely skilled engineers here who know what they are talking about.


Hi Gavin, I am listening to the people on here and I do agree there are skilled engineers here who do indeed know their stuff. But there's the rub, Bedini is also a skilled engineer and I am listening/reading the stuff he's put out too. Like I said I am only presenting an opinion and to an extent an interpretation of his ideas. 

Here's a link to Bedini's amplifier website in case nobody here has found it - http://www.bedini.com/

He's advertising 33 years of audio excellence and if you look at the B.A.S.E page you will find the info and all the studio's and radio stations currently using it. I take that sort of thing as a big sign, this man Bedini is not an idiot and his audio inventions are currently being used by major companies. As well as every audio CD you play having the data structure as laid out by him. I find it difficult to accept that such a successful engineer would ruin his reputation by perpetuating a free energy scam - just doesn't seem likely to me.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Here's a quote from one of Bedini's patents (6392370, column 5, line 37):


> It is well known in the art that changing the voltage alone creates a back EMF and requires no work. This is because to change the potential energy does not require changing the form of that potential energy, but only its magnitude. Work is rigorously the changing of the form of energy. Therefore, as long as the form of the potential energy is not changed, the magnitude can be changed without having to perform work in the process. The motor of the present invention takes advantage of this permissible operation to create back EMF asymmetrically, and thereby change its own usable available potential energy.


Whoa! That is some serious bafflegab. It goes on for a while longer until he eventually invokes (no, sorry, "evokes") the recruitment of "vacuum energy flow" that is 10^13 the applied current, and then claims you can use his motor design to get COP of 0.98... and maybe even more. Looking at the diagrams, it appears that he's using a permanent magnet in the stator assembly to attract the rotor, and then uses a timed pulse into a series stator winding to push the rotor past the equilibrium point. Since this timed pulse would have to provide a force greater than the attractive force of the permanent magnet, I find it hard to believe that this can be made self-sustaining.

The audiophile amp-designing Bedini is also marketing dual-beam crosspolarized "CD clarifiers", which are patented according to the website but I can't find a US patent description.

Somehow, no one is able to actually use his motor designs to (a) power itself or (b) power anything else, although based on what you see on YouTube, there are lots of folks trying.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Funnily enough there is nother outfit in Ireland who are doing the same thing using 'timed pulse to provide a force greater than the attractive force of the permanent magnet'

Their website is here - 

http://www.steorn.com/

And the design has been replicated here - 

http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm

J Naudin who replicated this has moved on a bit - I was reading his first experiment on it a week or so ago. He has a video showing it working but at the time was not giving any measurements. I would be interested to know what you make of Steorn or J L Naudin who goes into some detail about the Steorn motor.

So do you outright refute that using Bedini's simple design with a flywheel to store energy and the pulsing the motor while contiously charging is not possible - I hate to sound so simplistic but it looks to me that if the flywheel was of sufficient mass it would overcome the magnet forces from the generator to keep spinning. It just looks logical. It would obviously take time and energy to achieve the required speed but once up to speed seems very possible that the energy used could be recovered given enough time, provided the flywheel mass was great enough to negate the magnetic forces - why is this not possible. i.e 1 minute to spin up and then a 5 or 10 minutes pulsing. It just looks so logical. Hence I am thinking a vehicle could be the flywheel and the design adapted to EV use. I think you would need direct drive and brushless motor, preferably AC induction although Bedini uses DC motors of about 30 - 40% efficency.

It does seem strange that a man like Bedini, having patented his B.A.S.E system and obviously making some money from it would make fundamental mistakes with his motor/generator design that he hasn't corrected/realised in over 25 years. But I also have to admit its even stranger that nobody has put it to useful work in all that time if it does work.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

If you read other material attributed to Bedini, over on rex research, you will see that on the one hand he specifically denies "over unity", but he still claims that his device puts more charge into a second battery than it removes from the first - he just doesn't know how, and he says conventional instrumentation can't measure the power produced by his system. He claims the phrase "back EMF" as used in his patent was forced on him by the USPTO, because they wouldn't accept his use of "radiant energy".

The thread on rex research has other reports by people that claim that solid state devices just don't work the same as old-school electomechanical parts, permanent magnets, spark gaps, etc. and you lose the essence of the ideas that the old guys (Tesla, most often) had pioneered. Similarly, the Bedini motor/charger supposedly only works if you have two batteries and you run one down to charge the other (or multiple others). It won't apparently work if you tie the secondary output back to the primary battery, even through a suitable converter. If the circuit truly did harness some external energy then it should work in multiple different configurations that would allow direct demonstration of its ability to function without an external power source.

So yes, I will say that it is NOT possible to spin up a flywheel, and then have the flywheel deliver its angular momentum to a magnetic transducer, without the flywheel eventually coming to a halt. Further, every increment of energy given to the magnetic transducer by the flywheel will instantly slow down the flywheel, so that the change in angular momentum of the flywheel corresponds to or is slightly greater than the energy delivered to the transducer. The reverse holds true for using a magnetic transducer to impel the flywheel: Each energy pulse delivered by the transducer will instantly add momentum to the flywheel but the change in momentum will be slightly less than ideal. So going out and back from the electrical circuit to the flywheel and back to an electrical circuit gives you a net energy loss. If, as Bedini claims, the conversion somehow tuned into a vast supply of "radiant energy" and returned more current than was put in, that would be great. But if that was possible, the technology wouldn't be consigned to the dusty corners of the Internet at this point.

The Steorn stuff is different from Bedini, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what the purpose of truly canceling back EMF is, since it is that process (Lenz's law) that reduces the current into a motor when it's lightly loaded. At least Naudin has been able to replicate the Steorn principles and their motor's operation.

As far as building an electric car is concerned, this is all parlor tricks anyway - unless someone can deliver 10's or hundreds of kw in a small package using the new-fangled principles.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Thanks TigerNut, I can see you have put a lot of effort into answering my questions by taking the time and trouble to read the material I have referenced and I really appreciate that. I will not ask any more questions here.

In case you or any other EV'er are interested the Bedini battery charging technique is now in production and being built by Energenx Inc they do not claim over unity but do claim to extend the life of the battery by charging with 'Radiant Energy' they are specifically designed for electric vehicles.

Link - http://energenx.com/index.html

As for this being parlour tricks until someone develops a useable system in a small package that outputs signigicant more than is input, I agree. But just such a device has been built (apparently) and replicated by others. A patent has been awarded but it is not easy to replicate the device and hence still is at this stage a novelty.

That device is here - http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm

It apparently puts out 100 times more energy than is input and is the size of a small transformer and does indeed use the 'new-fangled principles' 

There is a letter explaining its operation to the Foundations of Physics, Vol. 14., No. 1, 2001 on that website. 

Thanks to everyone else here who also has answered my questions. I really appreciate your time and patience. The internet needs forums like this where skilled engineers are prepared to discuss these things without ridiculing the person asking the question - I do not feel like anyone here has ridiculed me (joked a bit but thats cool) and I will be thinking more on the answers you have supplied me. I will also continue to watch the developments claimed by the inventors I have discussed.

I have this site in favourites and will come back to this site for its info and this discussion to see if it progresses - I'm not disapearing!

Thanks again.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Bah, it's all made up bs to take stupid investor's money. Go ahead and believe that an inventor who created free energy would put up his device on the internet instead of selling it to the chinese government or someone else for trillions of dollars.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> What is shown is nothing but a step up transformer.
> 
> I put in 12 volts and get out 120 volts. Wow what a novel idea. More energy out than put in. I can drive my car for ever with that
> 
> It it were only true and that easy.


Now now, Gotdi, lets not catty, I think you have misunderstood or misread the page - it clearly states on that page the unit has put out 100 times more power than input, your 12V to 120V remark is clearly wrong.

Perhaps you could tell these people exactly where they are going wrong? I should think they, the Physics Foundation and the Patent Office would all be really interested to know. 

JL Naudin who has replicated the device and reports a cop of 1.75 do you think a step up transformer has that characteristic? 

JL Naudins page here - http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv2.htm

And yes I know issuance of a patent is not confirmation - but to my knowledge the patent office really don't like giving patents out to any one with a crackpot idea. They do try and check these things and there is some clever folk over there I'm sure.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Foundations of Physics
An International Journal Devoted to the Conceptual Bases and Fundamental Theories of Modern Physics

Description
The leading journal for controversial issues concerning the foundations of modern physics 
Covers all topics in physical sciences, including quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, cosmology and string theory 
Dedicated Editorial Board headed by Nobel Laureate Gerard 't Hooft 

http://www.springer.com/physics/journal/10701

The patent office are not all paper pushers - I can think of Einstein being employed by the Swiss Patent Office but your right he was just a paper pusher - didn't he push the paper on General relativity Theory?

Why are you going here? Isn't this thread dedicated to the discussion of 'possible' over unity devices?

Oh, and I did end it, but I find your remarks derogatory so thought something needed to be said. If you want to end the thread why don't you ask the moderators to remove the section? But as I said before - that would be a shame as people like myself can find people such as the ones who have answered the questions I posed seriously.

Do you really think the patent office would be fooled by a step up transformer?

Yes, you are correct that it is obviously a homemade transformer of some description - no argument there.

In the interset of fairness here's what the wiki page says - 

The US Patent Office does not grant patents to "perpetual motion machines" without a working model [5]. Because no such model was provided in this case, it must be concluded that either the patent does not imply perpetual motion, or the Patent Office did not understand the specifics of the application

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_electromagnetic_generator


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Einstein was a paper pusher. Has nothing to do with is own work. The patent office was a job to pay bills. Not really a career job now is it!


Agreed. But he was a clever paper pusher at that. Although he did state he was wrong about relativity theory and was working to correct it up until he died. So I don't believe all patent office employees are idiots. That was my point



gottdi said:


> Patent office has granted patents to all sorts of garbage that does not work. It is all in how you word your work. Slight of hand so to speak. Parlor tricks.


Also agreed 



gottdi said:


> Yes I have experienced so many dolts in my life I can assure you that there are dolts working for the patent office. Sorry but the truth is the truth.


I agree with that too, but it doesn't mean everyone who patents a device that works on unconventional means is automatically a fraudster.

Can we leave it at that?


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Pi3141 said:


> Agreed. But he was a clever paper pusher at that. Although he did state he was wrong about relativity theory and was working to correct it up until he died. So I don't believe all patent office employees are idiots. That was my point?


Just because a patent office worker doesn't think a device would work doesn't allow him to not award a pattent. A patent is awarded for uniqueness, not implementation, efficiency, workability, etc.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

Sorry for not responding earlier.


> however is there no possibility that shorter duration higher amplitude pulses would be equal to a steady line of power? If it was timed and measured properly could you not get the same amount of work from both set ups?


You absolutely CAN get the same amount of work from both setups. But there's no compelling efficiency advantage to doing it one way or the other.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Mmmmmm, no and yes. We shall see on upcoming posts.


What upcoming posts? On this thread?

I already stated - 

Thanks to everyone else here who also has answered my questions. I really appreciate your time and patience. The internet needs forums like this where skilled engineers are prepared to discuss these things without ridiculing the person asking the question... 

I thought I was being polite, thanking people for their time and ending my discussion. 

I did not realise the idea was to devolve the discussion to sacrcasm.

Guess I'll have to brush up on my forum etiquette and learn to be more sarcastic in future.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Ice
That is true.
I have a client who is a Patent Attorney and he has often told me that
a device doesn't have to work to be "Patentable" ......it just has to be different.

Roy


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Ok Gottdi, fair enough, thanks. 

I'll try not to be so sensitive in future, but I think you can see why I thought it was directed at me after you said -

'Mmmmmm, no and yes. We shall see on upcoming posts.' as a reply to me.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Astronomer said:


> Sorry for not responding earlier.
> 
> You absolutely CAN get the same amount of work from both setups. But there's no compelling efficiency advantage to doing it one way or the other.


Thanks Atronomer - thats what I thought.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

There was a demonstration in Ireland on Saturday regarding a new technology. 

Apparently the demonstration was successful but that claim obviously needs to be tested and proved true and accurate, they are stating anyone can book an appointment through their website and test the kit. 

Article link - http://www.nolanchart.com/article7327.html

Thought I'd post it in case anyone's interested.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

I don't care what side of the debate you are on..........
I found this hilarious! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRk5ea5pA5Y&feature=related


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Pi3141 said:


> There was a demonstration in Ireland on Saturday regarding a new technology.
> 
> Apparently the demonstration was successful but that claim obviously needs to be tested and proved true and accurate, they are stating anyone can book an appointment through their website and test the kit.
> 
> ...


This is retarded. Why's they trying to prove it to the masses? If it actually worked, they would market it to one or two giant firms and bring it to market. This is just to get investment from dimwits who believe in this garbage.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Voltswagen said:


> I don't care what side of the debate you are on..........
> I found this hilarious!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRk5ea5pA5Y&feature=related


Oh yes they are superb, I particulary like the one - Hitler got the wrong bike. Someone trashes his VFR and they buy him a BMW. Hilarious.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

icec0o1 said:


> This is retarded. Why's they trying to prove it to the masses? If it actually worked, they would market it to one or two giant firms and bring it to market. This is just to get investment from dimwits who believe in this garbage.


I don't know, I looked at the website and langauge they use is, well, not quite what I expected. 



> The time variant nature of Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques. The first technique utilizes a method of controlling the response time of magnetic materials to make them time variant. This is achieved by controlling the MH position of materials during permanent magnetic interactions.
> The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) from torque for electromagnetic interactions. This decoupling of CEMF allows time variant magnetic interactions in electromagnetic systems.


Plus, it seems you can only but a licence to understand the technology but they specifically state that licences are not available for 'Transportation' i.e EV use. So, it seem funny old way to introduce it.

But, they had previously hyped a demo, then 'apparently' turned up on the day and proved what they said. Either its fraud or the start of something new. It obviuously needs checking independantly and proving. 

But I thought I would post, just in cas it is the start of something.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

What would you do if you created an overunity device? Show it to everyone and tell them how it basically works? Or would you go to the biggest oil company and tell them they'll never have to get their hands dirty ever again and would be far richer.

Trust me, if a device that create free energy is ever made, it'll appear all of the sudden as a giant power station with slightly cheaper energy prices than coal burning plants and you'll have absolutely no clue as to how it works.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Pi3141 said:


> Thanks TigerNut, I can see you have put a lot of effort into answering my questions by taking the time and trouble to read the material I have referenced and I really appreciate that. I will not ask any more questions here.
> 
> In case you or any other EV'er are interested the Bedini battery charging technique is now in production and being built by Energenx Inc they do not claim over unity but do claim to extend the life of the battery by charging with 'Radiant Energy' they are specifically designed for electric vehicles.
> 
> ...


 


few2many said:


> Hey guys, gotta give credit on this one. Its one of the better ones that I've seen. Well put together. For, You know, over unity nut-jobs, that is. I'm just so use to seeing some old guy, cut off jeans, sandals and no shirt, explaining to a local reporter that this rusty motor contraption in his barn/garage is gonna solve the worlds energy problems. Of course its the nut jobs that are gonna make it work and the professional ones are just trying to rip you off. "Looking for overseas investors"
> Remember the MEG? Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Bearden? "The only working, home made prototype has been lost/destroyed by unkowns and we need hundreds of thousands invested to rebuild"! Paraphrased with sarcasm of course!


I thought the meg and its inventor, Beardon, were debunked? chinere was the overseas corp. that bought rights and is looking for more investors?
Anyone done any research? Check this out or google what happened to the motionless electromagnetic generator
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071020213706AA37xco


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Well you see, when you build up a magnetic field around a ferrite core, and then suddenly collapse that magnetic field, the resulting back emf creates a spike in that core that will appear much greater than the original input power, this over-unity produces a COP above 1.0 by drawing power from the vacuum of space-time, otherwise known as zero point energy. 
With this, you can power a stargate with enough energy to transport a matter energy stream through a wormhole to another galaxy.

What do ya think, can I sell it?


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Well its been a while again, but I hope to be back with some more ideas worth kicking around. LeTank said he would be back soon, but gave no clear indication exactly when. I felt it best to leave him alone with what ever he is doing and let him come back on his own time. 
Anyways, I am playing around with thermo-electric (Peltiers) which there has been some great advances in these cells and they look promising, but it takes a few to make some decent voltage/current. So a concept that I am working on a solar heater/Peltier included design to just recharge the batteries during the daytime since it takes little sun to make enough heat to make the Peltiers put some good energy. (It just takes about 10 larger Peltiers to get a few amps). Still in the testing process to get the best results and highest voltage and current, but will let you know which Peltiers work best when I am done in a few more weeks...even a month at tops. Patience as I am waiting for more different peltiers to come in to try out. However, the higher temp peltiers that can handle the high heat during hot days and handling being inside a solar heater is what I am working towards next and waiting for them to come in to play with.
Anyway, its a cool idea, but how far it goes and if it works for the purpose intended is still in the air, but fun at least to mess with. 
It was some other member on here that gave me this idea to work with last year, I forgot who it was to give the credit to though. 

I heard an interesting true story a few days ago, perhaps you heard it. It was about a group of scientists that thought anti-gravity couldn't be done, but the Military wanted to see if it could be done. The scientists were true believers in physics and they knew it couldn't be done. So the Military hired an actor and put the actor on a prop that made it look like he created anti-gravity and in the end it showed the man crashing and was to have died in the crash. The scientists saw the video and were told if this othe scientist (the actor) could make anti-gravity that it could be done and the military wanted the technology. Months later the scientists made a several ton object float inches off the ground and they showed it to the military and to their suprise they military also brought in the actor who was to have died in a crash. The military said if they believed it could be done and saw it could be done they would find a way to make it work and they did even though it defied everything they believed in. That point is, if we believe something cannot be done, we have that stuck in our brains and will fail everytime and we may not even try since we think we cannot make it happen. If we saw it happen, then we are more likely to try something and find a solution to make it work. Those who do not believe something cannot be done will not try because they believe it cannot be done, those who believe it can be done will find a way to make it work.

As for "unlimited mileage", I saw since the beginning of this thread that it was all about gaining mileage for our benefit and savings in the end. I think we will find even the smallest goal of 500 miles if we keep trying new ideas and somewhere along the line we may even reach twice that and it won't be some other new battery to make it happen, but rather combined ideas that work together to get the most out of every part of that car to achieve that goal. 
Almost every invention that changed the world came from a simple garage or a simple workbench in someones home, not from any company or multi-billion dollar lab.


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

HighTech-

I like the idea of Peltier coolers. I had a similar idea-

(assuming I ever climb out of debt long enough to build a decent EV, about the time the Devil opens up his new iceskating rink) 

-in which the Peltier coolers ran on a separate circuit, connecting directly to cooling fans. The idea was that the Peltiers would turn the waste heat(cooling the motor) into just enough electricity to power some fans(cooling the motor further). The system would act as its own thermostat, and eliminate the power draw from the pack instead of worrying about returning it later...

In a similar vein, i've considered having all non-motor functions on a separate pack rather than tapping the mains. This would be partly for simplicity(I am a Bear of Little Brain)...however, I do think that many currently impractical power recovery ideas might become more practical if the scale were smaller. It is widely known for example that PV panels cost too much, need too much surface area and have too low an efficiency rating for pack charging-but if you were only thinking about using PV to charge the Auxiliary pack alone, one or two cheap Ebay panels might make a decent dent in power recovery for Not Much Cost. I think the same logic would apply to recovering power from the suspension-a tiny percentage of regen would become more effective in a smaller system. What powers a Dynamo in a Bicycle won't make any difference to the Mains-but a scaled-up version(four vehicle-sized shocks) might actually make a dent in an smaller, standalone pack.

I think the biggest benefits to separate, self-contained and (where possible) self-powered systems would be the fact that the Main Pack powers the motor-and only the motor. Add in Regen options for said motor and you have partial power recovery in both Main and Aux Packs....also, you can still run your Emergency lights if the EV runs out of juice, or make it to the nearest outlet if your lights begin to dim, and charge the Aux pack up enough( in half an hour or less) enough to finish a nighttime drive...


I like your thought that true innovation comes from those who don't have the knowledge that It Can't Be Done. Mind you, that might be just wishful thinking on my part-I have all the technical expertise of a sleepy panda(can't even read a friggen' schematic yet!) so it cheers me that I might be Ignorant Enough to Succeed...



...and is likely the REAL reason I suggest simplified systems! I'm even considering a Contact-based Controller (with all of its known inefficiencies) simply because I know it's something I can fix if it breaks! So all advice from me comes with a free Bag 'o Salt...


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> I heard an interesting true story a few days ago, perhaps you heard it.


Nope, never heard it. How do you know it's true? Got any citations or references?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hi Astronomer

"heard an interesting true story a few days ago, perhaps you heard it"

I read this years ago, it was a science fiction short story - I will try to find the writer and a reference


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hi Astronomer

"heard an interesting true story a few days ago, perhaps you heard it"

I read this years ago, it was a science fiction short story - I will try to find the writer and a reference 

I can't find the reference immediately
It was a short story I think called "Belief" written in the 60s or 70s
The idea was that scientists would refuse to work on something that they thought was a waste of time so an elaborate hoax was pulled to persuade them that somebody had already invented anti-gravity 

It was one of the name writers, Brunner or Budry or even Clarke or Asimov

Definately NOT a True Story!


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Pretty sure it was Asimov. I remember it in a collection but can't recall which one, but I do remember the name was parodying another story or collection by someone else.
________
Wiki vaporizer


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Duncan and Amberwolf - Thanks for going to the trouble. As much of my youth as I spent reading Asimov and Clarke, you'd think I'd be the first one to recognize the plot.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hi
I have found "Belief" which was Asimov - but its not the right one!

I can even remember a line from the story
"anything xxxxx can do by mumbo-jumbo I can do twice as fast by X and Y and making electrons jump though hoops"
This is bugging me!


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

hello all, iv read all of the posts in this thread, now what Im going to say is NOT going to be perpetual motion because you will still have to plug in at night but, how about using a sepetate set of say SLAs to power a 3000w inverter, which could run the charger, use a dcdc converter to keep it topped off when not being used, but the idea of boosting range is not impossable, you set the system up so that when you stop, turn it on and it will charge the drive pack for how ever long you are stoped. it will not replace all the power lost during driving, but will replace some, now iv done the math and use a system like this on my car right now, and it does work, i use srperate SLAs that are scattered around the car to ballance out the weight, but all total they give me 160ah of power, and if i leave it, it will charge the battery pack fir about 3 hours, so i can either use it to replace lost power from driving, or to give a recharge when there is no outlet to use at work. and then you plug it in and recharge over night, there, not perpetuial motion but a reasonable solution to and every day problem, and I know it works, I use in every day.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

So you've got battery pack A, powering an inverter, powering a charger, charging battery pack B. The only thing it buys you (at a tremendous hit in efficiency) is that pack A doesn't have to be the same chemistry or voltage as pack B. 

If you were to augment the main drive pack with the equivalent watt-hour capacity that the "booster" battery pack had, you'd go at least twice as much further, and you wouldn't have to lug around a redundant inverter.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

well, thats correct, i did not say it was efficient, it just allows me to charge the drive pack while at work, which is a good thing, when there is no plug to charge, if I use it every time i stop to get a coke, then im just wasting the energy, but if im working, or at the mall, or at a consert that is 30 miles from where i live then i can recharge while im doing my thing, and have enough power to get home, and as far as adding more batteries i would love to, but the cost is great, so this is the next best thing, at lest for me, for a while, but believe me iv allready started collecting headway lifepos to put in the car, but i wont get stuck with a dead pack in the mean time.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

this is just a bandaid, but it does work.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

also i have 300 ahs of battery power, for the drive pack at 72v, and the inverter only needs around 150- 160ahs at 12v to give a good charge, so im using less batteries that way i just have to plug in two chargers at night. so unless i use something like the headways, to get the range that i want the car would weigh 5000lbs from all the batteries, for now i will stick with what i got, only 60 more headways to go then, BMS, then it will be good.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

billhac said:


> also i have 300 ahs of battery power, for the drive pack at 72v, and the inverter only needs around 150- 160ahs at 12v to give a good charge, so im using less batteries that way i just have to plug in two chargers at night. so unless i use something like the headways, to get the range that i want the car would weigh 5000lbs from all the batteries, for now i will stick with what i got, only 60 more headways to go then, BMS, then it will be good.


What kind of battery makes up your 72V main pack? 

I don't quite understand the numbers you're giving here. You have a 300 Ah pack at 72V, so that's 21.6 kW-h. Then, the booster pack is 160 A-h at 12V, so that's 1920 W-h. Seems to me that even if your inverter and charger were 100% efficient, the most that it could do would be to bump the charge in the main pack by 10 percent.

If your controller could handle it, and your batteries were able to be configured that way, it would be more effective to stack the 12V pack on top of the existing 72V pack. Let's say you added another 160 A-h at 12V by duplicating your booster battery, and you could have 300 A-h at 84V. Now you have 25.2 kW-h in you main pack, no loss of efficiency in the electrical conversion from the booster pack to the main pack, and because the terminal voltage is higher, you'd get more power from your motor at an equal or lower current draw. This means less I2R loss, and more range.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

look, i have 18 12v 100amp hour deepcycle batteries from sams club. you do the math, 12v x 6 batteries in series is 72v with an amp hour rating of 100ah, thats kinda simple, times that by three, it takes my 72v battery charger about 6 hours to charge the pack, and uses roughly 15 amps of ac current to operate, says my amp probe, now, my inverter is a 3000w vector inverter, for it to give up to 28 amps of ac power it draws right about the same or a little bit more of dc current, so with 160 amphours of dc power to operate it, it will run about 2hours pulling 28 amps of dc power continously, but my charger does not need 28 amps of ac power tp operate, if it did it would trip the breaker every time i plugged it in anywhere. it only needs 15 amps of ac power to operate, so the inverter only uses around the same, which means, even if i was drawing 20amps continously from the 12v 160amp hour pack it woul still run the inverter for, 4 hours, which gives me about 3/4 of a full charge, but i dont need that much power to run the inverter so, i get a 85/90% charge, each time i use it, which gets me back home every day from work, granted when i get home it needs to be recharged again, if i want to go some where else, but it will give me enough charge to get home. its hard on the batteries but thats why i went to sams club for the batteries.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

correction, for my inverter to run and draw continous 28 amps which is what its rated at, my battery pack will run it for 3 hours, not 2, says the timer, and the closed circuit camera that i used to test it with, because i could not stand ther and watch, so the camera did it for me.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Let's look at the numbers:

In six hours, your (120V?) at 15A charger pulls 1800 x 6 = 10.8kW out of your wall. Based on the label capacity of your main pack, that would replace 50% of the available energy in the pack.

Your inverter can have 3000 watts output... at 120VAC (RMS), that would be 25 amps. If, as you say, your main-pack charger limits its input current to 15 amps at 120V, then the inverter output is 1800 watts. That also means the input to the inverter has to be at least 1800 watts. From a 12V input, that would require 150 amps.

150 amps would deplete your 160 A-h booster battery in an hour or less, depending on how its capacity is actually specified. If the booster battery appears to be lasting longer than that, it's because either the inverter or the charger is backing off due to low terminal voltage on the booster battery.

You should put your current clamp meter on the DC lead from the booster battery, along with a voltmeter on its terminals, and see how much energy is actually extracted from the booster.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

look im only telling you what i know to be true, come see it for you self instead of giving me numbers that dont mean anything to me, it works for me, i only said anything because i wanted to help out, with info on how i solved the on plug at work problem, im not selling anything, and really dont care what you opnion is, it works for me, thats all that i know, end of story. and let me say one more thing, if my inverter is pulling 150 amps from the battery/s why dont it burn the #10 stranded wire that im runing it with, just let it go, it was only a sugestion I dont want you to buy anything, use it or dont, i reall dont care, one way or the other, seems everywhere you look there is more, it cants then it cans.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Hi Bill,
I looked up the Vector 3000 inverter on the web... couldn't find the manual. However, one reseller I found, recommended 4 gauge or 2 gauge wire on the battery side of the inverter. You're probably giving up some energy if you're running just 10 gauge wires.

Let's try looking at the charging situation with a beer analogy. You've got 18, 100 Amp-hour batteries. Say that's equivalent to 18 standard 12 oz. cans of beer. Then you've got your single 150 A-h booster battery. Say that's a pint can of 18 or 20 oz. How far can you refill your 18 beer cans from the one pint can, even if you assume there's no spillage? And before you say "it's not the same", let me assure you that it's exactly the same, especially because all the batteries you're carrying are lead-acid.

Last thing: You built an electric car, and that's cool. You're ahead of me, because I'm still just thinking about it. But in your quest to go further on a charge, or if you're looking at alternate battery technology, you're going to have to make sure you understand the basics of power conversion, or you'll have problems getting it to work properly and safely.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

billhac said:


> look im only telling you what i know to be true, come see it for you self instead of giving me numbers that dont mean anything to me, it works for me, i only said anything because i wanted to help out, with info on how i solved the on plug at work problem, im not selling anything, and really dont care what you opnion is, it works for me, thats all that i know, end of story. and let me say one more thing, if my inverter is pulling 150 amps from the battery/s why dont it burn the #10 stranded wire that im runing it with, just let it go, it was only a sugestion I dont want you to buy anything, use it or dont, i reall dont care, one way or the other, seems everywhere you look there is more, it cants then it cans.


Amps != energy. Volts != energy. Amps * Volts = energy.

20 amps at 12 volts DC != 20 amps 120 volts AC. It is actually 10 times less energy.


----------



## rbgrn (Jul 24, 2007)

Bill,

Forgive me for doing this but there are critical things missing in your post which explain everything, so I will extrapolate them in red for you and everyone to see.

If it's an inverter, it runs off of 12v DC input and outputs 120v AC power. I'll use those to multiply by the amps you were using to give us watts which is an actual unit of power

*Here's what you said:*
_look, i have 18 12v 100amp hour (21.6kwh) deepcycle batteries from sams club. you do the math, 12v x 6 batteries in series is 72v with an amp hour rating of 100ah, thats kinda simple, times that by three (21.6kwh), it takes my 72v battery charger about 6 hours to charge the pack, and uses roughly 15 amps of ac current to operate (6 * 15 * 120 = 10.8kwh), says my amp probe, now, my inverter is a 3000w vector inverter, for it to give up to 28 amps of ac power (It gives out 28 * 120v = 3,360watts?) it draws right about the same or a little bit more of dc current (And only draws 28 * 12v = 336watts to do it? Miracle machine!), so with 160 amphours of dc power (12v * 160ah = 1.92kwh) to operate it, it will run about 2hours pulling 28 amps of dc power continously (12v * 28a = 336 watts * 2 hours = 672wh) , but my charger does not need 28 amps of ac power tp operate (Right, because 28 amps of AC power = 28a * 120v = 3,360 watts * 2 hours = 6,720 watt-hours, 10 times as much as the DC), if it did it would trip the breaker every time i plugged it in anywhere. it only needs 15 amps of ac power to operate, so the inverter only uses around the same, which means, even if i was drawing 20amps continously from the 12v 160amp hour pack it woul still run the inverter for, 4 hours, which gives me about 3/4 of a full charge, but i dont need that much power to run the inverter so, i get a 85/90% charge, each time i use it, which gets me back home every day from work, granted when i get home it needs to be recharged again, if i want to go some where else, but it will give me enough charge to get home. its hard on the batteries but thats why i went to sams club for the batteries._

The fact of that matter is that you can't compare straight amperages. You must divide or multiply by 10 when converting from 120v to 12v like you're comparing.

1 amp on AC (120v) is the same as 10 amps on a DC 12v car battery. My guess is that you're measuring the output amperage of your inverter and not getting a good measurement of how many amps it's sucking at full load. A 3000Watt inverter should pull at least 250amps @12v input under full load.

If a device can pull 28a DC 12v (336w) and output 28a AC 120v (3,360w), it's 1000% efficient and should be able to perpetually power itself (recharge the source battery) while giving away 90% of its power as free energy. Either your readings are wrong or you bought a miracle machine and you should share it with the world. All sarcasm aside, you gotta measure power in watts. Amps or volts by themselves don't matter.

Like everyone has said, charging one battery off of another is never going to give results as good as just using both at the same time. You WILL lose power in the heat, conversions and the chemical reactions no matter how you slice it.


----------



## rbgrn (Jul 24, 2007)

Bill, please don't reply by email, those aren't visible on the forums.

You said you didn't agree with my math. Open up your inverter and look at all the fuses. Should be 12 30A fuses in there. Why do you think they put in 360 amps worth of fuses if it only needs to pull 28 amps at peak load?

Also, a 10 gauge wire isn't NEARLY big enough for that application, unless the run is just a few inches. I'd be hooking up a 2 AWG wire at less than a few feet if possible.

FYI, even the 1000 watt black and decker inverter has 4 35amp input fuses. That's 140Amps of input, which is over what it's rated to need at 85% efficiency, but still is a hell of a lot more input amps than the 8 amp output, which by the way, is what a 1000 watt inverter supplies. 8 amps at 120v = 960 watts output. Probably sucks around 1200 watts input to make that happen, so 100 amps in. 100 Amps in at 12v = 8 Amps inverted out at 120v. That's normal. Multiply these numbers by 3 and you've got your 3000 watt inverter. If it's not pulling 300 amps in, it's not putting out 3000 watts, end of story.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

There is some new technology available. Find below a you tube video link showing something about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Ahaha genious! Wow, he should've patented it... I'm about to steal his ideas!


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

What, no stochastic invenerator? No quadrastic coupling? It'll never work.


----------



## esoneson (Sep 1, 2008)

Jim,
Sounds a bit like the democrats 'splaining ObamaCare 
Eric


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

You guyz just don't appreciate the......"modial interaction of magneto reluctance".
Any service manager at an auto dealership could explain that one on your bill.

Roy


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> What, no stochastic invenerator? No quadrastic coupling? It'll never work.


 
If some ICEs can run without a muffler bearing or a caburator belt, why not?


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Wayne shaft and dangle arm, essential.
The retro encabulator was better.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*

I must note I agree with you that perpetual motion systems are the venue of hyperbole.
However, I use an automotive alternator to maintain the charge in the 12 v. aux. battery. I drive it from the front of the main motor via a belt and pulley system. I also power the air conditioner compressor and a vacuum pump to provide power brake boost, from the same belt. I have a cutout switch to cut the air conditioner compressor off as well as the alternator when pulling up hills. The main drive motor is more efficient than small motors for vacuum pump power, air conditioner compressor power and the alternator is free with the glider or only $30 used and that is better than a DC/DC for charging the Aux. 12 V. battery. and don't tell me I am shortening the range because the DC/DC and motors for vacuum pump and AC compressor use more pack power because the little motors are less efficient and anytime one slows down or drives downhill the energy comes from regeneration not the pack. and on level driving or uphill the same load or slightly less is drawn from the pack because the main drive motor is slightly more efficient than the small motors for accessories or the DC/DC. So there is my two cents worth.


----------



## jackbauer (Jan 12, 2008)

Anyone seen this:
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/what/

?


----------



## umurali2000 (May 3, 2010)

This idea is same as series hybrid system .... ultimately we have to use some fuel to move the primemover


----------



## Crawdaddy (Apr 6, 2010)

What's the deal w/ this surge technology?
<Sorry if it's been covered- I did a main search and didn't see anything, so I didn't look through all 46 pages of this post>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt5z8L4LBJE&feature=related


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

*Sanyo EV Travels 624 Miles on One Charge*

Here is something I like to see. However, what type or size lithium batteries did they use?
I just want to get 150 miles out of my SUV, even if I have to do some heavy chopping to lose some weight. Or if I have to,
find a smaller donor car. This is what I have been waiting to see, I know the Mira was listed earlier last year, but this is on 
the record for hitting the 624 mile mark. Is this old news to you or is it something new that brings new light to the range of
a lithium battery pack?

Sanyo EV Travels 624 Miles on One Charge

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/05/sanyo-ev-travels-624-miles-on-a-single-charge/

Oh, about the Peltier. We ordered two a while back, we hooked one of the lower rated power ones up (think it was the 55 watt) and got it up to 230 degrees which we got 1.7 amps out of it. Then upon not paying attention, we overheated it and melted the bismuth wafers inside it and killed it. haha
But it did work, for a few minutes till we turned it into a paper weight.
The other one went into running a fan on top of a stove to circulate the hot air around his house. That was a 100 watt peltier I believe and it still works, well it was last time I went there a few weeks ago.
I never got back around to ordering the 130 watt peltier, just still trying to imagine paying $120 bucks for a peltier that might just be another fun project. Perhaps if I get some extra cash (maybe my tax return) then I will buy one and see what it will do. For now, that is on hold.
I am more interested in getting better batteries, lithium is looking good right now.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The great mileage was because they were driving at 25-30mph the whole time...still great accomplishment...just needs an asterisk...

about the thermoelectric....car metal exteriors can get easily over 100 degrees or get to freezing temperatures...there has GOT to be a good way to harness that energy...


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bowser330 said:


> The great mileage was because they were driving at 25-30mph the whole time...still great accomplishment...just needs an asterisk...
> 
> about the thermoelectric....car metal exteriors can get easily over 100 degrees or get to freezing temperatures...there has GOT to be a good way to harness that energy...


I agree, the peltier idea is great as long as I can get up enough to get about a dozen 120+ watt peltiers that are the high temp ones, they also have the high performance ones too. (Didn't try those yet.) 
So my original idea spurred from the idea of taking a peltier of small wattage and running a good sized computer fan to spin the heat around the room from my fireplace since I am off the grid. Then I saw another fella had a solar heater on his green house and it was putting out over 120 degrees (4 foot by 4 foot wooden box with coffee cans painted black going in rows connected with sewer line) and the heat was heating a 20 foot by 30 foot greenhouse in the dead of winter. Then I thought, wow, if I built a solar heater box for the top of my car (it didn't weigh much) I could put peltiers in the bottom of the solar heater and turn that heat into energy to just throw a few amps in my batteries during the day while shopping or as it sits in my driveway. Then a few hours before I want to go somewhere I can see how much it charged and any extra charge I just start my generator and finish charging the batteries and top them off before going somewhere. A preplanned event of course, but it always is with an EV.
Since I have about 7 months of winter weather, even spring is like winter, I figured the solar heater would work best as it works even in low light and in winter to give off a lot of heat. 

Anyway, that is on hold till I get some money or the tax refund comes. 
I will buy what I can for now until I get a dozen or so.
I don't expect a lot, but when off the grid anything helps.
My hopes are for about 4 amps each off the 130 watt-18 volt peltiers which are rated at 13,8 amps. A dozen will sure help with the load.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Two things to ponder:

Peltiers work by temperature differential, so you'd need to have the backside of them cooler than the front, if drawing power from them. (if you supply power to them they do this on their own). Bigger the differential the more power you get. What temperature is the roof of the car underneath them going to be, given the glass greenhouse of the passenger compartment just beneath it? 


Unless the solar collection box on the roof of the vehicle is removable, so that it is not there while driving, it would need to be made very aerodynamic, or you will lose more power moving it around than you will get out of it, most likely. 


What you *could* do instead is mount the peltiers directly to the roof metal inside the passenger compartment, above the insulation. Then put heatsinks on the bottom side that protrude into the passenger compartment to try to create a larger heat differential. Anytime the passenger compartment is kept chilled by air conditioning, it will be even more effective.

If you could paint the top of the car matte black at the spots the peltiers are, and perhaps a bit around them, it would increase their heat reception even more. Just don't do it to the whole roof or the car will probably get a lot hotter inside.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Good thing to bring up Amberwolf. I think the box at a 45 degree angle would work to create less drag. I still think it will be a trial and error process in trying to find a way to cool the back side of the peltiers properly and with the most efficiency. Maybe a vented lower area of the box where the heat sinks are would help, but on a hot day its a catch and go sort of thing.
However, still looking at materials that may help in keeping it cooler as well and blocking heat from going in, which the solar blankets do or might work and are not very expensive.I guess for the trial I may go with some peltiers off ebay which are only a few dollars each. Found some electronic outlets that had a vew cheap ones too. Guess I should get some of those and do the trial and error process with them since it will be far less money. 

I am still poking around youtube for some more ideas as well for what to use as a good heat sink, but one guy used a cast iron frying pan (two bolted together) and he could put it on a fire and get electricity to run his little motor, which the other side of the frying pan was seemingly still doing its job with the heat of the fire around it. Interesting. So I am also still looking at these different cooling avenues. 

I don't think I would have the cool side of the peltiers inside the car though, I like having my car structurally sound (in case of roll over or accident) and the heat sinks will surely cause condensation inside the car as well, which would drip on my head and drive me nuts. haha
That is unless I wanted to collect the water collected from the air and filter and drink it, like a ozmosis peltier water collector and purifier system they sell for 1800 dollars. haha.


----------



## GT2 (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> Good thing to bring up Amberwolf. I think the box at a 45 degree angle would work to create less drag. I still think it will be a trial and error process in trying to find a way to cool the back side of the peltiers properly and with the most efficiency. Maybe a vented lower area of the box where the heat sinks are would help, but on a hot day its a catch and go sort of thing.
> However, still looking at materials that may help in keeping it cooler as well and blocking heat from going in, which the solar blankets do or might work and are not very expensive.I guess for the trial I may go with some peltiers off ebay which are only a few dollars each. Found some electronic outlets that had a vew cheap ones too. Guess I should get some of those and do the trial and error process with them since it will be far less money.
> 
> I am still poking around youtube for some more ideas as well for what to use as a good heat sink, but one guy used a cast iron frying pan (two bolted together) and he could put it on a fire and get electricity to run his little motor, which the other side of the frying pan was seemingly still doing its job with the heat of the fire around it. Interesting. So I am also still looking at these different cooling avenues.
> ...


If you have a sedan or notch back vehicle maybe you could put your test box on the trunk. That way its out of the air stream a little.
More permanent, you could recess a box into the trunk lid with a lexan cover. Have a divider near the bottom that the peltiers mount into, then pump cooling air with duct hoses into the bottom of the box to cool.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> I guess for the trial I may go with some peltiers off ebay which are only a few dollars each. Found some electronic outlets that had a vew cheap ones too. Guess I should get some of those and do the trial and error process with them since it will be far less money.


Look around at surplus outlets; lots of times you see old cpu cooler systems with small 10-20w peltiers you could use, sometimes for only a couple bucks each, less if you buy lots. I don't know which models, but sometimes servers meant for compact spaces have used them for early-generation versions of some CPUs that were really inefficient and made lots of waste heat, and sometimes you can get a pallet full of servers for really cheap. Pull the parts you want and ebay or craigslist the rest, or even sell them back to the place you get them from, as separate parts lots.  Might even turn a profit.

They're also used in those small powered coolers, some with a switch to turn them into warmers.



> That is unless I wanted to collect the water collected from the air and filter and drink it, like a ozmosis peltier water collector and purifier system they sell for 1800 dollars. haha.


Bottle it and sell it as Peltier Fresh Green-Made Pure Condensed Water; even better than Perrier because it doesn't have that annoying fizz.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Of if you have a pickup then put a large solar heater in the back filled with peltiers. Guess either way works. Has anyone heard of or has looked into Hadronic Mechanics? It has been around since 1990 and I believe it truly puts the out dated physics out of the textbooks. Still wondering why they have not applied that new material (proven and researched by many scientists and scientific organizations) into textbooks as the new generation will have to deal with things in the near future. Just a little info about it and the major contributor behind it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli Some of the various papers. http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Santilli_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 Various books and Journals on Hadronic Mechanics http://www.hadronicpress.com/ But you really have to get his book or a few of them to understand it all, but its absolutely great stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2010)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Frantargarbulator theory says you have to manufacture them, not process them. The cost is too great. The ideas were tossed out long ago. Very impractical. Electricity is far easier and the former is still within the boundaries of modern physics. That is why physics is still in our science books.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> It has been around since 1990 and I believe it truly puts the out dated physics out of the textbooks.


And you know this because you've read a number of physics textbooks?


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Astronomer said:


> And you know this because you've read a number of physics textbooks?


Well yes it is my point of view, but if you like you can teach your children the old news, I will pass on the new. haha 

Astronomer, you should look at the material, I am sure you will be intrigued and gleefully happy reading it. Or maybe not. haha

I think its the best thing since 7-up. 

What it basically does is explain why you can get more out than you are putting in. Such as a drop of fuel when ignited can put out more than the energy it had just sitting there as fuel. Why a magnet the size of a quarter can pick up 20 times its own weight, why a small volume of gas can put out a massive amount of energy, and why even an atom can put out over 300,000 times its own energy. The list goes on. It explains so much more than just the physics you learn today in schools or in the out dated textbooks that also puts theory to the test, evaluates it and explores the different kinds of endless energy created from magnetism. That doesn't even give it full credit to what it all explains, just research it and see for yourself. Not twisting your arm to do anything, but just if you are curious.

Those old die hards who refuse to let the old textbooks be changed (I think the worship the old text of physics) simply call it Fringe Science, but cannot discredit it.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



HighTech said:


> Astronomer, you should look at the material, I am sure you will be intrigued and gleefully happy reading it. Or maybe not. haha


I've read the material. Thank you for the links. It's very intriguing, but not at all convincing. Too much hand-waving, too many unexplained new terms, and not enough distinction between units of power, energy, work, and force.



> What it basically does is explain why you can get more out than you are putting in. Such as a drop of fuel when ignited can put out more than the energy it had just sitting there as fuel. Why a magnet the size of a quarter can pick up 20 times its own weight, why a small volume of gas can put out a massive amount of energy, and why even an atom can put out over 300,000 times its own energy. The list goes on.


None of the examples you give demonstrates the ability to "get more out than you are putting in", and none of the examples you give has gone unexplained by textbook physics. Since these appear to support the opposite of what you are trying to say, I'm not sure why you bring them up.



> It explains so much more than just the physics you learn today in schools or in the out dated textbooks that also puts theory to the test, evaluates it and explores the different kinds of endless energy created from magnetism.


Again with the failure to distinguish between units.  Magnetism produces force, not energy, though many people understandably confuse the two. Force can be had in great abundance in this universe (and all for free!) and is used simply to convert existing energy from one form to another. The force of magnetism, for instance, can be used to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy. Wondrous though this may be, the energy isn't free or newly created.



> Those old die hards who refuse to let the old textbooks be changed (I think the worship the old text of physics) simply call it Fringe Science, but cannot discredit it.


Though I certainly confess to being an old die hard, as a scientist, I am precluded from adhering to any science text that has not withstood the application of the Scientific Method. Despite what you seem to think, science is not about preserving old, outdated (and presumably incorrect) notions and promoting them to the detriment of all of society. Science is about documenting nature through the objective lens of the Scientific Method, which adds only those notions that have been rigorously tested to humanity's body of scientific knowledge (or to textbooks). In science, all knowledge (and all science text) is tentative and subject to revision with each new discovery. And with each new discovery, we scientists are obligated to test, apply the process, and modify existing texts accordingly. That's the way science works, and I find assertions to the contrary, if you'll forgive me, laughable. Assertions that portray science as an organized effort to squelch new discoveries just to preserve outdated notions are simply wrong-headed and don't take into account the fact that scientific discovery is guided by the application of an objective process (that Scientific Method I keep mentioning) that necessarily prevents the emergence of a "Scientific Elite" that would be required to pull off such a conspiracy. Nature is everywhere and subject to testing by anyone, making the task of proving physics texts to be outdated ubiquitous and easy.

Speaking of the Scientific Method, I noticed that its rigorous application is significantly absent from the content you linked to. I do find the subject matter interesting, but unless and until it's quantified and submitted for peer review, it is, by definition, fringe science.

As for my inability to discredit it, you're absolutely right. I can't discredit anything you linked to in your previous post. But what you don't seem to be aware of is that I don't have to. It's not up to me to discredit their work to prevent it from being added to science texts. It's up to them to prove themselves right since they're the ones making the claim. Otherwise, if discrediting were required, we'd be obligated to say in science textbooks that leprechauns exist simply because it's impossible to prove that they don't.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

kevx said:


> At the risk of showing my "newbieness", I'll tell you about a story I saw on TV recently about a guy who built an EV and then mounted two alternators mid vehicle that were belt driven off of the driveshaft. This supposedly made it so efficient that it rarely needed additional charging. I'm not saying that is likely, but it does seem like the energy needed to spin an alternator or generator would be minimal compared to what they might produce. To make the question simpler, suppose it wasn't in the drivetrain, but in an otherwise wasted energy source, such as an unpowered axle or braking. Or am I over-imagining what an alternator produces? I'm not proposing perpetual motion, just converting wasted energy. Hmmmmm.


This is exactly my theory. I takes a lot of inertia(?) to make a car move, and a lot less inertia than that to drive an alternator. Once the electric engine is rotating the amount of inertia required to rotate the alternator would be bugger all. At least in my theory as an alternator is much lighter than an electric motor therefore it requires much less energy to turn it. 

Therefore when the driver takes his foot off the accelerator the inertia created by the motor still keeps the alternator turning over even though there is no power coming from the batteries. This is not "free energy" just plain logic. 

This is just one reason why I can't understand why you cannot get enough energy from an alternator to slow down the depletion of the batteries. All that inertia and you can't create some sort of gain from it?


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

deanbo said:


> This is exactly my theory. Would be nice to have the money for it to see if it works...


You'd be better off investing that money in BP right now. The odds that such an idea could ever work is nil, the odds that stocks in BP might pay back are at least measurable.

Power can never be produced, it can only be converted. If we look at the components in an EV all parts only convert power.

In the battery: Pchem -> Pelectric + Pheat

In the controller: Pelectric -> Pelectric + Pheat

In the motor: Pelectric -> Pmechanic + Pheat

In the gear box: Pmechanic -> Pmechanic + Pheat

All conversion of power are 100% in balance, power in equals power out but some of the power is converted to heat which has no practical use for us in this context and thus is considered waste or inefficiency. An alternator or generator is no exception:

Pmechanic -> Pelectric + Pheat

In a windmill it means you take the power from the wind, which means you slow it down, and converts it to electricity. The wind is propelled by the sun and the sun is the major energy source that is finite and when it's consumed it will go out (pretty much like a battery pack, but more spectacular).

In an alternator, or generator, you take mechanical power and convert it to electric power (+ heat), which means you slow the car down! If you add mechanical power you will have to convert electric power to mechanical power (+ heat) to compensate for the power the alternator took away!

That means that when you take power from the cars movement and convert it to electricity and then back to movement you end up with less than you started with and there is NO way around it! There is no way you can use an alternator to power the motor unless the alternator is powered by a second power source, like an ICE.

You CAN use an alternator to charge the batteries when you want to slow down the car (and the motor is off). That's known as regenerative braking but due to all losses on the way you can only salvage a fraction of the total available power. Even if it has the possibility to extend the range of the EV it's still a rather lossy affair and most of the power is converted to heat on the way through transmission, motor, controller, battery and then back again.

Because mother nature is a bitch and the laws of physics are mandatory. In the end all energy will be lost as heat radiation out in the universe, the sun will go out, the earth will grow cold, everyone will die and there won't be any energy left to charge the battery pack.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Qer said:


> Because mother nature is a bitch and the laws of physics are mandatory. In the end all energy will be lost as heat radiation out in the universe, the sun will go out, the earth will grow cold, everyone will die and there won't be any energy left to charge the battery pack.


Bummer about the battery pack. Maybe the energizer bunny will save the day? I still think inertia is a force in cars that is not utilized very well and could reduce battery consumption. All that weight travelling at 100kph and slapping an alternator in slams on the brakes?


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

gottdi said:


> It's proposed that you get more out than you put in.


Not at all, but the theory is you would get more for less or increased efficiency. Not more than you put in to start with.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

deanbo said:


> I still think inertia is a force in cars that is not utilized very well and could reduce battery consumption. All that weight travelling at 100kph and slapping an alternator in slams on the brakes?





> The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.


Sir Isaac Newton.

A moving object that follows a straight line without being affected by any external force tends to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed. A car going at a straight line on a flat surface is, however, always affected by external forces like air resistance, friction between tires and ground, friction in the transmission etc which is why a car always eventually slows down and stops.

That's why we always have to add energy with the help of an ICE, a motor or (at least in a toy car) pedals, first to get the car moving and, when we've achieved the desired velocity, to keep it moving. When we want to lower the speed or even stop we have to remove energy by applying the brakes, which converts the energy to heat by increasing the friction.

If you add an alternator you start to tap energy from the inertia and thus the car will slow down. When you slow down you have to add more energy by the engine/motor/pedals. In a perfect world without friction these two forces would cancel each other out and the energy withdrawn from the inertia would be compensated by the same energy being applied back to inertia by the motor, however no converting of energy is 100% efficient and thus some of it will be lost, first in the alternator and then in the motor, and you end up using MORE energy than if you'd just use the batteries only.

The only time an alternator makes sense is when you want to lower the speed of the vehicle and you'd waste the energy anyway by converting it to heat in the brakes. So generating electricity when slowing down works since that energy would've been lost as heat otherwise, trying to magically convert energy from inertia without affecting inertia doesn't.

Trying to conserve pack energy by adding an alternator would be like trying to lift yourself from the ground by pulling your own shirt collar. Let us know when you've succeeded, until then I'll continue to believe that Sir Isaac Newton had it nailed.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Sir Thomas Edison,

the alternator part powers the motor. Take your foot off the accelerator and inertia still exists. Particulary in a one tonne vehicle going 100 kph. Yes you will need power from the batteries to build speed up again, but not as much if some of the power is already being supplied by the alternator.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

deanbo said:


> Sir Thomas Edison,
> 
> the alternator part powers the motor. Take your foot off the accelerator and inertia still exists. Particulary in a one tonne vehicle going 100 kph. Yes you will need power from the batteries to build speed up again, but not as much if some of the power is already being supplied by the alternator.


Don't keep repeating yourself, just do it.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

deanbo said:


> Sir Thomas Edison,
> 
> the alternator part powers the motor. Take your foot off the accelerator and inertia still exists. Particulary in a one tonne vehicle going 100 kph. Yes you will need power from the batteries to build speed up again, but not as much if some of the power is already being supplied by the alternator.


The difference here is that Edison never tried to contradict Newton while you do. From where would the alternator take that energy? From inertia?

Once again: if you take power from the alternator, the car will start to slow down. When it slows down you need even more power to speed the car up again and if you take that as well from the alternator the car will slow down even more.

Mother nature is a bitch, you can't win and your scheme is doomed no matter how many times you repeat yourself.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Deanbo
Study a little engineering

First Law of Thermodynamics - You can't Win
Second Law of Thermodynamics - You can't Break Even
Third Law of Thermodynamics - You can't Quit the Game

This is tongue in cheek - BUT that is what these basic laws of the universe mean


----------



## Gavin1977 (Sep 2, 2008)

OK Deanbo, heres an experiment for you to try.
Get hold of a car alternator and a bicycle.
Fix the alternator to your bike through the appropriate gearing so the alternator is running at the correct rpm. (Back wheel in the air, you dont need the bike to move for this test.)

Now jump on and pedal. Nice and easy yes?
Right now jump off and connect a 100 Watt electrical load to the alternator (Two 12v car headlamps will do)

Now jump back on the bike and pedal. If you can pedal for 5 minutes, then i will be amazed.

Do the above, _THEN_ come back and tell us we all dont know what we're talking about!


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Deanbo
I would suggest that you go back and read this entire thread from the beginning which you obviously have not done.
Your suggestion has been well covered here and de-bunked many times.

The only gain to be had from inertia is to use Re-Gen which puts back a small amount of electricity each time the brakes are applied. It's expensive and the small amount of electricity generated is not nearly enough to make a significant difference.

In Re-Gen or any other method of mechanical generation you can't use a 12 volt alternator or generator. If your electric car is say a 120 volt system......you need a 120 volt alternator or generator. ( Imagine the size and weight of that bad boy )

Trying to put electricity back into a 120 volt battery pack using a 12 volt car alternator is like trying to swim upstream against a torrent. You lose!

Bet his next suggestion is onboard Solar Panels.


----------



## vpoppv (Jul 27, 2009)

Deanbo,

I think you are just simply WAY overestimating the efficiency of an alternator. I think you should do as Gavin1977 suggests, and you will get an appreciation for the energy required to produce electricity. 
At the end of this video, the host is pretty exhausted. He would have to keep the pace he was going at for 10 HOURS to produce about a dime's worth of electricity!! I'd rather just pay the 10 cents. And that generator he is using is far more efficient than a typical alternator!

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GREENPOWERSCIENCE#p/u/37/putUnFJ6fDU


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Cool website vpoppv.
Good demonstration.......pretty woman too. 

Also check out his Oil Spill Solution.......interesting. 
I don't know what the oil pressure is at 5000 ft. but I was a crew member of a Nuclear Submarine back in the 60's and we had compressors capable of 2000 lb air. I would bet that there are compressors today capable of much more pressure.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

KEVX, what you are over-imaginating is the problem. You do not get as much electrical energy out of an alternator than the mechanical energy you must put into that alternator each and every instant.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Voldswagon, the pressure at 5,000 ft is 10,500 psi because a water column one inch square and one foot tall weighs 2.1 lb.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Electric Car nut
Thank you for that calculation. 
So if the water pressure is 10,500 psi
then we must assume the oil pressure coming out of the well is somewhat greater or it would be self contained by the sea pressure and hence this is the reason for drilling a relief well. To reduce the pressure of the escaping oil.

BP would know the oil pressure in the well and I think if there were a compressor which could overcome that oil pressure they would have attempted that fix by now. Or maybe not?


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

michelealexander1991 said:


> Hello,
> I was wondering if I could just add an alternator to an ev and get a range extender. The alternator seems like a good idea, even an industrial one, now... I have no knowledge in this area whatsoever, so would anyone enlighten me?


I think what your are referring to is utilizing the difference kinetic and potential energy. If an EV (or any other car) could only continue moving with potential energy alone (battery power) then wouldn't the amount of power been drawn from the batteries remain the same when cruising as well as accelerating? 

This leads me to believe that kinetic energy is coming into play somewhere and this is what reduces the load on the batteries when cruising. It is this same force that I am talking about trying to take further advantage of. 

To clarify this further, if a car is heading downhill and the alternator is driven by the axle or driveshaft or even engine, you cannot tell me there is not enough kinetic energy to turn the alternator without using the batteries. 

What you would be doing is converting kinetic energy into electricity. The only time when kinetic energy does not exist when you are driving a vehicle is when the car is stationary.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Gavin1977 said:


> OK Deanbo, heres an experiment for you to try.
> Get hold of a car alternator and a bicycle.
> Fix the alternator to your bike through the appropriate gearing so the alternator is running at the correct rpm. (Back wheel in the air, you dont need the bike to move for this test.)
> 
> ...


Take your bike, park it at the top of a hill and take your foot off the pedals. What is powering your alternator now? Not you, but kinetic energy sure is. Your bike is also a lot lighter than a car, so how much extra weight as a percentage is one alternator going to add? Try finding an alternator that is more in proportion to the weight of the bike and see the difference.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

Okay, let's deal with this one.


Your car is at a standstill. Your batteries are fully charged.

At this point you have no kinetic energy (as you're not moving), and "full" (chemical) potential energy.

You apply power to the motor (Incurring losses as you do so) to convert some of the potential energy you have into kinetic energy.

So now you are moving. Great. You have less potential energy, but some kinetic energy.

You stop applying power to the motor, and your inertia keeps you moving. Wind resistance, rolling resistance and transmission resistance all sap a little of the kinetic energy you have, but you are moving.

You engage your alternator. This converts kinetic energy back into potential energy, minus even more losses along the way from inefficiency.

If you keep your alternator engaged you will soon deplete your kinetic energy and bring the vehicle to a standstill once again, bringing us back full circle. Except, of course, that we have lost some of the energy along the way with conversion losses.


Think of it this way, you have two buckets, one with a small hole in, and a pump with leaky pipes.

You start off with the bucket without the hole full of water, and the holy bucket empty. 

You use the pump to transfer some of the water into the holy bucket, but as the pump leaks not all of the water makes it over and is dumped on the floor.

You put enough water into the holy bucket, and shut off the pipe. Some of the water drips out of the hole in the bucket over time.

You then reverse the pump, to drain the holy bucket and put the water back in the good bucket, but again the pump leaks and more water ends up on the floor.

You will end up with less water in your good bucket.


In this example, the good bucket is the "Chemical" potential energy stored in the batteries, and the holy bucket is the kinetic energy "stored" in the motion of the vehicle.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Deanbo
Yes, even if you mounted a 120 volt or 144 volt generator there would be enough momentum in the vehicle to turn them but they would act as a brake and begin to immediately slow the car down.

What you don't understand is that when you put an electric load on a generator or alternator it becomes much harder to drive them. You think they will turn the same wether there is a load or no load. You are wrong.

Go watch the video vpoppv gave you the link to. It demonstates the concept very well. When a small electric load is applied to the bicycle generator it becomes harder to pedal.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

deanbo said:


> Take your bike, park it at the top of a hill and take your foot off the pedals. What is powering your alternator now? Not you, but kinetic energy sure is. Your bike is also a lot lighter than a car, so how much extra weight as a percentage is one alternator going to add? Try finding an alternator that is more in proportion to the weight of the bike and see the difference.


Great. You know how Gravity works. Now with that same bike, and an identical hill next to the one you start on, go down one hill and up the next without touching the pedals. You could also try this with balls and wooden ramps, or marbles and cardboard. No matter how good you get, you will not be able to make it up the next hill.

Hell, you can see this with a ball. Drop it from a height. At the bottom, when it hits the ground, the kinetic energy it gained from dropping will be converted into elastic energy in the structure of the ball itself. The ball will then convert that elastic energy back into kinetic energy, propelling the ball upwards again. But you will (please) note that it doesn't bounce quite so high the second time. What you are proposing is a way for that ball to bounce higher than when it was released, and such a thing is a physical impossibility.

You're treating the "car on top of a hill" as a zero-sum equation, completely forgetting how the car got up on that hill in the first place. If you want a car that is only capable of going downhill, then boy howdy do I have a deal for you!


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Voltswagen said:


> Deanbo
> Yes, even if you mounted a 120 volt or 144 volt generator there would be enough momentum in the vehicle to turn them but they would act as a brake and begin to immediately slow the car down.
> 
> What you don't understand is that when you put an electric load on a generator or alternator it becomes much harder to drive them. You think they will turn the same wether there is a load or no load. You are wrong.
> ...


Are you trying to tell me if I mounted a 144 volt generator to my vehicle and then pointed my vehicle downhill it my vehicle would not move?


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Anaerin said:


> Great. You know how Gravity works. Now with that same bike, and an identical hill next to the one you start on, go down one hill and up the next without touching the pedals. You could also try this with balls and wooden ramps, or marbles and cardboard. No matter how good you get, you will not be able to make it up the next hill.


Couldn't agree more. Potential energy starts to come into play when you start heading back up the other side. But kinetic energy still exists for a short while (until you get far enough up the hill). This is how you you part power the motor with the alternator until the kinetic energy runs out and then all the power comes from the battery.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

deanbo said:


> Are you trying to tell me if I mounted a 144 volt generator to my vehicle and then pointed my vehicle downhill it my vehicle would not move?


That depends on the load you place on the generator. But your vehicle-with-a-generator will not move near so far at the bottom of the hill than a vehicle without a generator.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

gottdi said:


> No but what we are saying is if your batteries are empty and you dump in a charge while going downhill much slower than with out the alternator but charging the batteries you will not have enough power from the alternators to get your car back up the hill to do it all over again. Give it a try. You can do it cheaply with a bicycle and a small generator charging a bunch of batteries. Coast and charge then us that saved energy to go back up to the top of the hill. You will not even get close to the top. Car or bike.
> 
> Pete


But would you make it further up the hill than you normally would with the recharge and alternator or without? If you do, then your car will drive further before needing charging with the alternator than without.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

deanbo said:


> But would you make it further up the hill than you normally would with the recharge and alternator or without? If you do, then your car will drive further before needing charging with the alternator than without.


Without. You are comparing:

(Inertia + Gravitational Acceleration) - (Rolling Resistance + Wind Resistance + Transmission Losses + Alternator Losses + Storage Losses + Controller Losses + Motor Losses)

To:

(Inertia + Gravitational Acceleration) - (Rolling Resistance + Wind Resistance)

Which do you think is going to work out more efficient?


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Deanbo
If you really think that your idea will work............then go and build it.
No one here can stop you.
I'm betting you won't build it.

Just remember, you can't run a 144 volt motor using a 12 volt car alternator. In fact I doubt a 144 volt alternator exists.........maybe a generator but not an alternator.
Even a vehicle setup with REGen uses small high voltage generators to put a small amount of power back in the battery pack each time the brakes are applied. It doesn't matter wether you are feeding the motor or the battery pack. A LOAD is a LOAD.

If you build it and you think it works..........then by all means post your video here with your measurable results.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

> But would you make it further up the hill than you normally would with the recharge and alternator or without?


Definitely without. If you have a hill to climb, your best use of existing kinetic energy is simply to convert it to (gravitational) potential energy as you climb the hill. Converting it to electrical (potential) energy first and then using that electrical energy to climb the hill will simply squander your energy reserves.

You need some basic physics training. Inertia/momentum is not a force, and force is not the same as energy. Force in this universe is free and can be created pretty much from nothing. Energy, on the other hand, is never free. A force can be used only to convert existing energy from one form to another, and always at a loss. If you confuse force with energy, as many people do (magnetism is a force, for instance), then I can see why you would think that energy levels can be maintained or enhanced in such a conversion loop. 

If you step back from the complexities of what you're trying to do and just look at the simple picture, you'll see that what you're trying to do is keep a leaky swimming pool filled by using buckets of water dipped from the very pool you're trying to fill.


----------



## rbgrn (Jul 24, 2007)

Astronomer said:


> If you step back from the complexities of what you're trying to do and just look at the simple picture, you'll see that what you're trying to do is keep a leaky swimming pool filled by using buckets of water dipped from the very pool you're trying to fill.


Excellent analogy!


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

Astronomer
Good analogy that swimming pool. I'll have to remember that one.

I take my 1977 Beetle EV to many car shows and there is a lot of interest by the general public. After explaining the onboard 120 volt system it's only natural that some people will want to volunteer ways to charge the battery pack or feed the motor while driving to extend the range.

Some suggest adding a car alternator driven by one of the wheels but they forget the voltage mismatch 12v vs 120v and they don't understand losses. Others suggest the addition of small wind turbines which of course increase drag more than they would put back in electricity.

I try to explain the problems gently as I really don't want to discourage anyone from thinking outside the box not even Deanbo.

I have even myself considered the motion problems of generating electricity and have come to the conclusion that aside from ReGen, which we all know adds back very little, maybe a mile or so if you live in a hilly area, Passive Solar is the only contender in this situation. 
The problem with it right now is that is you would have to tow a tractor trailer flatbed of panels to generate enough power to run the electric motor without batteries using a 2500 lb vehicle.
This is due to the low efficiency of existing panels....barely 17%.
So many would say just add 3 or 4 panels, not the whole array and use it as a battery backup. Well, this could be and has been done on pickup trucks. And the reports using state of the art panels is about a 2 - 3 mile gain on a perfectly sunny day during peak SUN HOURS ie....you don't get full output at 9am like you do at 1pm wether the car is parked or moving makes little difference.

What we need is a breakthrough in solar panel technology taking the efficiency up to say 50%. Then we could have something to work with.
Just my .02


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Ok, this sounds like something very useful and worth looking into. The only exception is, to build a micro turbine as they described to recharge batteries might be a task within itself, but you never know if the micro turbines might be for sale individually.
The good thing is, the micro turbine can run on any kind of fuel, including bio gas and ethanol. Now that I like. On great idea for an inboard charging system.
Check this out.

http://www.greencar.com/articles/velozzi-electric-car-could-offer-up-1000-mile-range.php

This is the Velozzi, being made in California and will have the on board micro turbine charging system so it can easily reach 1000 miles without outside source charging.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I love this idea, unfortunately the only company I know of that produces microturbines is Capstone. The amount of money they want for a small one is more than the entire budget of my car several times over. They don't seem to be able to bring the cost down on the high temp ceramics or the ultra high speeds they run at.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Mini-turbines

I don't know what happenned here, in the late 90s there were a number of turbo-generators
basically turbochargers with a generator section in the bearing, they were looking at replacing a cars alternator with an extra bit on its turbocharger.

These must have been cheap as for that to be an option

Then they were talking about using the compresser to feed a combustion chamber which fed the exhaust turbine, again the idea was cheap, they were using an air bearing for the rotor fed from the compresser , one moving part! 

Now ten years later and its high cost!


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

The only problem I see is that there is only one manufacturer. And when you go to their website you will see why it is so expensive. Sounds like a possible business venture, hmm?


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Jason Lattimer said:


> The only problem I see is that there is only one manufacturer. And when you go to their website you will see why it is so expensive. Sounds like a possible business venture, hmm?


I am sure if you or anyone else could sell them, advertise on here and can ship anywhere you are looking at a very hot item to sell. Since most EV'ers would love to have some sort of on board charging system to allow them to go even 50 to 100 miles more, given these can make the distance even greater gives the average conversion a lot of edge over Hybrids alone.

That is what I say is more bang for your buck. 
If anyone wants to get into it, I would seriously think it would be a wise investment or at least worth your time researching on selling the mini or micro turbines. I am sure someone who has a machine shop may even be able to build them. Who knows, but you are talking about something that could go off like wild fire. More people would surely be interested in building their own EV if they knew it could go as far as any ICE.
I hope someone looks into it and sells them. I would be interested as a buyer myself.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Hi Jason/HighTech

I had a quick look at the Capstone site

(1) The high efficiency is heat + power, if you want power only it may be surprisingly low 17%??

(2) Part of the cost may be due to lifetime requirements
500,000 miles is only 10,000 hours - these units replace boilers with expected lives of 10+ years at 80% duty cycle , 10 x 356 x 0.8 x 24 =70,000 hours

Mitsubishi were looking at a combined turbocharger-alternator in about 1998 anybody know what is fitted to Mitsi's now?


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Astronomer said:


> If you step back from the complexities of what you're trying to do and just look at the simple picture, you'll see that what you're trying to do is keep a leaky swimming pool filled by using buckets of water dipped from the very pool you're trying to fill.


Not trying to keep it full, just trying to capture some of the water from the leak and put it back. Pool wouldn't empty as quickly then.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Voltswagen said:


> Deanbo
> If you really think that your idea will work............then go and build it.
> No one here can stop you.
> I'm betting you won't build it.
> ...


It's more a question of money than anything else. It might be possible to perform the same experiment with an electrically powered bike but the price would be much less. When I finally get around to it I will let you know.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Another question,

is it possible to create more electricity than you create resistance to the forward movement of a moving vehicle? Does this make sense and would this be asking for over unity?


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

deanbo said:


> Not trying to keep it full, just trying to capture some of the water from the leak and put it back. Pool wouldn't empty as quickly then.


Yeah, but you have to remember the energy required to get it back into the pool, from the buckets.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

few2many said:


> Yeah, but you have to remember the energy required to get it back into the pool, from the buckets.


Absolutely! But if it was worth the extra energy would you not have made a gain? To put it another way, once the water has leaked, is what you are going to with the leaked water going make any difference to the amount of water leaking from the pool (energy required from the batteries)? No. 

But what if you could use that leaked water to drive the apparatus to bring the leaked water back to you. Chances are very good it won't keep up with the rate of water draining from the pool but it would stop the pool from emptying as fast. This is why I can't understand why people refer to this concept as free energy. It isn't.

Obviously this is only part of the possible answer, but this is the concept that I think people are missing. Next question is where is the leak? I think the answer might be far simpler than what many people think.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

deanbo said:


> Absolutely! But if it was worth the extra energy would you not have made a gain? To put it another way, once the water has leaked, is what you are going to with the leaked water going make any difference to the amount of water leaking from the pool (energy required from the batteries)? No.


What you do with the water doesn't matter but it does matter what power source you use to move the water back to the pool... By definition the leaked water doesn't have enough energy to do it, so you have to use more of the pool water, more quickly, in order to return a little bit of the leaked water to the pool. You don't come out ahead.


> But what if you could use that leaked water to drive the apparatus to bring the leaked water back to you. Chances are very good it won't keep up with the rate of water draining from the pool but it would stop the pool from emptying as fast. This is why I can't understand why people refer to this concept as free energy. It isn't.


The notion that you can extend the range, requires that your idea uses less energy to return the water to the pool than the energy content of that water once it's in the pool. If that was true (going back to the car for a minute), then you could expand the capacity of that scheme until it provided all of the energy required to move the car, and returned a surplus besides. Obviously this is not the case because it would be a perpetual motion machine. And, since it's not true for the perpetual motion machine it also can't be true even for 1% of the "wasted" power.


> Obviously this is only part of the possible answer, but this is the concept that I think people are missing. Next question is where is the leak? I think the answer might be far simpler than what many people think.


The concepts that are being missed here are not on the side of the keyboard that you think they are. 
Since you have been arguing the water in the tub hypothesis for a while, you should go out and try building a water machine that can fill its own tub, or even slow down rate of drainage, using a pump that's being run by the water that is draining from the tub. Not as expensive as the electric motor/generator schemes that are being talked about, but just as illustrative.


----------



## deanbo (Jun 7, 2010)

Siphoning is one way to return the water to the pool. All it requires is a bucket for the leaked water and for you to suck on one end of the hose for a little bit. More than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

deanbo said:


> Siphoning is one way to return the water to the pool. All it requires is a bucket for the leaked water and for you to suck on one end of the hose for a little bit. More than one way to skin a cat.


Dude. Go try this. PLEASE. Let me know how much you can siphon from a bucket that is below the tub, to a level that is above the tub (so that you can refill the tub) . This is EXACTLY what we've been talking about and it's a direct analogy to the car situation.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

I really don't know much about the mini or micro turbines as this is the first time I have heard of them on here (other than used for something like a qsas in aircraft.) Those that do know may find something in the patent and trademark website, then use www.pat2pdf.org to download the patents. I guess if someone is thinking of building such a thing (for their own use or retrofit one for someone else) it would be a good place to start. I will have to do more research on them to know truly how they work, but from what is said on here it sounds like it would be a great idea and or worth getting as much information on the micro turbine as possible.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Truly, why aren't we driving more EV's? The reason is not advancement of technology per say, since we do have that, 
it is about the money and slowly moving evolution along to make the most money they can.
Here is one example, a 500GHz CPU made in 2006. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5099584.stm

Now Batteries: Quoted from http://www.eutimes.net/2010/03/why-are-computers-stagnating/

"Battery
Most durable batteries won’t last more than 10 hours, however a team of US scientists have invented a battery that could last as much as 10 to 30 years of continuous usage without a single charge. A team of US scientists have invented a type of battery which radioactive substances but they are not harmful to the human body. The scientists said that such batteries shouldn’t cost more than $100 and should last for 12 years without the need to be recharged. There is also a version of the battery which contains no radioactive substances at all. This version should last for 30 years without recharging.
Now who would want to produce a 30 years durable battery when they can produce a 10 hours one, so that they can SELL NON STOP!

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050513_new_battery.html

But this was written in 2005, so what do we have today? I will provide a link tomorrow. Unless someone wants to put up a link they find that shows the technology today.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Any data on how much current / power those things can provide? I recall reading something about a similar sounding battery that was in the microamps range, not expected to get much better than milliamps due to the way it worked. Might not be the same one, though.


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Some good info on Radioactive Substance Batteries. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed033p446 Nuclear Batteries. http://www.scribd.com/doc/8929973/Nuclear-Battery And today the types of batteries used in Satellites in space. They are also supplying the mission to mars batteries. http://www.epcorp.com/


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

about 1 year ago I was on capstones web sight , it had a link to a guy doing small turbo charger based generators with recuperaters ( heat exchangers ) . On his site he had a great explanation of how Ford built a turbine powered 18 wheeler with diesel efficiency in the early 60's . By using 2 turbochargers + a 3ed hot side of a turbo and gear reduction to a generator , 2 recuperators and 5 or so air valves you could get 10% , 30% , 100% power at the same efficiency ( about diesel 30+%) . I called capstone twice and they said just keep an eye on there products and would not give me the link .


----------



## Nick Smith (Oct 26, 2007)

TigerNut said:


> Dude. Go try this. PLEASE. Let me know how much you can siphon from a bucket that is below the tub, to a level that is above the tub (so that you can refill the tub) . This is EXACTLY what we've been talking about and it's a direct analogy to the car situation.


Like this...


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

TigerNut said:


> Dude. Go try this. PLEASE. Let me know how much you can siphon from a bucket that is below the tub, to a level that is above the tub (so that you can refill the tub) . This is EXACTLY what we've been talking about and it's a direct analogy to the car situation.


It does exist, believe it or not, it's called a "Heron's fountain", but as you will note, it still doesn't run forever. The energy for the siphon comes from lifting the water, and when the bottom-most container is full (to the air pipe), it will stop.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Ah, overunity in art, that must mean its possible!


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Anaerin said:


> It does exist, believe it or not, it's called a "Heron's fountain", but as you will note, it still doesn't run forever. The energy for the siphon comes from lifting the water, and when the bottom-most container is full (to the air pipe), it will stop.


There is NO siphoning taking place here. Gravity drains water into the bottom container - forcing air into the upper container- which forces water out of the upper container. The water will stop moving when an equilibrium (in this case level) is reached between the two sides. And yes, before that happens the lower container will fill with water.


----------



## DieselTwitch (May 19, 2009)

I love these posts, they don't prove the existence of perpetual motion, but they do however prove that there are such things as stupid questions.... Many professors have told me otherwise!


----------



## HighTech (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Has anyone heard of George Green? I met him a few weeks ago at a meeting and was pretty impressed. Anyway, we got to talking about magnetic motors, I mentioned the previous things discussed on this forum about magnetic motors and he told me to look up his videos online on youtube. Ok, so his videos show a working model of a magnetic force pushing a another magnet in which could be improvised into a motor. 

Taking my previous idea of using the alternator (hitech's design) and using this concept I thought it may work to offer the speed needed to get a nice few amps out of an alternator. I built one, no pics yet as I am still waiting for more magnets (so you won't have to go through the expense) and so it involves a 12 inch aluminum disk mounted on top of an alternator. Which on the outside is some metal strapping that is about 2 inches tall that has magnets mounted on it all the way around. They key on the disk is the magnets spacing (equal to the size of the magnets which I used 1 inch by 1 inch magnets that were 1/8 thick and about 30 pounds of pull). 
On the strapping which is bent into a circle to form George Greens idea is 1x2 inch magnets that are about 65 pounds pull each. (Waiting for more of the 1x3 inch magnets to come in). 

This is the first trial of this type I have constructed. I realize there will be some adjustments to be made which in time I will fancy it out. However, it is work in progress and so far by taking Greens idea and enlarging it I am essentially doing the same concept design, only larger and backwards. Green's design has his magnets spaced apart on the larger ring, which I have them spaced apart on the disk on the top of the alternator. The ring above it that will slide down on poles will have the magnets all close together, with the exception of a small space (leaving out one magnet). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgyY47duCM

So this is just a pre-text informative idea of what I am doing. At least trying. So I will be happy to share any details as they come about as the parts come in. 

wish me luck, even those who are skeptics at least I will keep trying. =)


----------



## reubenT (Jun 17, 2009)

LOL, interesting stuff.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

reubenT said:


> Does a solar panel violate the laws of physics? Then neither does any "perpetual motion" machine. And there are many of them out there developed by men who aren't so closed minded as to ignore their existance.
> Men do not understand energy as well as they think they do.
> But on the other hand you won't see any of it come to market. Since many inventors have tried their best to bring them to market and havn't been able to. Simply because the richest men in the world would loose their entire source of wealth if it came to market.
> A certain man I know got the "perpetual motion" device down to a matchbox sized solid state unit with enough power output to run a truck.
> Did you know you can take some parts out of a junk TV with a few other odds and ends and assemble a device powered by a 6V flashlight battery that will run yer EV full time? Search the internet, It's there. Then build it and shut up or yer dead. (Many have lost their lives over the issue)


I needed the laugh. Thanks.


----------



## reubenT (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm glad you had a good laugh, it's a joke! (except to the true inventors mind)


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

reubenT said:


> Does a solar panel violate the laws of physics? Then neither does any "perpetual motion" machine.


Wow. There's so much wrong with that correlation.
If a solar panel worked in darkness, then I'd say your statement is accurate. But, as it stands, solar panels work thanks to the light coming in from the sun. That doesn't violate the laws of physics, as it's not getting energy from "nothing", it's getting energy expelled from the massive nuclear fission reaction happening approximately 93 million miles away. It also is highly inefficient, only converting around 40% (at best) of the energy coming in into electricity.
"Perpetual motion" machines, on the other hand, purportedly convert over 100% of the energy coming in into energy going out. This is an impossibility, like filling a half-full bucket by emptying the bucket into itself and getting more out.


reubenT said:


> And there are many of them out there developed by men who aren't so closed minded as to ignore their existance.


Are there? Really? Someone's come up with a working Perpetual Motion machine that hasn't been thoroughly debunked? 'cause if they had, it'd be all over the news.


reubenT said:


> Men do not understand energy as well as they think they do.


Perhaps not, but we do have a pretty good understanding of the basics. And common sense, if nothing else, states "you can't get more out than you put in".


reubenT said:


> But on the other hand you won't see any of it come to market. Since many inventors have tried their best to bring them to market and havn't been able to. Simply because the richest men in the world would loose their entire source of wealth if it came to market.


Except, of course, that making, maintaining, selling and advertising these energy machines would make them even more rich, and would decrease their costs in energy and the like to essentially zero.


reubenT said:


> A certain man I know got the "perpetual motion" device down to a matchbox sized solid state unit with enough power output to run a truck.


Really? that's quite the claim. I'd love to see this backed up. Pictures, video, some kind of proof would be fantastic. Of course, you can't possibly deliver that, as it's not possible and entirely hyperbole to try and troll just a little bit harder. By all means, prove me wrong, I'm always happy to be proven wrong (And it has happened many times, just look in this board!).


reubenT said:


> Did you know you can take some parts out of a junk TV with a few other odds and ends and assemble a device powered by a 6V flashlight battery that will run yer EV full time? Search the internet, It's there. Then build it and shut up or yer dead. (Many have lost their lives over the issue)


Oh, I know you can make a simple boost circuit out of parts from a TV. It makes sense that there would be one in there, given that a CRT is typically charged to 30,000 volts from a 110v home power supply. But while it may boost the 6v to 144v to run an EV, but it also increases the power draw, and so will drain that flashlight battery in milliseconds. It's not a solution.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

reubenT -
If you can take some parts out of a junk TV and build a device powered by a 6 volt flashlight battery that will run an EV full time........then by all means go do it. Bring the video of your evidence here and we will all bow to you. 
In fact I will become your first investor in the device.

But like so many others of your kind, my bet is that we will never see your video or proof. You talk a good game but you can't walk the walk.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

So, you're saying he is afraid to post a video of a thing which he doesn't have because it doesn't exist and which nobody would believe anyway?

The question of the day isn't whether you're paranoid but whether you're paranoid ENOUGH.

I say the answer to that is no, because you're on a public forum asserting that such a dangerous device DOES exist, so the bad guys who aren't hunting you are going to find you and snuff you out.

RUN, MAN! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!


----------



## reubenT (Jun 17, 2009)

LOL! yer funny! (if ya'll got enough intelligence to comprehend a few things of a technical nature explained by an electrical engineer, look up the name Don L Smith on youtube and pay attention to what he says, be sure to do it when you have a couple hours to spare to get through the whole symposium presentation)


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

No it's you guys who are funny.

Gottdi just got done saying that a guy couldn't put anything on video because he'd get killed for saying it, and here you're showing me a 2-hour video of the same thing that's on youtube.

There is no conspiracy. There is, however, something called thermodynamics. Everything you have ever seen in your life follows the laws of thermodynamics. Your perpetual motion machines, if they existed, would violate those laws. Wake up.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

My snarky finish to "There's no such thing as a stupid question..." was always "there's only stupid people."


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Caught up in their over-zealous attack of the perpetual motion idea, some are not listening to what you're saying at all. Obviously it is possible to return some of the leaked water and therefore keep the pool (or tub or whatever) from draining as quickly.



deanbo said:


> Next question is where is the leak? I think the answer might be far simpler than what many people think.


In relation to cars the leak comes in the form of wind resistance, wheel to road resistance, internal resistances, and brakes. The way to reduce the leak or (partially) refill the pool is using aerodynamics, fuel efficient wheels, bearings, etc, and regen brakes, all stuff even the evil corporations try to put in their vehicles.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

> There is no conspiracy. There is, however, something called thermodynamics.


Bah. What's the difference? If it's not monolithic oil conspiring against you, it's the universe conspiring against you. And when the universe conspires against you, you can't win.

No, really. You can't win. Thermodynamics is a bitch.


----------



## reubenT (Jun 17, 2009)

I know what's going on; (nobody listenin) but I really don't care. 

It takes the mind of an inventor to go where modern science won't go and declares an impossibility. And only a few people have that mind.

only weeks before the Wright brothers flew, an emminent man of science declared emphatically that human powered flight was impossible. 

the ordinary mind looks up to the man of science and thinks he knows about all there is about his subject and if he says it's so then it is.

the inventors mind asks "why" of the obvious. takes nothing for granted, closely investigates every idea no matter how crazy.

Buy hey! Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe no matter how nonsense is it. and if ya wanna believe the world is flat you can if ya wanna. But while ya stand there declaring it's gotta be flat because the laws of nature dictate it to be so. I'll fly east and reappear from the west and enjoy my advanced knowledge.

It just so happens something is,'t being factored in.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Depends upon the REASON we think something is impossible.

For flight, it was simply that materials were too heavy and our power sources too weak / heavy. The only real leaps were in materials and power - hang gliders had already been proven by the time Wilbur and Orville took flight.

For the laws of thermodynamics, we will never beat the requirement until we can create something from nothing. That will remain impossible until someone figures out to get "outside" of this universe. Even if they do accomplish that, there is no guarantee that it will allow us to "break this law."

Like a famous writer's VERY short short story once went - "We finally broke into hyperspace - and found out we traveled SLOWER than in normal space..."


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

reubenT,

My God . . . FINALLY!!!! 

Someone of superior intelligence and ability has joined this forum.

Someone who has the ability to show us the truth and lead us all away from our wrongly held beliefs in the proven laws of nature.

We await you enlightenments with bated breaths. I'm listening . . . I'm listening 

As a personal request I would like you to start off with your disproval of the accepted laws of thermodynamics. 

As soon as you publish this rebuttal, I'm sure that I will find the information within it that will allow me to be able to build my machine that will allow me to power the world with a puff of my breath. I've rebuilt the machine several times but keep running into a problem, It simply won't work, no matter how hard I wish it would.

If the mentioned information is secret, please PM me with it. If it works I will gladly give you a 5% ownership of the machine. If you are willing to invest $500,000.00 I will be happy to make you a full partner. 

Jim



reubenT said:


> I know what's going on; (nobody listenin) but I really don't care.
> 
> It takes the mind of an inventor to go where modern science won't go and declares an impossibility. And only a few people have that mind.
> 
> ...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

lol - don't be mean spirited! I personally believe we WILL escape this universe some day. Probably not in the next 1000 years, but some day.

Heck, if we don't we're doomed. There's only a few million years or so before our sun expands and turns Earth into a crisp. Talk about Global Warming!!!


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

Reuben, your mischaracterization of scientists is insulting and untrue. The curiosity and investigative spirit you attribute to inventors is actually the heart and soul of science. The job of a scientist, after all, is to investigate the unknown so that our body of knowledge can be expanded. No scientist (not even a bad one) wants to put a lid on investigation and be content only with what is currently known.

Moreover, you seem to think that scientists depend on nothing more than egotistical intellectualism to arrive at their monumental conclusions. They don't. They use something called the Scientific Method, which puts theories to the test and expunges those theories that don't match reality from our expanding body of knowledge. And this method works reliably regardless of the superiority -- or inferiority -- of the intellectual capacity of the scientist conducting the test.

So before you go making accusations of willful conspiracy, you really should take some time to learn what scientists actually do and how science really works. Because I can tell you from my own experience, it's not what you think.


----------



## reubenT (Jun 17, 2009)

I have a slight problem. LOL! I only attended 1 year of school in a normal grade school classroom, (definitely not my favorite year of school because I was already technologically way above the heads of all the other kids and therefore didn't make friends) Stayed home the rest of the time, (I learned to read at around 10 and by 13 was buying and reading college textbooks on old technology) sort of finished 9th grade. When I turned 18 up towards 30 years ago my momma signed me up for a GED test at the local community college. What happened? top grade in the room! They gave me a small scholarship which I passed up, I told them to give it to the next lower graded person. I actually never went back and got my diploma because they wanted $2 for it. I can't find a need for it since I'm much more likely to be business owner/boss than lookin for a job. Got my education out of a big city library reading books on inventors and inventions, and I never stopped that process, still at it hard as ever. I absolutely love technology, and horses, and agriculture, etc. My problem is; when I start talking about what I see as simple technological fact and already proven science in certain areas, some of it over 100 years old, almost everyone in earshot thinks I'm off my rocker. OK sobeit. I'm just talkin over everybodys head and people in general have a tendency to condemn what they don't understand.
Most of us just cannot comprehend how a simple little device can cause megawatts to magically appear out of nowhere and still not be violating a fixed law of nature. And so most of us deny the existence of such a device. OK That's fine. 
I do understand that it works and how it works and in that I find myself in the extreme minority. A few head men of big energy corp. also understand that it works and how, and they are scared stiff of it. Which is why it will never be marketed any time soon and you won't see it demonstrated publicly. Don Smith was treading on "thin ice" as it where, showing what he was doing in the presence of a few people, and he knew it. Most of those people were not understanding it from the questions they were asking. He indicated that it would be on the market soon (14 years ago) fat chance of that!! It's forbidden technology since money is power in this world. And that is also why the few men who refused to stop trying to push the technology into the marketplace are either in hiding for their lives or are no longer on top the ground. My neighbor got hit by a single death threat over 25 years ago over related technology and he backed off from it. I was in communication with one of the inventors who was desperately trying to market it before he vanished a few years ago. later I heard rumor he'd survived the extermination attempt and was hiding in China. (oops, maybe that's getting too close to undercover secrets)
I'll live with it, don't have a choice actually. I'll not challenge them, they can have their money since that's what makes them happy in this world. I could explain in detail but don't think I will, I'll not get overly specific about things in order to keep them from thinking I'm their enemy because I'm not their enemy. I'm actually their friend and benefactor since I'm quite involved in supplying them with good food. But it is hard to not talk about it a little now and then even when many of those who hear me think I'm crazy. If the powers that be think I'm saying too much they can tell me nicely and I'll be silent, no death threats needed, I know what yer all about and won't fight it. (yes, I know they're monitoring this forum) Oh enough of that. I'm wasting my time entertaining ya'll.


----------



## scarab (Jul 3, 2008)

It seems to me that the motor invented by YUSA was impossible until it was developed and built????
What about radio, induction charging, the powere distribution companies don't want you to have access to power without power lines. until yopu can prove it does not work then it maybe it will. Need I say more?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi ReubenT,

I am willing to sell you a share in my perpetual motion machine for only $400,000.00,

I also have some prize bridges and castles for sale


----------



## Beshires1 (May 24, 2008)

The two solar powered rovers on Mars worked for 5 years. Much longer than they were suppose to. ....technology.....yes!!! Gottdi have ya been missin me? I've always been around here.....


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Conspiracy theories exist because there are actually conspiracies.

However, in real life if someone invents something wonderful and easy and then finds that powerful groups are trying to squash them, they have an option to get revenge on them (even though it costs them the profit they might have made) by simply making the full details public. End of story, anyone is now free to build the device.

In business, that option is called "the takeaway clause" (e.g. "If I can't profit from it I'll make sure no one will!")

Given that that ultimate power rests with the inventor, most of these stories come down to one of three possibilities:


The inventor is/was so greedy for what they consider "their due" that they are willing to take their secret to the grave, and do (I'll NEVER back down, THEY can't stop me!")
The inventor is psychologically disturbed with paranoid-schizophrenia; doesn't really have a workable theory; but imagines that legitimate rejection based on a bad idea is really other people persecuting them ("I'm brilliant, YOU just don't understand!")
The idea MAY be workable, but is not economically practical ("I have a PERFECT replacement for gasoline, and it's only $50 / gallon - why won't anyone buy it?") or desirable ("I've invented sealing wax that is only 1/10th as expensive as that used by King James - why won't anyone buy it?").
Of these, the only "real" scenario of "information suppression" is #1, and that is clearly self-induced by the inventor not taking measures to release the information in the event of their untimely demise (e.g. divulge the information, making it "Public Domain for use by ANYONE EXCEPT <list the dastardly parties here>").


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> 4. They are greedy little bastards and have no real product but try to get you to believe they do and that it works and expect you to invest or if you call them on their bluff they get real pissed.
> 
> I'd put my money mostly on #4.


Hehe - yes, I missed that one on my list!


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

*Philippine DOE Verifies Aviso's Self-Charging EV*

*Today, the Philippine Department of Energy tested Ismael Aviso's electric car, showing that running off wall power, the 11 kW DC motor ran at 45% efficiency, but with Aviso's on-board generator which harvests ambient energy from the surroundings, the motor ran at 133% efficiency (overunity).*

February 24, 2011


Link - 
http://pesn.com/2011/02/24/9501772_Philippine_DOE_Verifies_Aviso_Self-Charging_EV/


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Bedini's technology finally on the market.



> It is not very often that industry sees a sudden, large leap forward when it comes to 100 year old technology. But once in a while, lightning strikes, and the effects on the industry's economy and practicality cannot be ignored. With a product line to cover anything from a "AAA" to an electric car battery, Renaissance Charge is pleased to bring to the marketplace the first radiant battery chargers that radically reduce battery replacement costs while dramatically increasing battery capacity.It is not very often that industry sees a sudden, large leap forward when it comes to 100 year old technology. But once in a while, lightning strikes, and the effects on the industry's economy and practicality cannot be ignored. With a product line to cover anything from a "AAA" to an electric car battery, Renaissance Charge is pleased to bring to the marketplace the first radiant battery chargers that radically reduce battery replacement costs while dramatically increasing battery capacity.
> 
> Link - http://www.r-charge.com/





> Renaissance Charge free energy convention with John bedini
> 
> July 2011
> 
> Link - http://www.r-charge.com/2011-Free-Energy-Convention_ep_45-1.html





> Renaissance demonstration of a 36V lawnmower being used and simultaneously charging another set of batteries and their electric Porsche conversion
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v_3N7iafo


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Wake me up when a non-third world country verifies it. Or when they drive it for more than 100 meters and back.


> We drove outside about 100 meters & back again to LAB & again some testing; inasmuch as they found two sets of batteries 7amps/12V in front of the car. I told them that it was a supply only for the fan and microcontroller; but they didn't believe me


Is it just me or can you just throw the whole article based on this alone? How unprofessional does that sound? If you have money to throw away, go ahead and find how you can invest in his overunity device.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Gottdi

Did you see the scam where a UK company was selling empty plastic boxes as explosive detectors?

They told the customers that the operators energy provided the power to make them work

And a lot of governments believed them!!


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Ok your not impressed by the Phillipines inventor but what about my other post about the Renaissance Charge products?

They currently have EV battery rechargers on sale, their technology uses high voltage 'negative' voltage spikes to fast charge lead acid batteries to a deeper capacity.

I mentioned this to a colleague, the chief engineer at the TV station I work at (I'm an MCR engineer) and he remembers a previous colleague of his from the BBC, perhaps a few decades ago, who discovered through research that when charging lead acid batteries, if you occasionally 'hit them' with a negative voltage during the charging cycle you could recharge them quicker. In other words, they responded positively to the application of a negative voltage spike. 

Another colleague of mine, an ex projects engineer (Broadcasting) did not think it at all unusual that a lead acid battery charged negatively would appear to have a deeper capacity.

Which surprised me - I thought batteries would behave the same either way, positively or nagatively charged.


So any opinions on Renaissance Charge Technology?

I don't think you can so easily laugh them off?

Link - http://www.r-charge.com/


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Pi3141 said:


> Ok your not impressed by the Phillipines inventor but what about my other post about the Renaissance Charge products?
> 
> They currently have EV battery rechargers on sale, their technology uses high voltage 'negative' voltage spikes to fast charge lead acid batteries to a deeper capacity.
> 
> ...


They *might* make some good chargers, but when I see that they are selling Bedini "generator" kits, I know which way I'll be running


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

kek_63 said:


> They *might* make some good chargers, but when I see that they are selling Bedini "generator" kits, I know which way I'll be running


 Thats a shame. Bedini has done some interesting stuff. The B.A.S.E sound system used by radio stations and at Glastonbury soundstage, also he's the engineer that devised the data structure for Audio CD's, for instance

Has anyone on here tried out the chargers?

Any threads about them.

Any thoughts on Negatively charging a battery for deeper capacity and longer battery life? Does it make sense to you?


----------



## reubenT (Jun 17, 2009)

look for something called the "tesla switch" it has run EV's down the road for months/years on nothing but rapid battery switching causing those negative spikes, obviously it's pulling in outside energy from the radiant energy that tesla discovered.
But don't expect a demo anywhere, it's been tried, and quick confiscation was the result, somebody hates that stuff. 

It's not the best way to run an EV on "nothing" but it works. Don Smith's devices based on tesla's radiant energy technology are better, more power, easier/cheaper to make, (once ya figure out how)
I think I left the majority of forum readers in the dust, they just can't comprehend and won't do the research in order to comprehend. But who cares? they are the losers.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

reubenT said:


> Don Smith's devices based on tesla's radiant energy technology are better, more power, easier/cheaper to make, (once ya figure out how)




Interesting stuff, I've not come across Don Smith's work before. Just found a copy of his pdf and am reading through it now.

Thanks!


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> What a friggin joke. Guys, go haunt another site.


Why?

Are we not allowed to talk about free energy systems on this thread?

I'm not exactly spamming this site or causing it any harm.

Can you please tell me why Renaissance Chargers are no good or will not work as described? 

Or do you just want to laugh at and insult others?

Whats wrong with discussion?

Isn't that what forums are for?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

Pi3141 said:


> Why?
> 
> Are we not allowed to talk about free energy systems on this thread?
> 
> ...


You're right - this is the thread for free energy crap. 

I think that those chargers probably work fine. They are way expensive for what they are, though.

Pete gets tired of every free energy guy assuming that we are easy marks just because we like EVs Can't say that I blame him.

Keith


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Your insistence on pushing bull shit is just getting old.


What insistence? 

I've posted 30 times in 1 year and not all of that was on this thread or about overunity. So i don't see what you think I am insisting on and its obvious from my post history that I am not here every day pushing bullshit.



gottdi said:


> You know it's bull shit. It's fine to discuss but there is never any discussion.


Your right, there has been no discussion from you about this.



gottdi said:


> Go away or actually discuss the truth.


Do you mean stay here and trade insults as that seems to be your manner of discussion or do you mean actually discuss things?

For instance



Pi3141 said:


> I mentioned this to a colleague, the chief engineer at the TV station I work at (I'm an MCR engineer) and he remembers a previous colleague of his from the BBC, perhaps a few decades ago, who discovered through research that when charging lead acid batteries, if you occasionally 'hit them' with a negative voltage during the charging cycle you could recharge them quicker. In other words, they responded positively to the application of a negative voltage spike.
> 
> Another colleague of mine, an ex projects engineer (Broadcasting) did not think it at all unusual that a lead acid battery charged negatively would appear to have a deeper capacity.


That is bringing discussion to this topic.

Meanwhile



gottdi said:


> HA HA HA HA HA HA. Now who hear can verifiy that
> 
> This is such a load of garbage crap. Wow, led lights lighting up some plastic frames. Wooooing the crowd. Hell they are all in on the scam. Such garbage. Amazing that folks fall for the crap.





gottdi said:


> Now theres the rub. Always a rub somewhere. Ruben, you got yours figured out yet? What a friggin joke. Guys, go haunt another site.


Your comments, in my opinion, are not the basis of a discussion - just insults.

So go ahead mate, take your own advice, discuss or go away.

Jon


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Well this is bull shit. Somebody who knows someone said something about it decades ago. You call this discussions? This is insulting.


Really, knowledge passed from engineer to engineer verbally about research is bullshit.

Well thats a good start.




gottdi said:


> Where are the papers on this then? Post them.


Ok, so I'll start. i was hoping people may have direct experience to relate and form a discussion. 

But lets see.



> *Burp charging* Also called *Reflex* or *Negative Pulse Charging* Used in conjunction with pulse charging, it applies a very short discharge pulse, typically 2 to 3 times the charging current for 5 milliseconds, during the charging rest period to depolarise the cell. These pulses dislodge any gas bubbles which have built up on the electrodes during fast charging, speeding up the stabilisation process and hence the overall charging process. The release and diffusion of the gas bubbles is known as "burping". Controversial claims have been made for the improvements in both the charge rate and the battery lifetime as well as for the removal of dendrites made possible by this technique. The least that can be said is that "it does not damage the battery".
> 
> Link - http://www.mpoweruk.com/chargers.htm


 


gottdi said:


> Oh by the way don't take it personal. I am not just talking about you but the others as well. I never said you post daily and never said you post about this garbage daily either. So chill out and listen.


Fine. 



gottdi said:


> You sure its not just a stupid box with a cheap Autozone charger inside?


No I'm not sure at all - I've not opened one up and looked inside.




gottdi said:


> Put up the proof and not your uncles brothers friend who heard it from another person whom he forgot his name but its true anyway. That kind of talk is insulting. That kind of talk is not discussions either. So who is insulting who?


Here's another one - unfortunately I am not subscribed to the website and obviously cannot get the whole paper.



> Research on Fast Charge Method for Lead-Acid Electric Vehicle Batteries
> 
> 11 Jun 2009 *...* battery chargers , battery powered vehicles , *lead acid batteries* *...* constant current-constant voltage charging , *negative pulse* method...
> 
> Link - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5073068


 


> *Application of pulse charging techniques to submarine lead-acid batteries*
> 
> *Abstract*
> 
> ...


I've started to put up relevant sources and I will continue to do so until you say enough.

So lets discuss them then? 

The last paper was posted by - 

Department of Defence, DGSM, Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia

Does that fall into the Phillipines 3rd World country joke or will you accept it as scientifically credible?


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Negative and Pulse charging from Wiki - 



> Pulse
> Some chargers use _pulse technology_ in which a pulse is fed to the battery. This DC pulse has a strictly controlled rise time, pulse width, pulse repetition rate (frequency) and amplitude. This technology is said to work with any size, voltage, capacity or chemistry of batteries, including automotive and valve-regulated batteries.[2] With pulse charging, high instantaneous voltages can be applied without overheating the battery. In a Lead–acid battery, this breaks down lead-sulfate crystals, thus greatly extending the battery service life.[3]
> Several kinds of pulse charging are patented.[4][5][6] Others are open source hardware.[7]
> Some chargers use pulses to check the current battery state when the charger is first connected, then use constant current charging during fast charging, then use pulse charging as a kind of trickle charging to maintain the charge.[8]
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

More info on Negative Charging, paper published by the IEEE.



> *Research on Fast Charge Method for Lead-Acid Electric Vehicle Batteries*
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

More info, this method using both positive and negative pulse charging to improve efficiency by a claimed 90%

Published in - 



> Fuzzy Information and Engineering Volume 2
> Advances in Soft Computing, 2009, Volume 62, 1219-1227, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-03664-4_130





> *Study on the Optimal Charging with Neural Networks Prediction and Variable Structure Fuzzy Control *
> 
> Jing-zhao Li and Chong-wei Zhang
> 
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> The topics are just insulting. It's insulting that you continue to promote this garbage. Put up the proof and not your uncles brothers friend who heard it from another person whom he forgot his name but its true anyway. That kind of talk is insulting. That kind of talk is not discussions either. So who is insulting who?


Feel free to jump in anytime with your comments!!


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

More info published by IEEEE Computer Society org



> 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology
> Rapid Charge System for Lead-Acid Battery of Solar Energy Street Light based on Single-Chip Microcomputer
> 
> August 29-September 02
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

From Germany - 



> *Pulse charging of batteries - controlled deposition of metal?*​
> 
> *(Held at the UECT 1997 in Ulm)*​
> 
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Where are the papers on this then? Post them.


 


gottdi said:


> The topics are just insulting. It's insulting that you continue to promote this garbage. Put up the proof and not your uncles brothers friend who heard it from another person whom he forgot his name but its true anyway. That kind of talk is insulting. That kind of talk is not discussions either. So who is insulting who?


Have I posted enough papers or do you need more?

Perhaps you could do a search like I just did - 

'fast charging lead acid battery negative pulse'

Maybe you can find something interesting.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

They just keep on coming 



> *Journal of Power Sources*
> Volume 191, Issue 1, 1 June 2009, Pages 82-90
> 7th International Conference on Lead-Acid Batteries, Varna, Bulgaria, 9-12 June 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Go away or actually discuss the truth.


Right this is my last one - I think I've answered your claim for proof and posted enough proof to prove this conversation is valid.



> A new pulse charging methodology for lead acid batteries
> 
> PENZ Transactions, Vol. 25, No.1/EMCh, 1998 A new pulse charging methodology for lead acid batteries J J A Wilkinson,1 BE (Hons), ME G A Covic,2 BE (Hons), PhD, MIEEE, MIPENZ (Grad) Lead acid battery cells have low energy density and relatively low life-cycle, yet because of their cost effectivenes... The invariant pulse ... describes an improved pulse charging strategy, which provides many of the ... and practicality of pulse charging, a prototype pulse ...
> 
> Link - http://unjobs.org/tags/pulse-charging


Is that enough truth?


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

So, hang on, i said this - 



> Pi3141 said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, they responded positively to the application of a negative voltage spike.
> ...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

gottdi said:


> Since you can dig up relevant information why would you make posts about a company like this with claims that border on ...............
> 
> It's kind of baffling to me that with with reality at hand some of you guys would actually provide garbage.
> 
> ...


I put up Renaissance in this section because they are claiming overunity. hence this is where it belongs.

However I am aware of these charging techniques. I read a White Paper years ago now from a lead acid battery manufacturer that said fast charging batteries causes damage was a myth. No I don't have the link now, but it was a credible paper. Now I discuss these topics with engineering colleagues - way more knowledgable than me and they have anecdotal evidence regarding this.

I find it interesting and now I look around and find evidence for the claim of Negatively charging - now that does not prove overunity but it proves there may be something in this.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Sorry, been chatting to colleagues here about this, I'm working nights and they just turned up. 

I have some more about my anecdotal evidence. 

But first, here's one against the argument - 



> *Negative Pulse Charging: Myths and Facts *​*Nasser Kutkut, Ph.D. - PowerDesigners, LLC - Madison, WI *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now, I've just been diescussing this with our chief engineer here at the TV station - well, he's not actually the Head Of Engineering - he's actually the engineer that designed and built this TV station, he also designed and built the MTV TV studio's at Camden Lock here in the UK. As far as our company is concerned, he is way above the Chief Engineer.

Anyways, when he worked at the BBC designing the first E.N.G. kit for the BBC, the OB trucks etc back in mid 1970's they had and engineer working with them who was responsible for designing the chargers to recharge the batteries for the E.N.G. kit and his system used this method of charging, negative pulsing.

Now look at the report above, in 1971 GM stated there was no validity to the negative charging claim.

*Yet, the BBC were using this method of charging for the newly designed ENG equipment because it was better than conventional charging.*


Sorry its just brothers uncle anecdote, but this is an engineer I take very seriously, being a person hugely more capable than i, with god knows how many years as a career engineer working in broadcasting, designing equipment and building TV stations. Who specifically remembers the BBC OB equipment being designed by him and colleagues at the time utilised negative charging pulses as it was consisitently better than conventional non pulse charging.


I suggest all you people lucky enough to have built your EVs, unlike me standing on the side lines watching and dreaming, to investigate Negative Pulse charging techniques so as to improve charging periods and battery lifetime and higher capacity's.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

Nobody is arguing that shaping the charge voltage curve with pulses to partially overcome the limitations of certain battery chemistries isn't possible. It has its uses. But improving charge efficiency and extending battery life by using charge pulses will not result in over-unity. The maximum amount of energy you convey in a charge is equal to the area under the charge voltage curve, no matter how it's shaped. And the area under your voltage charge curve won't exceed the energy you put into your charger, no matter how high and skinny your pulses are.


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

Astronomer said:


> Nobody is arguing that shaping the charge voltage curve with pulses to partially overcome the limitations of certain battery chemistries isn't possible.


 
Er, yes they are actually. 

GM studied it back in the 70's and concluded there was no benefit. It seems recent studies have proven otherwise.

So yes, there is an argument. If you look on my other thread about Negatively Pulse charging batteries for improvement you will see that some members dismiss it out of hand.

Link - http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/batteries-and-charging-35.html

If you have any information to contribute I would be interested to hear it.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The only proven perpetual motion is the movement of money from us to the Government. Even that is variable, and sometimes governments are disposed of (but tend to spring up again).

Everyone wants the power of the sun in their pocket to command as they please. Those who claim to have done so, to this date, are all seeking to sell that promise and split before the marks figure out they've been had.


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> The only proven perpetual motion is the movement of money from us to the Government. Even that is variable, and sometimes governments are disposed of (but tend to spring up again).
> 
> Everyone wants the power of the sun in their pocket to command as they please. Those who claim to have done so, to this date, are all seeking to sell that promise and split before the marks figure out they've been had.



Damn man! You're going to scare away all the flakes with profound statements like that! 

Later,
Keith


----------



## ChadElectric (Mar 16, 2011)

Hi, New to the Forum, so this might have been posted before, haven't got round to reading the 500 entries in this post 

The info at http://home-solar-energy-system.com/magnetic-generator looks quite convincing, though I agree, that it needs to be proved large scale, but easy to experiment for ourselves


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Chad
These things have been seen before
The only thing they all have in common is

*THEY DON'T WORK*


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

kek_63 said:


> Damn man! You're going to scare away all the flakes with profound statements like that!
> 
> Later,
> Keith


 - What was I thinking?


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

ChadElectric said:


> Hi, New to the Forum, so this might have been posted before, haven't got round to reading the 500 entries in this post
> 
> The info at http://home-solar-energy-system.com/magnetic-generator looks quite convincing, though I agree, that it needs to be proved large scale, but easy to experiment for ourselves



in what way is this 'convincing'? there isn't even a cartoon version of the principle they use to 'create energy'.....


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

ChadElectric said:


> Hi, New to the Forum, so this might have been posted before, haven't got round to reading the 500 entries in this post
> 
> The info at http://home-solar-energy-system.com/magnetic-generator looks quite convincing, though I agree, that it needs to be proved large scale, but easy to experiment for ourselves


If that convinced you, I've got a perpetual motion machine in my garage that I would like to sell you. I'll just need a money order for $5000 and you'll never have to pay for energy again. 

If you need to buy the guide to learn about it, IT'S A SCAM. If you need to buy the book to save thousands, IT'S A SCAM. If they've discovered ANYTHING that has eluded physicists for decades, but they will sell you the secret, IT'S A SCAM.


----------



## ChadElectric (Mar 16, 2011)

It's clear that some poeple on this forum use the "Faith" theory

http://bestofb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sciencevsfaith.png

Just because no-one has found the solution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If explorers from Europe / China decided that There's no Land to the west / east, America wouldn't exist.

I'm sure the detractors of those explorers screamed it's a scam, and they were not convinced.

If scientists can potentially find a new particle of force - http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ists-may-have-found-new-particle-or-new-force then why would we not be open minded enough to think such a thing is possible?


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

ChadElectric said:


> It's clear that some poeple on this forum use the "Faith" theory
> 
> http://bestofb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sciencevsfaith.png
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting that those of us who have scientifically proven the Law of Conservation of Energy to ourselves live by that "faith" theory?

Keith


----------



## execelon7 (Jan 25, 2008)

ChadElectric said:


> It's clear that some poeple on this forum use the "Faith" theory
> 
> http://bestofb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sciencevsfaith.png
> 
> ...


Has anyone done this ?


----------



## waveformblue (Jun 17, 2011)

Two rules of physics...

- You can't win.

- You can't break even.

Peace.

~


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

waveformblue said:


> Two rules of physics...
> 
> - You can't win.
> 
> ...


Sounds like US economics.


----------



## Nehmo (Aug 11, 2011)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



Mastiff said:


> If you mean adding an alternator that's powered by the electric motor of the EV, then simply no, it will not work.
> This is what you call Perpetual Motion


I have an *obviously* electric bike. The batteries are prominently positioned, and anybody can see them. The bike gets considerable attention because there isn't anybody else like this in Kansas City.
Every day, or maybe almost every day, I get asked this stupid generator question. When I provide a short answer, they often want to argue. I don't bother. But it's amazing how ignorant these people are.


----------



## multixperience (Aug 27, 2011)

In gaining more electricity from a moving body-parts of the car I would rather consider the usage of aerodynamics. 

It is true that an alternator - the conventional from a factory - is not up to generate from an EV motor. And its also a true that it will consume this way even more electricity and your mileage will lessen. 

2 possibilities that I know of: 

Construct the alternator in a different way so that it wouldnt be hard to turn it. It would make less electricity. Best way would be to construct an alternator to create static electricity (as thats very easy to turn). Hook up some transformator, few condensers, a coil, and you thus change the electrostatic energy into a DC - powering back the batteries. This still is not enough to power the whole load of batteries but.... 

In a car there is a lot of place - allways at least 3 to 6 to mount an aerodynamic hole - through which the air could easily flow in - through - and out. 

Get a ventilator there and hook it on a dynamo. This would also increase your aerodynamics as the wind would be hitting your car anyway, when on road. In this way you let that air flow through you car internaly. Even a little ventilator is better than nothing. 

By the air turning the ventilator you dont load your own motor and do create electricity that you can get right back to the battery. 

Thats at least my idea how I will certainly build my EV. Im just at the beginning.

I am planning to put it where the former cooling ventilator is in the front panel of the car. But there must be also a way for the air to get easily out. I think this would be from under the car. Its just a question of mounting some aerodynamic shield into the motor area that would make the air easily flow out from that place.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

multixperience said:


> By the air turning the ventilator you dont load your own motor and do create electricity that you can get right back to the battery.


Except, of course, that you are loading the motor, by increasing the wind resistance. Yes, you will get some power out of it, but not as much as you're going to have to use pushing harder against the increased wind resistance you're making.


----------



## ChadElectric (Mar 16, 2011)

Hi All, just thought I'd throw an idea I had into the ring. First off, cheers to execelon7 for the diagram that I modified slightly - if I make a million of the design, I'll cut you in 

I've been thinking about generating electricity with alternators too, but why stick with 1? But, I hear you shout, the more alternators, the more friction to overcome - but what if the gears / belts are replaced with magnets? - I'm sure there will be some resistance to get over - but not as much as a chain / belt.










The positioning / number of alternators as well as the positioning / number / type of magnets on the flywheel / alternators would be the trial and error bit to be worked out to get the best configuration. I've shown the magnets as Neodymium, but these may be too strong - so this would need to be another vairable. I would start with 1 alternator, and 1 magnet, and add more magnets / alternators to the setup, untill I had enough power (can you have enough Mwaaaahahahaha) or until the output started to drop off.

Next bit would be why use standard alternators? - This site is selling revamped alternators that are much more powerful - YouTube (I'm not associated with the site btw)

Couldn't find actual figures for output, but i'm sure I heard 1000w(?) mentioned in 1 of the videos. I also see some of the comments in you tube saying that it can't be used in cars because of the unregulated voltage - possible to put an external voltage regulator onto it?

So 1 idea, 2 technologies several questions that would need to be answered to make it work, and a diagram ripped of from someone else (thanks again execelon7)

What do others think?


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Do you visit this thread for the entertainment value too, Pete?


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

ChadElectric said:


> Hi All, just thought I'd throw an idea I had into the ring. First off, cheers to execelon7 for the diagram that I modified slightly - if I make a million of the design, I'll cut you in
> 
> I've been thinking about generating electricity with alternators too, but why stick with 1? But, I hear you shout, the more alternators, the more friction to overcome - but what if the gears / belts are replaced with magnets? - I'm sure there will be some resistance to get over - but not as much as a chain / belt.
> 
> ...


The more power you try and pull from an alternator, the more difficult it becomes to turn the alternator. Really! Try it! Start a regular ICE car, remove the battery (Short the battery leads), then turn on the high beam lights and rear window demister, and listen to the engine bog down and struggle as it has to turn the alternator with the increased load.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVfun said:


> Do you visit this thread for the entertainment value too, Pete?


Me2!

I love how the first thought that comes to a physics liberated mind is always "It's such a great idea, why stop at 1? Why not 2 or 10 and generate that much more power?"

The iPod crank charger came out years ago and the immediate suggestion was "They should put more plugs on it so one person can crank and charge 10 phones while they're at it."

That's the beauty of overunity, you don't need to produce 2x the input power, but if you're the genius who finds out how to get 1.01%x the power out you can have infinity power and rule the world!!!!


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

Thank you for your comments. We need to look forward and use the past as a reference point not as fate. I think I have found a flaw in the 6V experiment listed above. I am going to buy a couple of motors like the member said but reverse one of the motors to see what happens.


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

If an electric motor is running optimally when it is unencumberred by anything attached to it, then the real issue is torque, just like in an ice. If the theory that torque is optimal at high RPM's through gearing is correct, than wouldn't the simple machine principles pertaining to levers and pulleys apply? With the right gearing ("levers and pulleys") in place, less energy or force is required to move larger, heavier objects, i.e. "perpetual motion".


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Mark108 said:


> With the right gearing ("levers and pulleys") in place, less energy or force is required to move larger, heavier objects, i.e. "perpetual motion".


Less force is required over a longer period of time. To get a full revolution out of a bike wheel, you can turn it with nearly no force from the outside, but you must turn the full radius. To get a full revolution near the hub will take more force for just a few inches.

A similar amount of power is used in either case.


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

Agreed. And like a 10-speed bicycle, if the rider exerts the same, even flow of inertia while "clicking" up through the gears, the result will be increased speed and improved energy efficiency. (Hwy vs. city mpg).

Another way to look at it is that you have a 1-ton weight that a single, 150lb man logically has no chance of lifting or manuevering by himself. However, if the same man applies the appropriate, proven principles of leverage (levers, pulleys, etc.), the 1-ton weight ends up being at the mercy of the same man's intent.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

sure, torque is different, and so is the speed..... but it's the same amount of work.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Mark108 said:


> Agreed. And like a 10-speed bicycle, if the rider exerts the same, even flow of inertia while "clicking" up through the gears, the result will be increased speed and improved energy efficiency. (Hwy vs. city mpg).


I can't believe you actualy have a 10 speed bike. I believe these strange views of reality are caused by a lack of biking. In the Netherlands you hardly ever, more like never, hear people think that gearing can increase anything, let alone create energy. You really must bicycle more.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Mark108 said:


> However, if the same man applies the appropriate, proven principles of leverage (levers, pulleys, etc.), the 1-ton weight ends up being at the mercy of the same man's intent.


Do you know what a pulley or lever is?? They are simple machines that use a smaller force over a longer distance to acheive the same amount of work that one would do with his bare hands. You can throw inclined plane in there as well.

Machines make stuff possible (like a person lifting a car using a jack) not because they lower the amount of work required, they just change how the work is applied. 10-20 pumps on a car jack vs bench pressing it in one go.

And hwy vs cty mpg are different not because of the gear used and "increased speed and improved energy efficiency" (those two terms are contradictory unless you are driving in space), but because one is stop and go, and the other is just go.


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

I'll take these one at a time...

Ziggy the Wiz. Thanks for the primer on simple machines. By your car jack logic, if a single man forgoes the jack, he can still lift the car by himself as long as he does it in increments of 10 or 20. Distance is a state of mind. If you told someone living a hundred years ago that you could connect anyone, anywhere by electrons, they would argue what your trying to argue here.

Jan. Yes, I have 3 ten speed bikes in my American garage. If no one talks about gearing, where do folks in the Netherlands go to have their transmissions serviced, the Dutch? Not really talking about creating electricity. If that is how it came across, my bad. Car makers spend a lot of money and time working on improving efficiencies and performance simultaneously. The 350 small block has been around for over 60 years, but does it look the same today under the hood of a CTS-V vs a '55 Bel-Air? Going from an American performance cars (currently an oxymoron, I know) to a German one, I have a new found appreciation for torque and you can talk to any ice "car guy" or "car gal" and many will say that torque is where it's at.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

so whats your point, I'm still trying to figure out where you're going with thos whole perpetual motion thing..... Nothing is very coherent.....


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

frodus. Sorry ran out of rant space. It isn't the same amount of work. Next time you are driving an automatic transmission car, try going 70mph in first gear at 3000RPMs. Then try the same thing once the car slips itself into third or fourth gear (depending on how it's set up for "cruising speed"). Listen to the engine both times and tell me when the labor seemed to be the greatest.

Ziggythewiz. Does it take more, less or the same amount of energy, time and effort to walk to the front door of your home as it does to walk around the world? 

If anyone has had experience in how cycle turbines work, they know in talking with the operators and by reading the warranty contracts that the manufacturers recommend running the turbine full out as much as possible. They also have written void clauses that come into effect if an operator "ramps" or black starts the unit too often. Also, in combined cycle turbines where you have maybe two or three units connected together, the operators state that they can squeeze more MW's out of the units, collectively, than what the nameplates state, individually when they program them for peak efficiency. Meaning, if you have 3 800MW rated gas fired turbines programmed correctly, the output can be greater than 2400MW "creating" energy. FYI. They also perform routine cleanings of the blades because dirt and dust can rob performance and in wholesale energy MW=$$$.


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

frodus. I'm not focused on perpetual motion. I came to this site because I am looking for a 300kW motor that can develop at least 160 ft/lbs of torque, last 500 miles on a charge and can be recharged in less than four hours (the time to pump a 20 gallon gas tank would be optimal, but I know space and time are distances that have to be overcome). 

I came to this site because I followed a link from a grad student member who is also looking for a 300kW motor. I don't know what other criteria he has, he hasn't responded back.

I joined this site because I was impressed by the work that has been done already. The guy with the Range Rover seems to have had good results. But, when you have a site that has to not only tell its members how to behave but to also put it in writing, then maybe this isn't the forward thinking site I thought it would be to help me solve my commercial endeavors. (and no, I am not looking to start a car company. Ever hear of Tucker?)

I've dealt with engineers for over 20 years and, like it or not, whenever some out of the box thinking is required, the typical first response is that it can't be done. They usually come back with a solution if money or noteriety is involved. But hey, what do I know. Keep relying on all the things that you know are true. Like banking, political and religious systems, your respective countries' governments' ability to manage their way out of paper bags. That all matter is solid. It's not coming back, boys and girls! No matter how much you believe in the tooth fairy or how special your mom said you are.

The future is not about pie in the sky theories. Those will come into their own in time. What we have to do right now is leverage (simple machine, right Wiz?) what we have now, what people are doing today and repurpose using the tools we possess to fix what's broken. Otherwise, I say to all of you, "I'll have fries with that..."

Peace.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Mark
You are not looking for a motor - you are looking for a battery!

It takes about 250 watt hours of energy to drive a small car 1 mile 

Some simple maths
300 miles at 250watt hours/mile = 75,000 Watt hours (75Kwhrs)

To charge it in 4 hours = 75/4 = 18.75 Kw - that's doable - but not on your domestic supply!

Now you have your battery you need a motor, 
300Kw - (assuming that that is peak power) a Warp11 HV should do fine, you can always use two!


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

Hi Duncan. Thank you. I appreciate the lead and the formulas. In doing research on ice, I found that not only do the engines have hp and trq ratings but kW ratings as well. If 100hp = 75kW (approx.), then a 300kW motor should have the same output as a 400hp engine, if the gearing is 1:1 (motor:engine). I'm trying to look at a car as an integrated solution and not a series of systems connected to a motion device.

I also had a conversation with an electro-motive engineer today to understand why they link locomotive engines forward and backward. Some interesting bits of information I need to test out.

Do you know of any electric motor simulation software that is available for free?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

frodus said:


> so whats your point, I'm still trying to figure out where you're going with thos whole perpetual motion thing..... Nothing is very coherent.....


Yeah, I give up.

PM came from the idea that:


Mark108 said:


> With the right gearing ("levers and pulleys") in place, less energy or force is required to move larger, heavier objects, i.e. "perpetual motion".


So if you had a powered motor tuning an identical reverse motor (generator) you could get back all the power you put in minus losses, but if you changed the gearing, you could turn it easier, so you'd be getting out more than you put in.

Profit!!


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

> frodus. Sorry ran out of rant space. It isn't the same amount of work. Next time you are driving an automatic transmission car, try going 70mph in first gear at 3000RPMs. Then try the same thing once the car slips itself into third or fourth gear (depending on how it's set up for "cruising speed"). Listen to the engine both times and tell me when the labor seemed to be the greatest.


Wrong... The engine is creating less torque at a higher RPM in one gear, and more torque and lower RPM in the other. The HP output (power) remains the same.... 

Torque x speed / 5252 = HP

and work is power/time, and since you're going the same speed, you cover the same distance in the same time and is irrelevant.

That's why. 



> If anyone has had experience in how cycle turbines work, they know in talking with the operators and by reading the warranty contracts that the manufacturers recommend running the turbine full out as much as possible. They also have written void clauses that come into effect if an operator "ramps" or black starts the unit too often. Also, in combined cycle turbines where you have maybe two or three units connected together, the operators state that they can squeeze more MW's out of the units, collectively, than what the nameplates state, individually when they program them for peak efficiency. Meaning, if you have 3 800MW rated gas fired turbines programmed correctly, the output can be greater than 2400MW "creating" energy. FYI. They also perform routine cleanings of the blades because dirt and dust can rob performance and in wholesale energy MW=$$$.


Actually, I do. Worked for GE Energy for 5 years on gas and wind turbines and went to college for Alt Energy.....

It's not creating any energy, it's just using the energy more efficiently. 

What goes in:
Gas/fuel

What comes out:
rotational energy from the turbine
+ 
Heat

The only thing a combined cycle does is to use that heat to power that second set of turbines. Overall, you're still using the same amount of fuel, but you're getting more recovered energy out of the system because you made the "system" run better.


----------



## Mark108 (Sep 14, 2011)

Travis. Thanks for proving my point. Efficiencies improve performance and in the long run save energy!

BTW. Speed and RPM are not the same thing. The correct formula is Torque x RPM / 5252 = HP.

If anyone is interested in the white paper "Torque and Horsepower -- A Primer", here's the link.

www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Ahhh....there's the problem. We're trying to use logic with a 'vette fanboi.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Mark

_then a 300kW motor should have the same output as a 400hp engine, if the gearing is 1:1_

Gearboxes are power in = power out (minus friction losses) devices, 
so the gearing is irrelevant to the "power" (if you are an engineer) - most drivers think of "power" as how well the car lifts - and that's torque

300Kw is 400Hp

It would be useful if you would sit down with a piece of paper and do some manipulation

Force x Distance = Work or Energy - measured in Joules
1 joule = 1 Newton x 1 meter (1Kg force = ~10 Newtons)
work/time = power - measured in watts
1 watt = 1 joule/sec

We then confuse people by measuring watt hours = 1 watt for one hour -
its a bastard measure and really should not be used
1 watt hour = 3600 joules
1 Kw hour = 3,600,000 joules - too big a number - why we use Kwhours

What you need in a car is enough ENERGY to travel the distance and enough POWER to play at silly buggers

The battery contains the energy (Kwhours) and delivers the electrical power (Kw) to the motor which turn the electrical power (Kw) into mechanical power (also Kw)


----------



## cbdl23 (Nov 20, 2011)

Hi I have an idea jusr started on first Ev have vehicle getting painted at moment, I an auto electrican by trade and are fully aware you cant make more electricity than the energy used to produce it but does the alternator have to be on all the time why not have alternator come on when throttle is at idle or under brake only (not when motor engaged) , by watching the way I drive there is a far bit of time the vehicle is just roling why not use this time to turn on alternator it has to help. craig


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi cbd123
_by watching the way I drive there is a far bit of time the vehicle is just roling why not use this time to turn on alternator _

Running the alternator during this period will slow the car down - requiring more power from the motor to regain speed

Running the alternator while you want to slow down is called regenerative braking - this does help but there is a trade off with the extra weight of the alternator, 
AC motors can usually do this with the main motor so the trade off is in software - (notoriously lightweight)


----------



## cbdl23 (Nov 20, 2011)

HI was going to use AC motor and enable regerative braking some times you want to start slowing down without using brakes maybe switch to enable field on alternator would work as retarder would be one of the last i do will give more thought


----------



## DeepCut (Dec 8, 2011)

*A generator for infinite range ?*

Hi,

i've been learning electronics for about two years now, with a keen interest in motors/generators.

I ahve been replicating the work of Thane C. Heins, who has shown us that, under certain conditions, a generator can acccelerate-under-load (AUL).

It's all to do with parasitic capacitance, a phenomenon which is always designed-out because it can be problematic.

It turns out that, when you drive an inductor (coil) that is made of fine wire (i use 0.25mm) at a high frequency, the inductor starts to act more like a capacitor. This leads to a kind of delay in LEnz's law, the delay is such that when the counter-EMF rises, instead of opposing the magnet that gave rise to it, it helps it accelerate away from the coil.

My current setup seems to be outputting more energy than it consumes, which is entirely possible when Lenz's law is circumvented in this (or any other) way.

Here is a video of the current setup :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBDOOSOhbz0&feature=email&email=comment_received

There are other videos there, the OUG archive is from someone else who has replicated the effect succesfully using transformers as well as rotors.

I hope this interests you all, as it implies a battery that won't run down, which implies an electric car with infinite range.


Thanks for reading,

DC.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: A generator for infinite range ?*



DeepCut said:


> My current setup seems to be outputting more energy than it consumes,.......


Hi DC,

I mean this with all due respect. Why do you nuts gravitate to electric vehicles with your free energy machines? If you actually have a machine which outputs more than the input, just hook the input to the output and use the excess to power your house. Then sell the plans or produce more or larger versions and power the world. You could do away with all carbon emissions and eliminate dependence on oil. Why do you mess around with us over here trying to convert cars to electric?

Regards,

major

ps. I have asked the moderators to move your post to our special place  http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html


----------



## dtbaker (Jan 5, 2008)

*Re: A generator for infinite range ?*



DeepCut said:


> My current setup seems to be outputting more energy than it consumes,



whoo hoo!


this should be your first clue that something is wrong with your instrumentation.


----------



## DeepCut (Dec 8, 2011)

*Re: A generator for infinite range ?*



major said:


> Hi DC,
> 
> I mean this with all due respect. Why do you nuts gravitate to electric vehicles with your free energy machines? If you actually have a machine which outputs more than the input, just hook the input to the output and use the excess to power your house. Then sell the plans or produce more or larger versions and power the world. You could do away with all carbon emissions and eliminate dependence on oil. Why do you mess around with us over here trying to convert cars to electric?
> 
> ...


Hi major,

thank you for respectfully calling me a nut 

I'm not 'messing around' with anyone. This is an established phenomenon, nothing to do with the Bedini's of this world, or any of the actual 'nuts' who follow him or his kind.

It has been verified by respected academics and professionals and one person (that i know of) is in the process of buiding it into an EV.

Others have confirmed the use of the effect in a transformer, so that current/voltage are 90 degrees out of phase and appliances can operate on purely reactive power.

I'm assuming you know about parasitic capacitance and the behaviour of inductors at high frequencies, this is merely a logical extension of that behaviour.

I have a stepdown transformer on order, since the device outputs HV at low current, so i will be 'hooking the output to the input'.

I'm not a nut or a dreamer, i've been pursuing this phenomenon for the past few months because it is a promising phenomenon and anyone can spend a few quid and see it for themselves, as i have done.

If you manage to watch some of the earlier videos you will see that it's an amazing thing to hook up a load to the generator, watch the current draw go down while the generator speeds up, providing even more power.

Induction theory hasn't been developed much in the last 50 years or so, and since parasitic capacitance is an unwanted behaviour i am not surprised that it has been overlooked.

It's a very serious, non-nutty thing.

Converting cars to electric IS a way "to do away with all carbon emissions and eliminate dependence on oil".

It would be a shame if people missed out on it through lack of understanding of the principles involved or just categorising it as nutty without trying it themselves.


All the best,

DC.


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

*Re: A generator for infinite range ?*



DeepCut said:


> Hi,
> 
> i've been learning electronics for about two years now, with a keen interest in motors/generators.
> 
> ...


you need to become more familar with resonate circuits series and parallel.
Specifically Phase, I think once you fully understand this you will see your error.


----------



## DeepCut (Dec 8, 2011)

Thanks for the constructive criticism, i will read up.


----------



## otp57 (Feb 7, 2012)

I am working on using an alternator or generator to charge the system when I am going DOWN HILLS using mass of the car to charge my system,
My controllor is not the regen type.
This is not Perpetual Motion but using the mass of the car going down hills or stopping to run the alternator or generator.


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

*Re: A generator for infinite range ?*



dtbaker said:


> whoo hoo!
> 
> 
> this should be your first clue that something is wrong with your instrumentation.


nothing wrong with their instrumentation, few watts + or - it's nothing, their device just not powerful enough

here's russian development on free energy (well, energy from vacuum, ether, parallel universe and santa claus) - as mach as you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLd0lrhDarE&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXBz9qUEvDI&feature=channel
efficiency or overunity % - as mach as you want : )))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkIrcay-4bM
about 1kwh per second - wind meter (sorry, measurement readings) as fast as you want - either way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atqSDCMaHCo&feature=related
p.s. don't let such silly device as meter stop you! just don't get caught - or try to explain to cops "free energy" paradigm
pps. but you can put it in your car- if you want : ))))
lol


----------



## electricvw (Apr 26, 2012)

I have a question about this topic. I'm still new in understanding this subject and I try to learn from my mistakes. 

I've been asking to myself, if I reverse the motor driving the wheels while I'm moving forward with much higher rpm than the reverse rpm will it act as an efficient generator? (or vice versa; motor:FORWARD; Transmission:REVERSE) And if I'm wrong and the rpm will still be the same (reverse/forward ratio) can the driver shift to another gear while in reverse and having an optimum output/input ratio?

I don't have any specific type of motor or system in mind, so it can by anything or nothing and I might be hugely mistaken.


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

*Physics Education Clearly Lacking*

The fact that this thread is fifty pages long tells me that people are getting out of high school without learning physics. 

Maybe we should start teaching physics in middle school or grade school. 

Come to think of it, I believe I was taught the principle of Conservation of Energy in grade school. 

I remember covering similar scenarios with friends at a very young age. One friend built a beautiful model boat with a fan blade angled up at the front with a driveshaft connected to a propeller in the water.

I took one look and said "That's not going to work. Conservation of Energy."

He said "I know. But I think it will work in a headwind where the water is moving slower than the wind" [completely ignoring the fact that the big fan blade up front had to be pushed into the wind as well]

My point is that when smart people don't "get" Conservation of Energy, society as a whole loses. Think of all the wasted effort on projects, and the susceptibility of people to shysters that separate them from their money.

My flight instructor was contemplating buying an emergency generator for her plane - you deploy it out in the airstream and you have power for your radios if you suffer from an alternator failure. She said " I was thinking that we could just use it on long trips to save gas, since the alternator on the engine wouldn't have to work" 

We need to increase physics education in public schools, that is very clear.

Nucleus


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Physics, like much of disciplined science is not popular. Thus, its conclusions are not sought because the do not align with peoples wishes.


----------



## Whitehawk (Apr 12, 2012)

This thread is seriously a sticky? The mods here have a sense of humor at least =) 

Energy is all around us...electrons are constantly moving, electrons have mass, e=mc^2; but, putting sticks together and making fire is a bit different then quantum energy harvesting or whatever the future will be. 

When you hear silly ideas like self-powered flashlights, glow-in-the-dark sunglasses or perpetual motion machines, you can't help but laugh at people who are considering these things; however, the only way we innovate is to pursue wacky ideas and think differently about problems.

The hooking a car alternator to a an electric motor makes people want to smack their hand on their face because their embarrassed you live in the same country as them.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

It's a sticky because common sense is a rare feature in today's models.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> quantum energy harvesting


I harvest quantum energy every day.


----------



## Whitehawk (Apr 12, 2012)

onegreenev said:


> I harvest quantum energy every day.


LOL, I should of thrown Flux Capacitor in there.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

The Flux helps clean the leads when you solder your capacitor to the perpetual booster.


----------



## Whitehawk (Apr 12, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> The Flux helps clean the leads when you solder your capacitor to the perpetual booster.


Which model perpetual booster do you have? I have the 1336L model, they just released them earlier this year. I've been using nano-wire electro-flux to connect the capacitors, they say the gold plated contacts boost voltage by 47%!!!!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I have the 133PE Model. It is 133% efficient, so even though I'm using 900 kWh/month from the utility, I'm getting 33% more work done at home with it. Next year I want to get the MonsterFlux unit with the gold-plated capacitors.

It's really sad that I didn't really read your post, yet we both expressed interest in gold-plated capacitors.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I have the 133PE Model. It is 133% efficient, so even though I'm using 900 kWh/month from the utility, I'm getting 33% more work done at home with it. Next year I want to get the MonsterFlux unit with the gold-plated capacitors.
> 
> It's really sad that I didn't really read your post, yet we both expressed interest in gold-plated capacitors.


So you have a system that gives you 900 kWh per month but utilizing 33% more does not give you 133%. So still no free lunch and still not 100%. You can't get better than 100%.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

My Flux Capacitor is 133% efficient, and the next version will be 166% efficient. Once I can afford the 200% model I'll be able to power the neighbor's house as well.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> My Flux Capacitor is 133% efficient, and the next version will be 166% efficient. Once I can afford the 200% model I'll be able to power the neighbor's house as well.


So your saying your creating energy with the normal system at 900 kWh and your ziggywatt capacitor magically creates 33% more energy and the next will magically create 66% more, then the next will be 100% more? 

Did you get a visit from ET on how this is possible? Actually even ET can't do that. 

So how do you figure? I guess your figuring goes like this. I have a cheap crappy system that produces 10 kWh. I really have no idea how efficient the system really is but hey it produces 10 kWh of power for me. My new ziggy capacitor will boost that to 13 kWh. That means I am getting greater than 100% efficiency. Well, no it only means your original equipment that only produces 10 kWh is pretty damn crappy and you just made it a bit better. 

You are not at 100% efficiency but your better than you were before. Still in the realm of reality I suppose but your using wording to deceive and make others believe you can create a system that is 200%. Ouch. 


Ziggy must be a bit zaggy. Good smoke is my best guess.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If I can get a wind turbine installed over pete's head I really will have free energy...


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

onegreenev said:


> So your saying your creating energy with the normal system at 900 kWh and your ziggywatt capacitor magically creates 33% more energy and the next will magically create 66% more, then the next will be 100% more?


He's pulling your leg Pete...


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> If I can get a wind turbine installed over pete's head I really will have free energy...



Too late. Getting a total of .0023kWh per session. Woopie. Free energy from hot air.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

Finely, some intelligent and useful posts in this thread.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

onegreenev said:


> Too late. Getting a total of .0023kWh per session. Woopie.


I'd expect to get at least a jiggawatt from that volume of air.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I'd expect to get at least a jiggawatt from that volume of air.


Don't you mean a "gigglewatt"?


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

I have to chuckle at you guys coming up with all this stuff. I take over unity serious. As soon as I figure out how to harness my wife’s hot flashes I’ll be in tall clover and won’t you all be envious.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dragonsgate said:


> I have to chuckle at you guys coming up with all this stuff. I take over unity serious. As soon as I figure out how to harness my wife’s hot flashes I’ll be in tall clover and won’t you all be envious.


Thats easy. A simple thermal heat exchanger would do just fine. No don't expect to get too much hot water. 

You might get into more hot water than you could make hot water. Tread lightly


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

I have already said too much. I do not want anyone stealing my ideas. All I will say is it is revolutionary science that will turn the way energy is stored on its head but I have said too much already. I will add that my research is in need of money. I have a plan that can make you all rich but that is so secret that I can’t tell you what that is either. There is one small problem with my design. Dose anyone have any ideas on how to make soft jawed alligator clips? My wife is most uncooperative at this juncture of the project.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> soft jawed alligator clips


Your hands. Sorry but you don't have patent rights to those. 



> My wife is most uncooperative at this juncture of the project.


You see, there is your problem. Your trying to extract electrons and not heat. The issue is heat. The issue with menopause is that it is a chemical reaction that causes HOT flashes not LIGHT flashes. So you need to concentrate on extracting the excess heat. So to best take advantage of that is to just wrap your hands around her in a loving embrace and stop trying to cover her with alligator clips. I'd be a bit uncooperative too. Well, there might be some more than willing to do that. 

But no, menopause is heat not electrons. Easy to extract. Now the issue is to convert that heat to electrons. 

Or just enjoy the heat of the moment.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

I have been hitch to the same sweet lady for forty two great years and the sparks still fly. All seriousness aside I have said too much already. You just want to steal my ideas.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)




----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

"As soon as I figure out how to harness my wife’s hot flashes I’ll be in tall clover and won’t you all be envious."








Ok the name I was trying to come up with when I was joking around about hot flashes is Pyroelectric Nanogenerator. When I was in the Navy in the 60’s I got hold of a book that briefly mentioned certain materials that generated static electricity when heated. Later in the 80’s when I was building a wind generator and installing solar panels for my home in the high desert of southern California I came across it again while reading up on different methods of generating electricity. Neither bit I read said much about it except that an ancient Greek guy named Theophrastus did some experiments heating stones and getting sparks from some and he then developed a theory about it. Now there is a guy at Georgia Tech that is doing research.
He uses superfine zinc oxide wires. When he heats them they separate causing a charge. 
Sounds like something that could keep him in grant money for a while.


----------



## NintendoKD (Apr 29, 2012)

dragonsgate said:


> "As soon as I figure out how to harness my wife’s hot flashes I’ll be in tall clover and won’t you all be envious."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


military, high desert california=29 palms


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

NintendoKD said:


> military, high desert california=29 palms


29 Palms is a nice place to have an electric car. Used spend a lot of time at Joshua Tree National Monument camping and climbing rocks. I first started going there with my parents when I was a kid before it became a National Park. I used to have some acreage at the top of Cajon pass near Wright Wood. Lots of wind for generators plus abundant sun. I left because it got too crowded and everyone was cutting down the Joshua’s and “F”ing up the desert in general. If you are military in 29 Palms you are most likely a Marine. Have you been in since graduation? Have you deployed overseas? Are you nocom or brass? (I will mention perpetual motion so no one can say I am off topic.)


----------



## hoowahfun (Jun 28, 2012)

The amount of people who really believe in over perpetual free energy unity motion is staggering. I almost feel bad for them. All their passion and efforts could be put to so much good use instead of wasted on something that will never happen.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

It's kinda like trying to win the lottery or get rich at the casino, people just want to believe in something incredible (literally) so they never have to work again. Except the only way you get rich with overunity is by scamming others.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Wizard's First Rule: "People would rather believe a lie than the truth, either because they wish it were true or because they are afraid it might be true."
- The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind

Whether you agree with the author's other positions, this pretty much sums up an awful lot of human behavior...


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

*Alaskan car maker gets 800 miles per charge*

Sorry if this has been posted before.

http://pesn.com/2010/03/16/9501627_Chris-Hunter_Alaska-Star_Axial-Flux-Motor/


This also leads to a good reading free energy page....

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Electromagnetic

Miz


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Tools:..._to_verify_overunity_electromagnetic_machines

Gaining credibility will be the challenging part of it. Not getting assassinated by the power, coal, oil companies would be the next part (even the gov with the taxes and jobs that the dirty energy industry creates wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities that they would want you taken out.)

I'll have to get started on building my device.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Alaskan car maker gets 800 miles per charge*



mizlplix said:


> Sorry if this has been posted before.
> 
> http://pesn.com/2010/03/16/9501627_Chris-Hunter_Alaska-Star_Axial-Flux-Motor/


ref: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...m-conversion-42238.html?highlight=alaska+star 

The idiot bothered us with his lies and then erased all of his posts that he could.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

HI major;

the fun part is that it leads to a giant page of the same reading stuff. Free, endless energy...Especially the guys with the hydraulic battery, (What?)

LOL, Miz


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Is the hydraulic battery any different from the air powered ones that make the news every few months?


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Thought everyone might get a laugh out of some junk mail I received!


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Is it the red color they hate or the unpainted metal parts? 
In this day and age I feel they should be more afraid of the improving price (Lower.) of Solar Photo Voltaic panels, Now what can really replace their monopoly. And is very scary to them !


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

The only thing perpetual about perpetual motion is the number if people constantly buying into the hype.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

YES, Ignorance is bliss say the ignorant for they know not what the heck they are doing.
There is a certain Perpetuality to it. They simply do not know enough about the physics of mechanical or electrical systems to understand them. We used to ask prospective Electronics students if the liked "Science Fiction" and if they did they would be easier to explain electricity to them, they had good imaginations and could visualize circuit operation and electron flow easier.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

The only thing truly perpetual is this thread....LOL

Miz


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Any of you that have had an ev on the road for any amount of time has most likely had someone suggest putting a generator on the car and charge the batteries while you drive. I am amazed every time and when I try to explain it to them they say something like how bout if you run it directly off the wheel? It’s like they think you can fool the system. I have even thought about it in the past. When I was 11 or 12 I discovered that I could spin a small pm motor the kind that are usually in battery powered toys and make a flash light bulb flicker. Try as I might I couldn’t get one motor to run another for more than an hour or so. JUST KIDDING! As I got more schooling I found out why I couldn’t get it to work.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> We used to ask prospective Electronics students if the liked "Science Fiction" and if they did they would be easier to explain electricity to them, they had good imaginations and could visualize circuit operation and electron flow easier.


Like Si Fi ? Then I should be a freaking genious! 
I got hooked on science fiction in the 60’s when I was in the navy and hardly read anything else for entertainment.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Fun little vid. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

few2many said:


> Fun little vid.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287qd4uI7-E&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I'll admit that I had to test the first one, and I probably didn't do a very good job recreating it (no siphon action). Water should find it's own level...but siphons and gravity and smaller tubes... I'm not going to pass any fluid dynamics class anytime soon.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I thought that one looked pretty funky, like a bad photoshop or something. Many of the others seemed weird because while they looked like decent near perpetual motion concepts, the motion wasn't smooth enough, and jerky at the wrong times, like there was a motor in the base driving it.


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Anybody who has ever filled a beer bong should know that the first one is bogus. 

If that worked then every time you put a straw into a beverage cup it would shoot liquid out from the weight of the liquid above the inlet of the straw. 

We could just drop a tube to the bottom of the ocean and tap all the hydroelectric power we could ever want from the resulting fountain! 

How's that for an energy policy?


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

There were 50+ pages and I did not want to spend that kind of time to see if this has already been hashed out. What I am wondering is if hybrid cars are a concept that belongs here? The extra weight of another drive system being hauled around by another seems to be self defeating. I have my 21kw lithium pack sitting on a roll around shelf, and cannot imagine how much gasoline it would take to haul this around. It takes a whole lot of effort to move my shelf around in my shop. It would seem that either a gasoline system or electric system would have to weigh at least this much, and a hybrid only uses one at a time....


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I think hybrids are a good solution for that 1-5% of driving when an EV doesn't cut it. The Prius has put most cars to shame for about a decade now, and is proof that even though it's hauling around both systems, it can do so efficiently.

Doing it right, however, is a complex beast and not really suited for DIY. That complexity also ruins one of the best things about an EV, which is simplicity. It's still too early to see how many hybrids will be on the road after 10-15 years compared to typical autos


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

evmetro said:


> There were 50+ pages and I did not want to spend that kind of time to see if this has already been hashed out. What I am wondering is if hybrid cars are a concept that belongs here? The extra weight of another drive system being hauled around by another seems to be self defeating. I have my 21kw lithium pack sitting on a roll around shelf, and cannot imagine how much gasoline it would take to haul this around. It takes a whole lot of effort to move my shelf around in my shop. It would seem that either a gasoline system or electric system would have to weigh at least this much, and a hybrid only uses one at a time....


Hybrids are okay, but the better solution is a genset. Then, when you don't need the extra weight and drag of the ICE, you don't take it with you.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

evmetro said:


> There were 50+ pages and I did not want to spend that kind of time to see if this has already been hashed out. What I am wondering is if hybrid cars are a concept that belongs here?


No, these posts are all about those magic magnet motors and other ways to convert power that people sometimes think will get them more than they started with. Hybrid cars are not over-unity. Most get all their power from gasoline, a few are "duel fuel" (gas or electricity.)

We don't usually get any big discussions on hybrid technology because very few home builders choose to go that direction come construction time. It is more difficult to build 2 good drive systems. Few builders mean few with experience to add to the discussion. If you want to talk electric drive systems there are a lot of people here who have build 1 or more successful electric vehicles. Most are happy to help.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

I think I paid around 7500 for my metro brand new and have enjoyed roughly the same mpg as the prius for much longer than the prius has been around. I am now coming up on 200,000 miles and have only had to change the oil and tires, so I think after all these years I have found the most economical car to drive. Anyways, I still plot ideas about perpetual motion in spite of knowledge of thermal dynamics, but in my older years I just disprove them on my head. This is where I just can't get how hauling all that extra weight of a standby system could ever be offset. It seems like in rare circumstances, it could slightly improve mpg, but would not add up in the long run... and at a cost so much above the the 7500 bucks it took to do it before the perpetual motion prius!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Have both like I do. One gas (diesel) and one electric. Drive the electric for 90% of all driving needs and for the other 10% take the diesel or gas vehicles depending upon need and distance. That is the best hybrid.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Onegreenev, I agree. I have a floodie metro, a lithium metro, and four gas metros to handle my hybrid needs. Even have a big familymobile for the long roadtrips.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

A Prius isn't perpetual motion. You feed it gas...just less than most cars, including your metro unless you're getting over 50 mpg.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

I stand corrected. Not a peretual motion car, but rather a gasoline powered automobile with what I perceive to be a perpetual motion magical magnet device riding along with it. No, I don' t have any facts to back this up. Just scratching my head and seeing if anybody else thinks hybrids belong in this thread.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Hybrids are effective because the electric motor is so darn efficient. Even driving the vehicle with the combustion engine and recharging the batteries with the electric motor acting as a generator then shutting down the combustion engine for a time and running the electric motor off the charge in the batteries you just put in there, results in an overall average improvement in the mileage for the vehicle. Mostly that is because the electric generator and motor working with the pack of batteries is still over 75% efficient in converting energy into motion. But the combustion engine is only 15% effective and it wastes 85% of the energy in the liquid fuel giving it off as heat from the radiator, and as HOT exhaust fumes.And that Gents is why hybrids are effective. (But pure battery electric charged from the Electric Utility Power Plant or a windmill generator, or a solar panel is more effective in saving us from buying imported gasoline or diesel.)


----------



## iti_uk (Oct 24, 2011)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> Hybrids are effective because the electric motor is so darn efficient. Even driving the vehicle with the combustion engine and recharging the batteries with the electric motor acting as a generator then shutting down the combustion engine for a time and running the electric motor off the charge in the batteries you just put in there, results in an overall average improvement in the mileage for the vehicle. Mostly that is because the electric generator and motor working with the pack of batteries is still over 75% efficient in converting energy into motion. But the combustion engine is only 15% effective and it wastes 85% of the energy in the liquid fuel giving it off as heat from the radiator, and as HOT exhaust fumes.And that Gents is why hybrids are effective. (But pure battery electric charged from the Electric Utility Power Plant or a windmill generator, or a solar panel is more effective in saving us from buying imported gasoline or diesel.)


With your example, you have replaced the transmission with an electric motor/generator. The ICE (and it's inefficiencies) remain in the system.

Mechanical transmission of power in a car is usually quoted to be around 90%. Electric motor (alone) efficiency is about the same, but a full electric system (charger, battery, controller, motor, relays, cables, connectors) is somewhat less.

The reason why hybrids are more efficient is that they store energy which is not produced by the ICE (braking), and/or make use of the ICE's idle-state to charge the battery.

Your proposed explanation would suggest, for example when a Chevy Volt has finished its electric-only range and the ICE switches on, that the car will from that moment on deliver significantly better MPG than if it were running with direct connection between ICE and wheels. This is simply not the case (45mpg?).

Chris


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

evmetro said:


> I stand corrected. Not a peretual motion car, but rather a gasoline powered automobile with what I perceive to be a perpetual motion magical magnet device riding along with it. No, I don' t have any facts to back this up. Just scratching my head and seeing if anybody else thinks hybrids belong in this thread.


At idle, the drive efficiency (fuel in to distance out) of a conventional ICE is zero. At the torque peak and wide-open throttle, the drive efficiency is maximized. The Prius's engine/generator/motor combination lets the ICE operate closer to the torque peak and at larger throttle openings more of the time *when it's on*, and dump the mechanical power that is not required to move the car into the on-board battery. Then, you can shut off the ICE and operate on the stored energy. The net result is greater fuel efficiency even though you're lugging extra mass around, simply because the ICE is never operated at or near zero drive efficiency.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

What were you smoking? re-read my comment. the combustion motor charges up the battery as it is driving the car at the same time. then the electric motor drives the car with the combustion motor off, or both drive the car under large load like mountain climbing and the combustion engine can be "Down-sized" for lesser fuel consumption. The Diesel/electric train locomotive is an engine with an electric transmission, not like a hybrid car.


----------



## iti_uk (Oct 24, 2011)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> What were you smoking? re-read my comment. the combustion motor charges up the battery as it is driving the car at the same time. then the electric motor drives the car with the combustion motor off, or both drive the car under large load like mountain climbing and the combustion engine can be "Down-sized" for lesser fuel consumption.


This is what is known as a "parallel hybrid". (e.g. Prius or Honda Insight)



Electric Car-Nut said:


> The Diesel/electric train locomotive is an engine with an electric transmission, not like a hybrid car.


This is what is known as a "series hybrid". (e.g. Chevy Volt)

Both systems can be found implemented in mass-produced hybrids.



TigerNut said:


> At idle, the drive efficiency (fuel in to distance out) of a conventional ICE is zero.


Given that fuel is being consumed to do zero work, agreed.



TigerNut said:


> At the torque peak and wide-open throttle, the drive efficiency is maximized.


It isn't always the case that maximum efficiency is found at the torque peak in an ICE.

Chris


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Sounds like a Chevy Volt. Still a hybrid!


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

If all of the motive force in a hybrid comes from the gas tank at some point, does that mean that on a steady highway cruise a hybrid cant possibly get any better avg fuel economy than the gas engine powering it? That is the way I understand it. I might be missing something. 

My uncle rented a prius and drove 2000+ highway miles averaging about 50mpg. Makes me wonder why toyota wouldnt offer the same motor without the electric drive in a small cheap aero car targeted at highway commuters. Seems to me it would get the same fuel economy as a prius on the highway and just be slow in the city.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

Yes, on a steady highway cruise my Toyota Highlander Hybrid got the same mpg as a regular Highlander. In either case the technique of drafting 18 wheelers can produce dramatic results on the highway, for those that survived such techniques LOL. 

Most of my driving was


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Dan, I think you have it right as far as it all boils down to what you put in the tank. The ICE engine would do better than the hybrid configuration if it was not hauling around the extra weight. If you can't put a pedal powered generator on a bicycle and get more, then you can't put one on a car. The only thing you get out of a hybrid is the ability to capture braking energy and the ability to not burn fuel at a red light. While this saves some fuel, you have to pay a penalty for carrying extra weight. We have had cars that get 50+ mpg without being hybrid, but that cost much less. We must also note that the only Prius that is actually getting 50+ mpg, is the jackass that is going 55 in the left lane. You can get about 30% improvement on any car by driving a certain way, and using a scangauge fuel computer inside.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

I suppose that I should add that there IS a time when hybrids would make perfect sense... If I could get a billion dollars that the government has set aside for green collar jobs, I would be enthusiastically building hybrids. I might even put alternators on the wheels and a windmill on the roof. I would even be willing to add a magical magnet motor if I could get them to throw in an extra billion.


----------



## syndrella (Oct 5, 2012)

If your referring to an Alternator that is powered by a gasoline/diesel engine as a range extender, then yes, this can work, this is what is called a Series Hybrid.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

First, Wake-Up, you need to stop commenting on items posted more than a month ago.
(the date is in the upper right corner) 
Second, Get this Right: A hybrid is getting better mileage for several reasons. 
A. the ICE is shut off instead of idling. 
B. The Electric provides a power boost during acceleration allowing a smaller ICE to be used. 
C. occasionally the electric drives the car by itself also providing a dramatic increase in average MPG. 
The above are all characteristics of the "Parallel" hybrid.
The "Series " hybrid has NO connection mechanically between the ICE and the tires. It is always driven under electric traction and the ICE only drives a generator to recharge the battery pack and the pack powers the electric traction motor.
I hope this provides some clarification...


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> First, Wake-Up, you need to stop commenting on items posted more than a month ago.
> (the date is in the upper right corner)


Easy there, lil buddy. This is a perpetual thread. It is also a Sticky for the same reason.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

OK , but a comment from two years ago seems a little distant , technology and common usage change, that is progress. 
Also a considerable amount of the comments on this thread are not perpetual motion they could perhaps be better routed to a thread on "EV--> Explanations of the Technology"


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Electric car nut, I am impressed with your career title in your signature, and would like to discuss this hybrid concept further with you. As stated in my initial post on this thread, I did not sort through enough to know if this topic had been hashed out already. Perhaps another thread should be in order, since hybrids are always going to be a topic in the ev community. Whenever somebody newis discusses ev's, they inevitably have to suggest encumbering the vehicle with an energy "generating" device. This is not going to stop, so why don't we get this subject crearly defined for future reference? If you direct a school, this could be a good reference as well. I am curious for starters if you could estimate what % of the time that conditions a, b, and c from your earlier post occur, and what the weight of non ICE related components does to the efficiency of the ICE when conditions a through c are not met?


----------



## Roy Von Rogers (Mar 21, 2009)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> OK , but a comment from two years ago seems a little distant , technology and common usage change, that is progress.
> Also a considerable amount of the comments on this thread are not perpetual motion they could perhaps be better routed to a thread on "EV--> Explanations of the Technology"


I'm from the Trilby area, where is that shop you show on your home page ??

Roy


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Roy, Look me up at the local c. of c. of d.c. I am a member. That can lead you to me.

The Photo is something my web page creator found on the web (not copyrighted.) It was a transmission shop out west somewhere and he "Photo-shopped" it cleaning and cropping it because I didn't like the paint and body shop he tried to use before, the obvious paint booth and body work in progress were to identifiable.


----------



## Roy Von Rogers (Mar 21, 2009)

Your name rings a bell, but been a while since I've lived there. Worked for Sonnys and Appliance Warehouse, used to eat at George and Gladys.....I'm sure that should sound familiar....lol

I'm not checking on you, just wanted to know where that shop was.

Roy


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Roy, No problem, We moved our operation to Blanton from Kathleen/Lakeland two years ago, Sonnys appliances is just south of town on 301,I bought a replacement oven element there two weeks ago. (I assume you don't mean the BBQ down in Z-hills...) We are planning a proper facility in the D.C. Business Center, across 301 & 98 from Lock St. 
Regards.


----------



## Roy Von Rogers (Mar 21, 2009)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> Roy, No problem, We moved our operation to Blanton from Kathleen/Lakeland two years ago, Sonnys appliances is just south of town on 301,I bought a replacement oven element there two weeks ago. (I assume you don't mean the BBQ down in Z-hills...) We are planning a proper facility in the D.C. Business Center, across 301 & 98 from Lock St.
> Regards.


Yes, the old Lykes plant, remember it well. I was just down there over labor day visiting old friends. Let me know when you get it set up, next time I go down there, I'll stop by.

And yes was talking about that Sonnys.

Roy


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Ev car nut, in addition to the question at the end of post 624, what does the weight of the ICE and related components do to the efficiency of the electric drive train when conditions a through c do exist?


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

evmetro said:


> Ev car nut, in addition to the question at the end of post 624, what does the weight of the ICE and related components do to the efficiency of the electric drive train when conditions a through c do exist?


The "Efficiency" of the electric drive train is always the same (at about 90%) however the available acceleration varies according to weight as for a fixed maximum energy available the greater the mass being accelerated results in a lesser increase in velocity per unit of time. Thus the acceleration to a particular terminal velocity requires more energy from the drive train and the faster one chooses to accelerate up to the preferred driving speed varies the energy needed from the drive train. That is not efficiency but, power consumption, and slower acceleration requires only a lower power level but for a longer time. This is why fast acceleration consumes more energy from any drive train, and smooth steady and "Conservative" acceleration although it takes more seconds to reach cruising speed uses less fuel or stored electricity from the battery.To accelerate two times more quickly consumes four times the energy. But three times the acceleration consumes nine times the energy.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

evmetro said:


> Electric car nut, I am impressed with your career title in your signature, and would like to discuss this hybrid concept further with you. As stated in my initial post on this thread, I did not sort through enough to know if this topic had been hashed out already. Perhaps another thread should be in order, since hybrids are always going to be a topic in the ev community. Whenever somebody new discusses ev's, they inevitably have to suggest encumbering the vehicle with an energy "generating" device. This is not going to stop, so why don't we get this subject clearly defined for future reference? If you direct a school, this could be a good reference as well. I am curious for starters if you could estimate what % of the time that conditions a, b, and c from your earlier post occur, and what the weight of non ICE related components does to the efficiency of the ICE when conditions a through c are not met?


Conditions A,B, & C are determined by the particular route being driven, traffic, posted speed limits, hills, (Up & down both make some difference.) The efficiency of the ICE is not affected, but it does vary by many factors, the weight of the vehicle and whether non-ICE components are present is not one just as number of and weight of passengers does not effect the efficiency although it does change power requirements during the various parts of a trip and therefore the fuel consumed . For example going uphill consumes more power and thus more fuel to maintain a steady speed, reducing the Miles Per Gallon, but that is not Efficiency,actually efficiency is a comparison of energy out versus energy in somewhat similar to gallons per second compared to horsepower output during that same second and varies widely over the ICE rpm and torque output being utilized in moving the vehicle. In simple terms the heavier the load and closer to maximum torque and horsepower output one operates the closer to diesel efficiency the gasoline ICE achieves. (Note part of the reason that automotive diesels seem to be more efficient when comparing only average miles per gallon is the fact is never included that diesel fuel contains about 20% more energy than gasoline per gallon.)


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Ev car nut, thanks for defining the difference between efficiency and power requirements. I want to know everything there is to know when it comes to our ev community. What percent of the time do you think a b and c exist, on average? Do you think it is possible to have even 5% of the AVERAGE drive time be with any of these conditions? I guestimate five percent of the time in stop and go. During the other ninety five percent if the time, are you carrying dead weight around? What does this do to your power consumption on the ICE?


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

EVmetro, I know about 64 different ways to build a working hybrid. The right one for any driver must be designed to "Fit" their usage. Conditions A, B, & C vary according to the region and specific route traveled. there is little validity in estimating the percentage of each one, so I don't. The design and battery capacity, horsepower of Electric motor and horsepower of I C Engine must be optimized for a particular or one simply picks suitable sizing for 99% of usage applications. The simple part of the determination is from typical usage. 85% of auto drivers drive less than 40 miles each day at 40 miles per hour or less and for them the simplest EV is sufficient. For consistently longer daily trips or more highway speeds over 55 MPH requires a more expensive EV. In my humble opinion there is no point in Hybrids. if traveling more than 100 miles take a bus or train or if over 500 miles take a train or airplane. 
And when talking to "NEWBES" and they bring up attaching some other alternators or generators to an EV to recharge the battery tell them it won't work but put up a pole and put the alternator or generator on the top with a propeller to catch the wind and spin it and that will work, if the wind is strong enough, but not so strong as to blow down the pole!


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Ev car nut, thanks very much for your time in trying to explain how a hybrid could make any sense. I have been reading many studies about these things, and they all get pretty vague, and they never really get to the point of being clearly better than an ICE or an Ev, or to a point where they are better in any way. This is what is so disturbing about the amount of money that the government spends subsidizing crap like this.


----------



## syndrella (Oct 5, 2012)

Gas or diesel? Now you're getting somewhere. A series hybrid is essentially this type of system. A diesel genset generates power that drives the electric motor or charges the batteries........


----------



## sirwattsalot (Aug 27, 2012)

We can not create energy but we can convert it from one form to another. We can conserve energy which is much better than generating more of it. Anything that we can do to perform the same task using less energy will be a great advantage. An example is the new LED light bulbs which use less energy to produce more light. These new lights must have people screaming about over unity, the laws of thermodynamics and the like. However, raising effecientcy does not violate any law of physics or electronics. I belive we can make electric cars go farther by reduceing waste energy.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Consider the higher efficiency is a good thing as it lowers the required power consumption for a given lighting level. My only objection is pricing negates virtually all the savings over the service life of the new technology lighting compared to the old technology. and I tried a new LED night light paying $9 for it instead of $1 for old technology. ans two months it stopped working and replacement components to repair it cost as much or more than I purchassed it for. If it lasted the more than five years it was promised for and because it was only warranted for 30 days I wasted about $8 .


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

All the lights on my car except the headlights are LED’s. Before I changed to LED’s I was using one 12volt battery for aux. power. At night the headlights were not very bright compared to what they should be. When I stepped on the breaks with the incandescent lights the headlights would go a notch dimmer. After I put in all LED’s the headlights were not much better but they stayed the same when the breaks were applied and there was a noticeable difference in the amount of charge left in the aux. battery when I got home. My brother has a cabin West of Kingman Az. that he powers with a small solar array and reads by LED lights at night. He swears by them and so do I. I have gotten some good prices on LED’s on EBay and they are still working after three to four years. LED’s are being used for lots of thing nowadays. Maybe someone will make an LED motor.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Some retail sources are selling LEDs which are much less reliable, for example the LED night light which lasted only 90 days from Walmart. 
The EV motor controllers have LEDs in the "Opto-isolators" for transfering timing signals a fraction of an inch thru clear insulation to provide electrical isolation so five volts in the digital timing circuits can control hundreds of volts in the motor control section. If you look at a transistor and it is encased in metal or black epoxy, that is to block outside light, the ones encased in clear material are used to sense light.(FYI- I just cannot ignore the "Teachable Moment" because I have 20 years experience in the lecture hall and lab, teaching electricity.)


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Here is something that has been cropping up in my thought train for the past several days. Concerning Electric Vehicles, there are AC motors and DC motors and DC cost a LOT less than AC but AC offers regenerative braking built into the system and DC does not. Suppose we were to connect an alternator reworked to operate the several hundred volts of "Pack voltage" and drive it from the shaft out the back of the drive motor with belt and pulleys,(Yes I know we would have to use energy from the pack to power the drive motor with more energy to compensate for the alternator.) Let us say the alternator is 90 % efficient so we waste 10%. however the driving experience would feel much more like the ICE system as the friction of the ICE restrains it even more than 10%. Now for the advantage, driving along accelerating or steady speed a 10% loss of energy reduces range by 10% but in slowing down or driving downhill energy produced by the alternator helps slow the car or reduces the need for braking going downhill. possibly restoring a typical 20% into the pack and re-increasing the range. Now a 100 amp alternator costs about $200 add $50 for higher voltage rated diodes in the alternator so it can charge a couple hundred volt pack. and you have a system for $250 extra than the $5,000 DC motor and controller that has the best features of the $15,000 AC motor and inverter (as the controller for the AC motor is called.) a savings of almost $10,000 on parts to build an EV.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

> All the lights on my car except the headlights are LED’s. Before I changed to LED’s I was using one 12volt battery for aux. power. At night the headlights were not very bright compared to what they should be. When I stepped on the breaks with the incandescent lights the headlights would go a notch dimmer. After I put in all LED’s the headlights were not much better but they stayed the same when the breaks were applied and there was a noticeable difference in the amount of charge left in the aux. battery when I got home.
> 
> Sounds like you are not charging that aux.battery except at home. I understand that DC/DC converters to supplement the 12 volt power during your driving are expensive. I prefer to use the original alternator that came with the car as an ICE belt driven off the drive motor shaft with pulleys and belt to maintain the aux. battery at full charge during driving time and my headlights don't dim when I step on the brake and light the brake lights. If you don't have the original alternator any more just buy one of those one wire marine alternators as they are completely automatic and just need the bracket be connected securely and one wire goes to the 12 volt battery Remember you don't have the starting load to force the 12 volt battery to demonstrate it is in good "health" so it may be time to replace the 12 v. aux. battery, have it checked with a "Load tester" as they only have a life of about three years even if sold with a four year warranty,as that third and fourth year are usually after you have sold the car and are not transferable so they generate profit.


----------



## T1 Terry (Jan 29, 2011)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> Here is something that has been cropping up in my thought train for the past several days. Concerning Electric Vehicles, there are AC motors and DC motors and DC cost a LOT less than AC but AC offers regenerative braking built into the system and DC does not. Suppose we were to connect an alternator reworked to operate the several hundred volts of "Pack voltage" and drive it from the shaft out the back of the drive motor with belt and pulleys,(Yes I know we would have to use energy from the pack to power the drive motor with more energy to compensate for the alternator.) Let us say the alternator is 90 % efficient so we waste 10%. however the driving experience would feel much more like the ICE system as the friction of the ICE restrains it even more than 10%. Now for the advantage, driving along accelerating or steady speed a 10% loss of energy reduces range by 10% but in slowing down or driving downhill energy produced by the alternator helps slow the car or reduces the need for braking going downhill. possibly restoring a typical 20% into the pack and re-increasing the range. Now a 100 amp alternator costs about $200 add $50 for higher voltage rated diodes in the alternator so it can charge a couple hundred volt pack. and you have a system for $250 extra than the $5,000 DC motor and controller that has the best features of the $15,000 AC motor and inverter (as the controller for the AC motor is called.) a savings of almost $10,000 on parts to build an EV.


OK, we have a 100 amp alternator at 12v? so 1200w, at best it's 70% efficient so now we need 1560w to drive it, plus belt losses. We use 3 transformer coils to bring the alternators 15v AC up to 160v, then convert it to DC and charge the pack. There are various losses through the transformers and the diode packs but something would get back to the battery pack. But the engergy required to drive all this is at best 2kW, not a lot of braking effort for all that work and the losses associates with the belt driving the alternator full time even if it's not producing any power. I think you would still be behind the eight ball but it would be interesting as an experiment and not too expensive to do, maybe look for a truck alternator, 24v at around 200amps.
Perhaps an electric clutch from an old air con compressor on the electric motor drive end so the alternator is only driven when regen braking is required.
Just expanding thoughts on your idea, no idea if any of it would be practical.

T1 Terry


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

100 amp output on the alt is max output, max rpm. If you do not excite the fields, it freewheels. If you can set it up so that it the fields are excited only during braking or slowing, then it won't use any energy the rest of the time. I have eyed this idea on ICE vehicles to time the alternator output to do what a hybrid does. You could have a small scale brake regen without the weight of another complete drive system. I have my doubts on how this would add up on a dc ev, but I love thinking about this kind of stuff. It is nice to have a thread for this type of stuff.


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

T1 Terry, Thanks for reading and considering my idea. EV Metro is right about the alternator freewheeling, with no rotor current. The three windings in the stater feed a full wave bridge rectifier to produce the DC for battery charging. In the 60's and 70's we used to bypass the voltage regulator and get 140 VDC out of the unit to operate Universal motors in electric drills, saws, and lights (Incandescent) remember 120 VAC is RMS, and 168 Volts peak. By adding rectifier diodes with a higher PIV I expect to be able to supply up to 350 volts at up to 100 amps, Notice that the three transformers are not required ! One does need to excite the rotor from the 12 volt DC aux battery or the DC/DC converter.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

There are also higher output alternators and an overdrive pulley if that is how you would drive it. I was considering using decceleration signal for an ICE application, but you could use the brake light signal in an ev. Is there a way to get a decel feed of of a dc motor?


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

evmetro, the brake light is a good source of control and there are small modules for controlling electric trailer brakes which might be untillized. With an EV motor that usually runs at 4,000 to 5,000 rpm for higher efficiency, one has to be careful not to over-speed the alternator. I know of no way to get a Deceleration feed off a series dc motor, except the micro-switch which might be part of the accelerator pedal sensor.


----------



## PaulS (Sep 11, 2012)

A typical automotive alternator is driven at 2 - 3 times the engine rpm. This is done because alternators have to spin at 1200 - 1800 rpm to push full amperage. If you drive the alternator 1:1 with the motor speed then you will never overspeed it - unless you are turning your motor over 6000 rpm.

In material handling regenerative braking first came on DC systems with GEs "EV-1" control systems and was adapted to other controllers shortly after. With a series wound DC motor you can get it to generate power by feeding the field power (negative to the direction of rotation) and tapping the Armature current to recharge the batteries. The big problem was that 48 volt motors would put out around 200 VDC in this configuration. In these lower voltage systems a resistor was used to limit the charge and keep it from blowing up batteries. There is no reason that you couldn't feed this power directly to the battery using a small bank of capacitors and a micro-controller to feed the field the right amount of power to just charge the batteries. Whether it would be a good brake or not would have to be discovered by trial.
My point is that you can get regenerative braking for DC motors. It is old tech now.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Electric Car-Nut said:


> > Sounds like you are not charging that aux.battery except at home. I understand that DC/DC converters to supplement the 12 volt power during your driving are expensive. I prefer to use the original alternator that came with the car as an ICE belt driven off the drive motor shaft with pulleys and belt to maintain the aux. battery at full charge during driving time and my headlights don't dim when I step on the brake and light the brake lights.
> 
> 
> I now have an 80amp Merilli alternator hooked up. I was just trying to tell how much energy Led’s can free up for other use. As for the using an alternator for regen it like everything else has been thought of. While you can put a little juice back in the batteries I do not think the armature will be big enough dia. to give sufficient reverse torque to sufficiently slow you down.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

PaulS said:


> A typical automotive alternator is driven at 2 - 3 times the engine rpm. This is done because alternators have to spin at 1200 - 1800 rpm to push full amperage. If you drive the alternator 1:1 with the motor speed then you will never overspeed it - unless you are turning your motor over 6000 rpm.
> 
> In material handling regenerative braking first came on DC systems with GEs "EV-1" control systems and was adapted to other controllers shortly after. With a series wound DC motor you can get it to generate power by feeding the field power (negative to the direction of rotation) and tapping the Armature current to recharge the batteries. The big problem was that 48 volt motors would put out around 200 VDC in this configuration. In these lower voltage systems a resistor was used to limit the charge and keep it from blowing up batteries. There is no reason that you couldn't feed this power directly to the battery using a small bank of capacitors and a micro-controller to feed the field the right amount of power to just charge the batteries. Whether it would be a good brake or not would have to be discovered by trial.
> My point is that you can get regenerative braking for DC motors. It is old tech now.


You can, controllers have been built that can do it. I beleive Evnetics toyed with it. Or, quickly dismissed as Tesseract likes to do  
My understanding, You have a lot of problems with the brushes and gettin the right power to the feild while not blowing stuff up!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Regen with Series motors has been done. Can be done BUT not without problems. Arcing and destroying the commutator is ONE big one. Yes, forklifts do regen or plug braking but at very very very slow speeds and currents. In an auto on the freeway or even on the street the current and power is considerable and you must have neutral timing which limits overall voltage of your project. It can be done with interpole motors easier but since it is pretty much a big head ache it has been dismissed and a no go long ago for street driven vehicles.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

This thread has gotten off track. It's for overunity, free power, and perpetual energy. Lets stick to the facts!


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

I drove an EV with an 8" series wound motor setup for regen and there was a noticable nasty sound coming from the motor under moderate regen. The owner was doing some regen experimenting and was fully aware that it was not good for the motor. I can say that to my untrained and inexperienced ear the arcing noise alone was enough reason not to do it. I seldom hear that type of noise come from electronics when they are happy.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

few2many said:


> This thread has gotten off track. It's for overunity, free power, and perpetual energy. Lets stick to the facts!


Off track is good. If you hook mini generators to the shocks you can get power from the offroad bumps power the car that way.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

PGS, power generating shocks, are a great idea, if you can get enough power!


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

Regarding "Plug Braking"with a DC Series Motor...I am using it in simplified form for emergency braking when the service brake malfunctions only,-- not- for every day usage, just add a contacter to short out the armature (Brushes) leaving field driven by controller in a series motor and use accelerator to modulate the power fed to field for the braking action too. Yes it may damage the brushes and overheat the armature but save your life if the brakes fail going down a hill into a busy intersection or if the controller failed "Full-ON" kick the extra contacter and the car stops rather quickly and it might cook the field windings but they are far cheaper to replace than the armature.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Regen shocks!? Thanks for a good laugh! Sounds like something the government should drop a few billion on. Does the chevy volt have these?


----------



## Electric Car-Nut (Jul 5, 2009)

permanent magnet and coil of wire act as alternative to hydraulic cylinder and "Dashpot" system we use now, and may generate enough to keep the ILS battery (12 v.) charged if you drive on a lot of darn rough roads.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

I beleive they got around 1kw from a large truck. So, yeah, enough for an aux batt.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

evmetro said:


> Regen shocks!? Thanks for a good laugh! Sounds like something the government should drop a few billion on. Does the chevy volt have these?


It's something many have suggested for extending range on EVs using microvibrations from the road. Other ideas are things like generating from grocery store parking entrances, side walks, and night clubs, all of which are in use, and I don't know if they ever implemented trains charging stations.


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

A car with regen shocks would have LESS range than same car with same "quality" non-regen shocks. Same story as with wind turbines mounted on roofs etc.


----------



## DJBecker (Nov 3, 2010)

WarpedOne said:


> A car with regen shocks would have LESS range than same car with same "quality" non-regen shocks. Same story as with wind turbines mounted on roofs etc.


Not necessarily. A shock absorber intentionally turns the bouncing energy into heat. Or more precisely, it attempts to let the suspension compress on the initial shock and turn the rebound energy into heat to prevent bouncing and keep even pressure on the tire's contact patch.

There is energy there to convert to electric power, but it's really tough to effectively capture it. The good stuff comes as a brief high power pulse, which would need a heavy mechanism to convert (negating any net gain), and if you try to capture vibration you mostly just couple noise to the cabin.


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

Yes, you are right.
I get occasional brainfarts ... :


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

WarpedOne said:


> A car with regen shocks would have LESS range than same car with same "quality" non-regen shocks. Same story as with wind turbines mounted on roofs etc.


Power generating shocks wont use electricity, affect weight(much), or rolling resistance, or CD. Why would you think it would get less range???
Ah, you responded about when I did.


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Prototypes seem to work and the US govt may be investing in them eventually. Don't know about the chevy volt.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/02/students-at-the/


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> If you hook mini generators to the shocks you can get power from the offroad bumps power the car that way.


Yes, though I note that this isn't free energy, it's recovering some of the energy you already expended in compressing the springs. Much like regen, in that respect, except I think you'd get less return from suspension than from forward momentum regen.

So alas, suspension generation isn't the holy grail of free energy that this thread is searching for (or explaining that it can't be obtained, depending on your point of view.)


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

General Motors is using variable rate shock absorbers on some of their sports cars. They are filled with a viscous fluid containing suspended metal particles that respond to electric current. This allows the computer to adjust the viscosity of the fluid thus changing dampening rate in real time to improve handling. 

Seems like the same could be done with power generating shocks. Changing the electrical loads placed on them would change the stiffness of the shock. 

Would be very advanced tech for a DIY project but reasonably simple for large auto manufacturers. 

Gains can be had just from active suspensions that aren't generators. A few years ago BMW was claiming a 5% increase in city fuel economy by stiffening the rear shocks while taking off from a stop. Not wasting energy compressing a shock leaves more energy to move the car forward. 

Same could be said for stopping. Not compressing the front shocks under braking would leave more energy for regen systems. 

I think the suspension is an often overlooked waste of energy that we could be using to our advantage, but like most things cost is the limiting factor.


----------



## 76citicar60v (Dec 24, 2012)

I've read some of the posts in this thread,did not get a chance to read them all. Have a question. Regarding using an alternator. Why not have the alternator tied into the rear axle or possibly off the backside of the motor,and only getting power to it's field when braking? Freewheeling at all other times.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Been done, not worth the effort.


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Technically speaking you could do that as a form of regenerative braking. The problem is that the alternator would be too small to be of practical use in that application.

In rough terms if it takes 200kw to accelerate a vehicle from 0-60mph in 5 seconds then you need to do the same thing in reverse to slow from 60-0. 

A standard car alternator produces about 1kw. 

So you would be short about 199 alternators if you wanted to stop as fast as you accelerated in that case. 

Any generator capable of slowing you back down at the same rate you accelerated woud be about the same size as the motor. The motor is usually the best choice since its already there.

Yet another reason all cars should have some sort of electric drive!
Brakes are really good at turning motion into heat. Thats why they get really hot. That heat enery is wasted into the atmosphere wich is really a shame on an EV since that energy can be dumped back into the batteries. On a standard vehicle its no big deal since there is no easy way to turn it back into liquid fuel.


----------



## 76citicar60v (Dec 24, 2012)

I know you can't stop the car with this setup or even recover enough amps to significantly improve driving distance but isn't any amount of free power worth the small outlay in $$ for something this simple?I'll be driving very short distances to and from work,and my commute is rather hilly. 2/3 on accelerator,1/3 on brake. Really don't want to start something here, just asking. Thanks.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

76citicar60v said:


> isn't any amount of free power worth the small outlay in $$ for something this simple?


It's not free power if you have to buy/build it. A high voltage alternator can't be had off-the-shelf, so it's not simple. You have to build a custom alternator. clutch, etc.

In your case it may be feasible, but you have to be able to recover more power than the equivalent cost in batteries. Typical regen systems cost 2x as much and give back 10%, so your "free energy" represents a net loss.


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Don't forget the belt friction driving the alternator and electrical efficiency losses involved. Like Ziggythewiz said "been done, not worth the effort"

If your driving is really frequent stop and go, its in your best interest to design a drivetrain capable of regen braking. 

Next time you drive your car use a stop watch to time how many seconds you spend using the brake. 

Lets say its 1 minute or about .017 hours. 

Lets say your alternator produces 1000watts after losses. 

1000watts x .017hours= 17watt/hours

If your vehicle uses 350 wh/mile then the extra 17wh gets you .049 miles or about 258 feet. 

While the concept alternator does recover "some" energy, it really doesn't add up to a whole lot of useful gains for the trouble.


----------



## BobD (Dec 26, 2012)

I had thought about adding an alternator, electric clutch, et. to our Porsche 924 conversion several times over the past 4 years, mostly at the insistence of others who were dissappointed that our series DC system didn't have regenerative braking. But when you break down the math as you've done it really looks pretty silly. 

We were tempted by the huge, steep, 2-minute downhill we have going into town. But when we hit that hill we're at about 90% capacity, and direct-charging gel cells at that point is risky to the cells without the ability to keep a lid on upper voltage. If the hill were near the end of the trip it might possibly make some sense, but I think I'll just wait for some (hopefully) cheaper lithium cells to extend our range a bit when the lead-acid gels are nearing replacement time.


----------



## Oneill (Feb 26, 2013)

Hello,I'm new on here.
I'm a mechanic and I was wondering if you fitted an alternator to the front of a kit car,with a propeller with adjustable pitch,would the forward speed be enough to turn it and generate "free" electricity?
I was thinking of making a wind tunnel through the car with the fan/prop fitted into the middle of it.
Make it the same shape as the inside of the carb,to increase the speed of the air forcing the fan/prop to turn.
The air which flows over the car is not being used,we could make a few pipes through the car,with an alternator in each one.
The faster the forward speed,the more pressure to turn the alternators.
I dont think anyone has tried it before 
Any ideas ?
I'm going to try and make a electric car with this equipped this year 
Plus an on board generator to run when the battery is depleted.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Oneill said:


> I'm a mechanic and I was wondering if you fitted an alternator to the front of a kit car,with a propeller with adjustable pitch,would the forward speed be enough to turn it and generate "free" electricity?


No. Read the rest of the thread, or at least a single page of it.


----------



## Oneill (Feb 26, 2013)

Hi,I did read quite a few of the posts.
Im not talking of fully loading the alternators.
Just using a small percent of the voltage/current to top up,or just extend the range of the ev.
I understand that you can never get all that power from an alternator under load.
It takes hp to drive it.
I was just wondering if it could be possible to just put some sort of charge from a few units to the battery.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Oneill said:


> I was just wondering if it could be possible to just put some sort of charge from a few units to the battery.


No, it will drain the battery faster.


----------



## Oneill (Feb 26, 2013)

Oh bugger.


----------



## GKnightBC (Sep 10, 2008)

It's a common misperception, Oneill. The energy gained from the motion of the prop is never even close to the energy used to move the vehicle. The only gain you might get is if the wind is blowing. There is no free energy, as it all has to come from some force, somewhere.


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

It is simple really - that wind is a direct result of the energy that you are consuming propelling the car. If you want to harvest it back, you can only do it by some additional drag. That will always be bigger than harvested energy.

What you can do though is try using some of the heat that is produced by motors and controllers and now gets completely wasted (seebeck effect). Though power gained would be measured in watts.


----------



## Oneill (Feb 26, 2013)

Thanks for the reply.
We have a big problem in the uk with the tax on fuel.
It's going up another 6 pence in a few weeks.
A litre of diesel is currently £1.51.
Heating oil/gas/electricity is going up every year.
Welcome to rip off Britain.
;-(


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

The car design I would like to see would be one that would duct air from the from through the center of the car and out the back with the fewest turns possible. I would think that the aerodynamic drag would be reduced.

You wouldn't need turbines or alternators.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> The car design I would like to see would be one that would duct air from the from through the center of the car and out the back with the fewest turns possible. I would think that the aerodynamic drag would be reduced.
> 
> You wouldn't need turbines or alternators.


This doesn't work. Drag exists on the inside of the tube as well. Better to not have it at all. You will see trucks hauling pipe down the interstate. They will plug the front end of the pipe (if they are smart) to reduce the drag from the air flowing through the inside of the pipes.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Open pipes basically would almost double the surface area the air would have to flow over. No matter how smooth it is, you will get Boundary Layer drag.
....now if it had golf ball divits along the surface...


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

few2many said:


> ....now if it had golf ball divits along the surface...


Then it would be able to spin more freely with less drag during a tailspin or rollover scenario!


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Oneill said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> We have a big problem in the uk with the tax on fuel.
> It's going up another 6 pence in a few weeks.
> A litre of diesel is currently £1.51.
> ...


How do road use taxes work in the UK? Does an EV pay less tax than a vehicle with bad fuel economy? In my state I had to pay $75/year to use an EV since the gas tax pays for the roads.


----------



## 914Mike (May 12, 2013)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



Nehmo said:


> I have an *obviously* electric bike. The batteries are prominently positioned, and anybody can see them. The bike gets considerable attention because there isn't anybody else like this in Kansas City.
> Every day, or maybe almost every day, I get asked this stupid generator question. When I provide a short answer, they often want to argue. I don't bother. But it's amazing how ignorant these people are.


I used to have one of those little generators that press against the tire to run a headlamp on my bike. It was setup so that you could lock it back away from the tire during the day because it took a lot more effort to pump the pedals when it was engaged.

Now if you were to setup a little generator like that on your e-bike you could use it to regen brake. 

Debatable whether the amount of power generated while slowing would even be enough to make up for the added weight. 

Of course you could just use the electric motor you already have as a generator with the right controller, but having a little generator you could show off when you get the stupid questions would be priceless! Put the little headlamp generator on your front tire and make it look like the wires go in the "general direction" of the batteries...


----------



## 914Mike (May 12, 2013)

GKnightBC said:


> It's a common misperception, Oneill. The energy gained from the motion of the prop is never even close to the energy used to move the vehicle. The only gain you might get is if the wind is blowing. There is no free energy, as it all has to come from some force, somewhere.


All terrestrial energy comes from one source, the sun. Even tidal forces are a result of orbiting the sun...

I'd like to see a "Transformer" car that turned into a big solar array when you parked it in the sunlight, maybe have it pop up a mast with a wind turbine on it if it's windy while you're at it. *

A thin-film array at least stands a small chance at recovering enough energy during a typical day parked at work to make up for the energy of carrying it around. The devil's in the details of the support system, and having enough space to deploy it. Also not having it blow away!

* Idea stolen from the EVDL, was a motor home EV that carried 10-20 conventional solar panels to it's vacation spot (where there was no grid power) and stayed as long as it took to recharge it's massive battery pack, say 20-30 days.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



914Mike said:


> I used to have one of those little generators that press against the tire to run a headlamp on my bike. It was setup so that you could lock it back away from the tire during the day because it took a lot more effort to pump the pedals when it was engaged.
> 
> Now if you were to setup a little generator like that on your e-bike you could use it to regen brake.
> 
> ...


 I would like to see a bike with a rear wheel hub motor that could be used as a generator on downhills. And then as a motor on the uphills. I think the max speed of e-bikes should be 18-20 mph, but the range should be what needs more study. If I were going to do a long-distance bike trip of thousands of miles, that is the setup I would like. Keeping the weight down would be the next big thing to work on.


----------



## Swags (Aug 8, 2013)

I am a newbie here, not sure if the subject is already covered here, please alert me if it's something already discussed.

As all are saying that magnets are not 'magical" I kind of disagree to this statement. Magnets are definitely "magical" and they can be channelized into a perpetual motion.

The answer is in the fact that magnets need minimal intervention for negating a their attraction than the force exerted by the magnets themselves.

Please again alert me if I am talking of something which is already discarded and eliminated here.

I am referring to the mumetal which can be inserted between two magnets held with springs at the rear ends.

The introduction of the mumetal completely isolates the two magnets such that they are pulled back by the springs, and as soon as the mumetal is removed, the magnets attract towards each other with massive force.

The alternating insertion of the mumetal is done with a motor consuming minimal energy which forces the magnets to convert it into a relatively stronger to-fro movement easily convertible into a spinning movement using a pulley's etc.

Such concepts have been proved and built a long time ago but really not sure why it's not been implemented at larger scales. 

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Swags (Aug 8, 2013)

Guys please refer to this site for knowing how to channelize magnetic force for getting about 3.5x force from 1x input.

http://www.rexresearch.com/flynn/flynn.htm


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Swags

It won't work!
Build one and see

I will put $1,000 on it right now


----------



## Swags (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks Duncans, for highlighting the bitter truth, so does that mean all the claims and patents mentioned below are fake?

http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt1.html


----------



## Swags (Aug 8, 2013)

I am very impressed with the Charles Flynn’s magnet motor because I could understand it precisely well, I am panning to go for full fledged model of it, but with so many negative remarks around I would want to reconsider it, if it fails I would lose a lot of money.

Rather it would be better to devise a smaller version just to be sure the principle really works and then proceed gradually...


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The website you posted is interesting, but I have never seen any credible demonstration of getting more power out than is put in. The parallel path demonstration seems to show only an increased force with permanent magnets and electromagnets, but force is not power. The explanations of getting energy from the "ether" are interesting as well, but still nobody seems to be able to put together a video that actually proves the concept, and this website dates back to 2006. I found a video of the "Joe Flynn Motor" but I can't understand what they are doing or trying to prove. It just seems like a noisy motor that needs permanent magnets to run, and it may just be some sort of BLDC. Here's the video (which was provided on the website):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yoM4Qjmduk


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Swags said:


> Thanks Duncans, for highlighting the bitter truth, so does that mean all the claims and patents mentioned below are fake?
> 
> http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt1.html


You got it!

Totally fake!

Like a four pound note


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Swags said:


> Rather it would be better to devise a smaller version just to be sure the principle really works and then proceed gradually...


Go for it - it's your money!

To Death and Taxes you can add Over-Unity
You can't avoid the first two or achieve the third


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Swags said:


> As all are saying that magnets are not 'magical" I kind of disagree to this statement. Magnets are definitely "magical" and they can be channelized into a perpetual motion.?


No, no they're not, and no, they can't.

Magnetic perpetual motion toys, such as the little desk displays will eventually stop moving as air resistance is aways slowing it down a little. Most people just lose interest long before the magnets lose momentum. Even if you stick it in a vaccum you'll have other resistances (including the magnetic fields themselves) that will make it stop.

This is assuming it is doing nothing but try and move itself. Try to extract any useful work from the system and it will come to a halt much quicker.


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

*Perpetum Mobile Power Engine Concept*

Hi!
Look my concept power for electric engine - perpetum mobile















Look my website: yeti-car-desing.yeti-adventure.com
Cheers!


----------



## PZigouras (Jun 5, 2010)

Swags said:


> I am a newbie here, not sure if the subject is already covered here, please alert me if it's something already discussed.
> 
> As all are saying that magnets are not 'magical" I kind of disagree to this statement. Magnets are definitely "magical" and they can be channelized into a perpetual motion.
> 
> ...



I, along with a group of people from various energy-related backgrounds, have been investigating claims of magnet-powered motors for many years now.

As of this date (almost 10 years into this) we have NOT witnessed a SINGLE operating magnetic motor that is can produce any usable energy (above and beyond what it needs to keep itself spinning). Although we have not ruled out the possibility, right now, it doesn't look good.

Now, relating back to the EV forum, even if you somehow were to develop a magnet motor that puts out even a small amount of net energy (lets say, 2 watts), it would be useless for electric vehicle applications. EVs require tens of thousands of watts to even get going, much less reach highway speeds. 

10,000 watts is a hefty amount of power, yet a 10kW motor is only about 14 horsepower... barely enough to move a small car up a hill. You would need 50kW to 100kW just to make an EV behave like a normal, late-model car. That kind of energy is impossible to pull out of thin air. If there really was that much power trapped inside magnets, then they would be exploding left and right. Heck, they would be more dangerous than a small stick of dynamite! 

I'm not saying that it is out of the realm of possibility that magnets MAY somehow contain some usable energy that we don't yet know about... but they could not possibly store enough energy to power an electric vehicle -- by any stretch of the imagination. It is just not possible at the molecular level. And it is also not possible at the atomic level, unless a sub-atomic particle is annihilated -- which means that your magnets would eventually no longer exist (at least not as you know them).

- Paul


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

PZigouras said:


> I, along with a group of people from various energy-related backgrounds, have been investigating claims of magnet-powered motors for many years now.
> 
> As of this date (almost 10 years into this) we have NOT witnessed a SINGLE operating magnetic motor that is can produce any usable energy (above and beyond what it needs to keep itself spinning). Although we have not ruled out the possibility, right now, it doesn't look good.
> 
> ...


Paul is a real authority and celebrity in the free energy arena, isn't that right Paul? Just go a google search _Paul Zigouras hydrogen_


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> Paul is a real authority and celebrity in the free energy arena, isn't that right Paul? Just go a google search _Paul Zigouras hydrogen_



Classic Major, Classic. Me like 

I forgot all about that.


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

*Re: Perpetum Mobile Power Engine Concept*



micky mouse said:


> Hi!
> Look my concept power for electric engine - perpetum mobile
> 
> 
> ...


anyone can see if it works the my perpetum mobile?

more ideas in my twitter @YetiCarDesing

Cheers!


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I found the ultimate free energy machine, and here is a highly detailed schematic which is self-explanatory and brilliant in its technological diversity and philosophical elegance:










http://xkcd.com/730/


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

I do think everyone needs a hobby, and there is no better way to understand physics than by experimenting.

I would like to see a website that organized all of the failures of people's projects.


I will say that I have an idea that I would like to build. It is a fun engineering game. To me, there is no reason why this wouldn't work right now, and if the one area that I am concerned about becomes a problem, then I might have to build a few additional parts.

Now, I'm not sure how much power it could make. A few watts might be all in the small scale, but could it be scaled up is the question...

I have to finish my EV first though, and I did make some progress on it this weekend.


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

*Re: Perpetum Mobile Power Engine Concept*



micky mouse said:


> Hi!
> Look my concept power for electric engine - perpetum mobile
> 
> 
> ...


Can be to construction my perpetum mobile power for electric engine use the electric or gas kettle.



















Also see construction of a steam locomotive.



















Locomotive power engine generation a lot of electric energy for factory can be from use. With my construction water pump and heating element 2 using electric from alternator 2 (free energy from move fan pushing steam injection)
Maybe got the Nobel Prize for the invention : )
Cheers!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The best plan I've seen for "perpetual energy" is actually based on science and, in theory, could work. 

Well, it's not really perpetual energy - except from our perspective in this universe.

You see, it requires tapping into two other Universes - one with a higher net energy than ours, and one with a lower net energy. String a conductor between the two, and simply tap the flow of energy.

All it takes is a Universal Portal Opener... 

It was described nicely in Arthur Clark's "Childhood's End." Sadly, if you are in one of the universes tapped you are likely to see your local conditions become inhospitable. But hey, free energy right?


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

*Re: Perpetum Mobile Power Engine Concept*



micky mouse said:


> Hi!
> Look my concept power for electric engine - perpetum mobile
> 
> 
> ...


Natural global steam same.










In a hybrid vehicle for firing my engine use power from the diesel engine candles.









Cheers!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

PhantomPholly said:


> You see, it requires tapping into two other Universes - one with a higher net energy than ours, and one with a lower net energy. String a conductor between the two, and simply tap the flow of energy.


Much more reasonable would be to extract it from a planet or more likely, our moon by reducing its speed immesurably while extracting enough energy to power us forever.

Easier said than done, but some ppl think we're just years away from a space elevator.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: Perpetum Mobile Power Engine Concept*



micky mouse said:


> Locomotive power engine generation a lot of electric energy for factory can be from use. With my construction water pump and heating element 2 using electric from alternator 2 (free energy from move fan pushing steam injection)
> Maybe got the Nobel Prize for the invention : )
> Cheers!


You don't actually believe that "free energy" part do you? You just paid, in energy, for the power to push the fan (turbine would be much more efficient) with the heat energy you put in. Since the electromechanical device (fan) will not be 100% efficient, and since the generator or alternator will not be 100% efficient, you will not get back sufficient power to continue to boil the water needed to power the fan. I read this thread from time to time for humor.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I'm not sure if "mickey mouse" is being facetious and trying to be funny, or if he is actually serious about what he is trying to say. It's really not very clear...


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

*Re: Perpetum Mobile Power Engine Concept*



micky mouse said:


> Hi!
> Look my concept power for electric engine - perpetum mobile
> 
> 
> ...


Cruising water pump and injection of steam under pressure, alternator and battery (like in car engine) and a heating element 2 will work. 

The alternators can be used gears. I left some space for your own thoughts and tests.

If anyone did in reality my project write, please.

Cheers!

My facebook : http://www.facebook.com/martin.sinner.14


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

Simple fan test for free energy generator.






Cheers!


----------



## jk1981 (Nov 12, 2010)

PStechPaul said:


> I'm not sure if "mickey mouse" is being facetious and trying to be funny, or if he is actually serious about what he is trying to say. It's really not very clear...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

I hope it's parody but I really have no idea


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

You can use capacitors energy for solar car, or solar heating and plug in heating element 2. Formation enough energy to heat the heating element 2 to 105'C. If you a generator / alternator is not sufficient enough. 






Cheers!

More ideas on my facebook : http://www.facebook.com/martin.sinner.14


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

You do realize, that the steam power (heat) needed to turn that fan will be greater than the power output of the alternator that fan can turn, right? 
It takes a lot of energy to make steam, then there will be losses converting it to rotary motion, then losses converting rotary motion to electricity. 
The resulting electricity will not be sufficient to make enough steam to keep the process going. Not only will there be no extra energy, you will have 
to feed it power just to keep that circle going. Your "free energy" path is not even new or unique. It is a common variation of people thinking that if 
they convert power enough times somehow they will end up with more than they started with.

You may as well try putting a generator on the wheel of an EV and generating the power to recharge the batteries while you drive.


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

> You may as well try putting a generator on the wheel of an EV and generating the power to recharge the batteries while you drive.




You, sir, have achieved the hallmark of comic genius: Timing!

Bravo!!!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVfun said:


> You may as well try putting a generator on the wheel of an EV and generating the power to recharge the batteries while you drive.


I think it would be more efficient to make a pedal powered car where your feet are inversely connected through some linkage, so that when one foot is pulled down by gravity, the other is automatically pulled up, so you don't have to do any of the work.

With the right gearing you could get any vehicle up to 100 mph with a gravity powered pedal drive.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

We should design roads so they are always downhill.  And our educational system should produce students who are all above average, as they are in Lake Wobegone. 

Maybe we can make tires and road surfaces from triboelectric materials that generate electricity by flexing:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/20...ctricity.harnessing.friction.between.surfaces
http://www.geekosystem.com/pavegen-sidewalk-tiles/


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

How about a car that has an electric motor drive that runs off batteries that are recharged with an ICE drive system? (I think toyota has something like this)


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I think it would be more efficient to make a pedal powered car where your feet are inversely connected through some linkage, so that when one foot is pulled down by gravity, the other is automatically pulled up, so you don't have to do any of the work.


OMG! You're a genius!!11!!!  Wait... that didn't work out for me so well on a 20 mile bike ride this afternoon!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I think it would be more efficient to make a pedal powered car where your feet are inversely connected through some linkage, so that when one foot is pulled down by gravity, the other is automatically pulled up, so you don't have to do any of the work.
> 
> With the right gearing you could get any vehicle up to 100 mph with a gravity powered pedal drive.


About as quickly as a space ship getting up to the speed of light with ion drives.


----------



## micky mouse (Aug 10, 2013)

All new technologies always pass by the army next to the people. First have the military. As, for instance the Internet, was the first military network. Closed the probably few scientists with flashlights, turned off the electricity : ) , and they had to build a generator for military purposes. Probably already flying drones on these my free energy generators. Probably did the generator, look these videos:











I think the idea of ​​free energy generator is not the end like chocolate shield!

Cheers!


----------



## llanrog (Mar 2, 2013)

*An idea from a new member*

Hi Everyone.
What a fantastic forum you have, please excuse me if I get this posting wrong as I am new to this.I have had for a long time this idea, and this is it, why can't we harness the flow of air passing around/through the vehicle body.
Surly a vehicle travelling at 50 mph will as a by product create enough wind pressure to drive a turbine which in turn would produce electricity to drive the motors as the vehicle slows the batteries would kick in. Imagine a trip on a motorway, you would have endless wind power,in fact the further you went the more range you'd have.
I know probably you've all been there but as yet I have not see this idea before, can the community have a look at this, shoot me down or do some figures.
I was involved in the automotive industry many years ago and one of my car designs was used in a electric car record back in the eighties.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

*Re: An idea from a new member*

 here we go again.....


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: An idea from a new member*



llanrog said:


> Hi Everyone.
> What a fantastic forum you have, please excuse me if I get this posting wrong as I am new to this.I have had for a long time this idea, and this is it, why can't we harness the flow of air passing around/through the vehicle body.
> Surly a vehicle travelling at 50 mph will as a by product create enough wind pressure to drive a turbine which in turn would produce electricity to drive the motors as the vehicle slows the batteries would kick in. Imagine a trip on a motorway, you would have endless wind power,in fact the further you went the more range you'd have.
> I know probably you've all been there but as yet I have not see this idea before, can the community have a look at this, shoot me down or do some figures.
> I was involved in the automotive industry many years ago and one of my car designs was used in a electric car record back in the eighties.


Hi,

We have a special thread for this type of suggestion. It is included here: 
*Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that...*
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html

Thanks for the suggestion, but we heard it before, way too many times. I'll request the admin to move your post to our special place.


----------



## llanrog (Mar 2, 2013)

*Re: An idea from a new member*

As I suspected it has been endlessly discussed before and I thank you for not tearing my head off. As for physics go talk to a Bumble Bee and see how he sees it.


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

*Re: An idea from a new member*

Submitted for your edification:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index...-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/


----------



## llanrog (Mar 2, 2013)

*Re: An idea from a new member*

Well yes that's my point entirely the Bumble Bee has had to put up with humans telling him he shouldn't be able to fly, the bee of course knew better.I think my point is that if someone says it can't be done look at the physics should we not question it? or look at it in a different way.. It can be done, someone, somewhere, will find it. Anyway if you truly subscribe to the principle of the physics the math don't work aren't you all just wasting your time.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: An idea from a new member*



llanrog said:


> Well yes that's my point entirely the Bumble Bee has had to put up with humans telling him he shouldn't be able to fly, the bee of course knew better.I think my point is that if someone says it can't be done look at the physics should we not question it? or look at it in a different way.. It can be done, someone, somewhere, will find it. Anyway if you truly subscribe to the principle of the physics the math don't work aren't you all just wasting your time.


What are you talking about? The people here are building and/or using electric vehicles. We employ physics and math doing that. We convert energy which we buy or collect by legitimate methods to charge our batteries. Where is that a waste of time? It is a less costly and/or less polluting means of transport. You come over here and put forth an idea contrary to conservation of energy which we've heard hundreds of times. That is the waste of time.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: An idea from a new member*

I am laughing my ass off right now. For those of you who know why........ I'll try to not get involved. 
as for llanrog, http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/wind-turbine-car-72576.html


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: An idea from a new member*



major said:


> What are you talking about? The people here are building and/or using electric vehicles. We employ physics and math doing that. We convert energy which we buy or collect by legitimate methods to charge our batteries. Where is that a waste of time? It is a less costly and/or less polluting means of transport. You come over here and put forth an idea contrary to conservation of energy which we've heard hundreds of times. That is the waste of time.


I will tell you what a real waste of time is. Even though I have seen this scenario several times before I find my self rereading the highlighted articles. Now that is a waste of time. If a person is pasted nine years old they should know enough physics by then to realize perpetual motion is a pipe dream. The only way we will ever find the secret to perpetual motion is when a time traveler comes from the far future and shows us how it works. Till then I'm out'a here!


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

*Re: An idea from a new member*

Spoiler alert: Big Foot doesn't exist...

Please actually read the article my link pointed to. Aerodynamicists (sp?) have known quite some time how insects fly. The whole "physics proves bumble bees can't fly" thing is a folk myth perpetuated by those pushing pseudoscience viewpoints. You might as well say "Oh yeah? How do you explain Big Foot?".


----------



## llanrog (Mar 2, 2013)

Unbelievable you must all be Americans.Who even mentioned perpetual motion, well I guess you need something to do whilst you wait for the batteries to charge. Can I just ask do you all think mankind knows everything and all hope is lost in finding an energy solution I am referring to the notion you can never get out more energy than you put in so you 'll never win.I shall try the Bigfoot forum see if they have any ideas.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

llanrog said:


> Who even mentioned perpetual motion,





llanrog said:


> Imagine a trip on a motorway, you would have endless wind power,in fact the further you went the more range you'd have.


What does that sound like


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I found this on a machinist's forum. It seems to be realistic and practical, but since it is a form of "free energy" I figured I'd post it here. 





 
Not bad, a heat engine with no apparent degradation mechanism, made from simple parts and $600/kW of readily available metals (Titanium and Nickel). It seems more efficient and practical than a Stirling heat engine.

More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitinol


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

All good stuff but - 40 years ago!
None of the machines shown could do more than move themselves
Sounds like a blind alley - fun though!


----------



## PZigouras (Jun 5, 2010)

PStechPaul said:


> Not bad, a heat engine with no apparent degradation mechanism, made from simple parts and $600/kW of readily available metals (Titanium and Nickel). It seems more efficient and practical than a Stirling heat engine.


But don't forget, $600/kW was in 1973. If you look on the papter right above it, you will notice that solar power is $10,000/kW. It has come down just a tad since then 

Today, with the sky-rocketing price of Nickel and Titanium (and of course the ever-dropping price of solar), Nitinol may actually be the most expensive way to convert heat into energy.

Still, it would be nice if someone could calculate the BTU's per gallon of water (at let's say at 150 F), and convert it to watt-hours -- assuming that the Nitinol engine is 80% efficient or so.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I don't know what the present day cost per kW of a Nitinol heat engine is, but you can get the stuff in wire and/or bar form for a few bucks. Here is a 5mm x 8" bar for $20:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/5mm-Nitinol...Grade-mentalism-magic-wand-ASTM-/261075964378

Here is their website catalog:
http://kelloggsresearchlabs.com/catalog/84

You can get a Nitinol heat engine for $50:
http://musclewires.com/MWHeatEngine.php


----------



## captain jack (Jan 12, 2014)

mattW said:


> Wind and Water have kinetic energy based on their mass and velocity. Magnetic and gravitational forces don't have any energy. Energy is what you need to power something down the road, you can use magnets to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy or use gravity to convert potential energy into kinetic energy (i.e. billy cart/soap box racer), you can even push the car yourself and convert the chemical energy in your food into kinetic energy but you don't get any energy from forces, you just convert it from one form to another.


i haven't read all the posts, yet. still working at it. however, i have point to make, which may be made in posts i have yet to read, but i think it worth stating.

wind and water can be used to power objects or to create power. and i think these are two really good examples to use because, like magnetic energy, we only had a limited understanding of how to harness these forces, in the early days.

i am a sailor. i have a really good uderstanding of these two particular forces. in the early days, sailing barges n the nile, wind force was understood much as some of the posts, i have read, understand magnetism. it was seen as a push, in the direction of the wind, but had to be opposed to go the other direction. so, they used square sails mounted forwards on their barges to sail against the river's current. this use of the wind only makes use of drag. then, they would use the rivers current to push their barges in the other direction. also using the force of drag.

the germanic tribes of the late migration age, noteably the vikings ( possibly others but the physical proof positive is stll not completely solidified yet ), were the fist to use sail design and balance, coupled with hull design, to use the power of wind and water in a different way, and truley sail upwind.

modern sailboats use these same priciples. sailing wind, the sail creates lift. lift pulls the boat upwind. but, it's not perfect and, without the opposing lift created by the keel/fin/underwater foil, the boat would be blown sideways. 

however, by coupling the opposing lift forces of the wter and wind, forwards motion is created allowing the sailboat to move in opposition to the wind. not directly, of course. you can only sail to within 30 to 45 degrees of the wind. but you can sail up wind. yet, in the early days, wind and water were only seen as forces that could create power in one direction and had to be opposed in the other direction.

i see the understanding of magnetic force being looked at in this way. it is only useful in one direction then it has to be opposed. this is an antagonistc view of the forces of nature. the forces of nature, including magnetism, can, and will, be made to work for man, fully, when man stops viewing them as things to oppose and, instead, seeks harmony with them.

i think that martial arts is a good analogy of the kind of thought needed. in a movie, when two knights bring their swords together, in a fight, they push against each other, trying to force the other person's sword aside. this is a silly convention of TV land and real longsword combat does not work like that. if i strike to you with my longsword, and you try to push it aside, i will not waste my time and energy resisting you. i do what's called a change through. i use your energy against you and allow you to power my sword so that it moves to the opposite side of your sword ( where i thrust you tgrough ) and carries your sword off line. we call that opposing strength with weakness. we also oppose weakness with strength. it's not much different than the thinking that allowed man to figure ut how to sail up wind.

right now, you are viewing magnetism as opposing strength with strength. so, it works one way and has to be forced to a place to allow it to work in that exact same way, again. at least, these early posts are viewing it that way.

a magnet does not only push, it repells. it has the potential to work in both directions. realize that and work to find a way to utilize the dual nature of this force and you can create a self perpetuating cycle.

just my two cents.

one other point. springs are not a good analogy of magnets. magnets have a flow of force around them, moving between the poles. a spring is a piece of metal. by itself, it has no force. the metal is tempered in such a way that the molecular structure allows it to be deflected from it's original form but it has a memory of that form and returns to that form, once it is realesed from it's point of deflection. the force of motion, energy, of the spring, does not originate with the spring. it comes from, for instance, the finders used to squeeze it together. it takes a certain amount of energy to deform the metal. once released, the metal returns to it's original form, releasing the 'stored energy' imparted to it by the fingers. however, you could plsce a million springs on a table, together, and nothing at all would happen. you'd just have a bunch of pieces of metal lying on the table. dump a bunch of magnets on the table and see what happens. they possess force. springs do not. 

using springs to describe magnets is like using balls to describe oranges. yes they have the same shape. they can even have the same color. however, balls are good to hit with a bat and oranges taste good. hitting an orange with a bat will never get you a home run and i'm not going to try to eat a baseball.


----------



## captain jack (Jan 12, 2014)

the way i see it, the problem is the direction of the force. if you face the force head on, opposing it, many things become impossible. in a sailboat, you would not be able to sail upwind. in martial arts, using my previous example, facing the force of the on coming sword directly means tht you have to use the exact sae amount of force to stop the sword as is used to power it. if you wish to push the sword away, you have to have a surplus of force. therefore, it would take more force to push it away than was used to strike you.

one counter to such an attack is to throw the opponent. you redirect his force and toss him over your hip. i have done this countless times. in a real fight, you would direct his force so that he is thrown to the ground, directly on the back of his neck; breaking the neck. in practice, you aren't trying to kill anyone so, you rediect his force outwards. the first time i did this, i was blown away. i hardly used any force, at all, just relying on body mechanics. however, i did it perfectly and he was thrown 6 feet away from me. thankfully, he wasn't hurt. 

90% of the force, used in the throw, came from his initial attack. so, using his force, alone, adding only the force it took to redirect, i was able to generate a lot of motion. motion equals energy. his large force redirected by my small force 'created' a lot of energy.

if he was a magnet, and his force magnetic force, and a person knew the 'body mechanics' to efficiently redirect that force, a lot of energy/motion could be 'created' and it would be mostly caused by his magnetic force.

as i see it, the answer lies in figuring out how to effectively redirect the magnetic force. i'm not saying i have that answer. i'm a martial artist and a sailor, not a scientist. however, a large part of science is in observing how things work and figurng out how to replicate that mechanism in a way that is beneficial to a certain purpose.

you don't even have to really understand the exact nature of that force to be able to achieve that end. sailors have been sailing up wind for hundereds of years yet it was only since the advent of human flight and wind tunnels that anyone knew about lift.

i think the problem of modern science is that we assume we know everything and that our present knowledge represents all knowledge. this keeps people from moving ahead. it's the people that say, "i think there is more than this", who advance man's understanding and capabilities. there were still people claiming that human flight was impossible even after the wright brothers proved it wasn't. until very recently, according to our understanding of lift generation, it was claimed that bumble bees couldn't fly ( mathematically ). we all know they can and researchers only recently started to figure out how. also, originally, it was claimed that the largest flying animal possible, according to science, was the condor. then they discovered the pteranodon and were forced to move the size limit up. then they discovered the quetzalcoatlas and were forced to move the limit up, again. not that their scientific calculations changed. reality forced them to change their ideas despite the 'science'.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I do agree that sometimes one must "buck the trend" of what is generally accepted in order to achieve innovation. AIUI, the magnetic force is not as fully understood as the electrostatic force, although both have excellent mathematical models that allow us to utilize them. Gravity also is not fully understood, but in the relativistic model it appears to be a distortion of time in the presence of mass which creates an acceleration, and thus there is no perceptual difference between feeling the weight of your body on the earth, or being in a spaceship accelerating at 1G.

On the quantum mechanical level, things become even more weird, and forces such as gravity require the exchange of particles such as gravitons. And the phenomenon of light and other electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of discrete particles (photons), or waves, and it depends on how we try to observe their behavior.

The origin of matter and energy is also not fully understood, although it can be observed that in a QM vacuum, particle/antiparticle pairs appear and then disappear. So it may be that everything we see and experience in our world of matter may have its opposite existing somewhere, and the net sum of matter/antimatter and corresponding equivalent energy may be indeed zero. I think that is what the "zero point energy" fanatics are trying to exploit, but it seems that all of their attempts to harvest this are deceptions and scams. If there is any validity, it is impossible to filter the tiny bit of plausibility from the thunderous preponderance of noise.

As for comparing martial arts principles to energy machines, a better example may be the phenomenon of gravitational boosting of a spacecraft by carefully interacting with its gravitational field and rotating inertia. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

A similar phenomenon may exist with magnetic fields, which may be generated by the rotation or "spin" of electrons in the magnetic domains of a magnetic material. Perhaps there is a relativistic or quantum mechanical effect that extracts energy by converting a tiny bit of the mass of a magnetized object, which is essentially the principle of fusion. If so, it would not take much mass to create a lot of energy. It seems unlikely, since it does not take much energy to magnetize a piece of iron, but perhaps some of the rare earth materials contain magnetic energy originally imparted to them at the time of their creation by means of fusion in stars, which is how the most basic element, hydrogen, has been converted to all other elements.

Food for thought, but I think it is better for us to utilize the huge fusion reactor that is our sun, which can be harvested by photoelectric cells, or by using the wind and tidal forces that are also derived from solar power and ultimately fusion reactions.


----------



## captain jack (Jan 12, 2014)

i don't think that finding a way to utilize the interaction between magnets is the same thing as trying to create free energy. i think it's similar, in principle, to our ancestors finding a way to utilize wind power to sail towards the wind. 

it's not free power. any time you redirect power, there is a cost. although, it can be a very small cost. that's the concept i was trying to show with the martial arts example. another example might be converting the linear energy of pistons to circular energy, at the crank, to power a car. there is an energy cost. however, the cost is not so great as to make it unusable. 

i will admit that it is just easier to use the natural energies that we understand, as we understand it. however, going by that idea, it would have been easier to have kept traveling by horse than to invent the car.

many things were possible, in the distant past, that are not possible now, although we are supposedly technologically superiour to any other civilization. 

with all of our technology, we can't replicate the crystal skulls. and we can't build the great pyramids, even with our machines. the historians give a lot of cobbled together ideas as to how it was done but actual engineers can't begin to say how it would have been done by a people, equipped only with hammers and copper chisels. there is much we don't know and, i believe, much we have forgotten.

we don't even know why the pyramids were built. although they taught us that they were tombs there has never been a mummy found in them. in fact, some theorize that they may have been for power generation. there is an interesting mix of conductive and non conductive materials used in their construction with tunnels for water flow underneath. the nile used to run near the pyramids, at one time. that would be a similar set up to tesla's tower. it's an interesting thought.

the laws we believe to be true are not as certain as we would like to pretend. once, it was aught that matter can not be created or destroyed. in a nuclear reaction, this 'truth' is not so true.

much of our technology would have been thought physically impossible when the 20th century began. how much do we now consider impossible that is not impossible ( or may actually be common technology, in the future ).


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Captain Jack,

If you believe all that I have a pyramid powered car to sell you, oh and I may have a bridge or two as well


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_with all of our technology, we can't replicate the crystal skulls.

_The damn things were made in the 1950's using modern machine tools!


----------



## captain jack (Jan 12, 2014)

Duncan said:


> _with all of our technology, we can't replicate the crystal skulls.
> 
> _The damn things were made in the 1950's using modern machine tools!


interesting theory. proof? they are very deftly formed quartz depictions of female human skulls that are faceted, underneath, so that light projected through the bottom comes out of the mouth and eyes. all but one of the skulls surfaced in the 19th century...somewhat before the 50s. even the experts have no real proof of the origins of the skulls. you can't carbon date quartz...not that carbon dating is actually accurate. they speculate that they were made in the 19th century. but, again, there is no actual proof.

the one skull. which is probably a copy of one in the brittish museaum, appeared before the 50s so it's doubtful that it was made in the 50s.


----------



## captain jack (Jan 12, 2014)

Duncan said:


> Hi Captain Jack,
> 
> If you believe all that I have a pyramid powered car to sell you, oh and I may have a bridge or two as well


what's not to beileve? that it is impossible to use copper chisels to form granite? try it. copper is not a hard metal. that the weight of some of the stones in the pyramids would challenge modern equipment? it's quite true. to lift such huge blocks would be a major undertaking, today. how much more so in a 'primative' society? there is a partially cut obelisk. it was abandoned because it cracked. the cuts on the sides are very narrow. that is problematic, on it's own, but perhaps the most problematic is how they intended to cut the bottom, if it hadn't broken? and also how they intended to move it.

no mummies were found in the great pyramids. the passage that leads to the center of the great pyramid is plain and unadorned, unlike the inside of all the other structures that were meant to be entered. that's a fact. there are tunnels underneath that appear to have been for the passage of water. that is a fact. the inside layers of rock are a type of stone that is more conductive while the outside layer is a less conductive stone. that is a fact. it was capped in gold; a very conductive material. another fact. vase batteries have been found in egyiptian sites, as in roman ones. that is a fact.

even if the log roll theory can explain how the stones were moved, there is no good explanation offered as to how they were lifted onto the logs or how they were cut, with copper chisels. facts, all. 

in other words, what we 'know' about them is a load of bs. 'experts' of egyptology deny and ignore these issues because it disripts the nice story they have created. 

using the accepted theories, how can you explain the great monolithic structures? you can't...not without a lot of suspension of disbelief. kind of like buying a lot of what you see in movies.

and that's not even addressing the things in south america which can not be explained by what we are told is true.

are you aware that the romans had a map of the land beneat the ice of antarctica? an accurate map. only recently were we able to use scientific instruments to 'see' what the land beneath looked like. how did they have a map of something we only recently were able to discover?

i haven't raisesd any points about what we supposedly know, or have 'known' and since revised, that aren't true.

of course, i wasn't trying to start a discussion of these things. they were examples. the point is, there is a lot we don't know. we learn more every year that goes by. insect flight, as i already pointed out, is a good example.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

captain jack said:


> interesting theory. proof? they are very deftly formed quartz depictions of female human skulls that are faceted, underneath, so that light projected through the bottom comes out of the mouth and eyes. all but one of the skulls surfaced in the 19th century...somewhat before the 50s. even the experts have no real proof of the origins of the skulls. you can't carbon date quartz...not that carbon dating is actually accurate. they speculate that they were made in the 19th century. but, again, there is no actual proof.
> 
> the one skull. which is probably a copy of one in the brittish museaum, appeared before the 50s so it's doubtful that it was made in the 50s.


Unfortunately all wrong
None of them were known before the early 50's
Examination of several of the skulls shows machining marks and traces of tool steel alloys first used in the 1950's

The mummies in the pyramids were moved after grave robbers broke into the older tombs - later tombs tried to rely on secrecy 
With very patchy success
Tutankhamen was the only complete success - so far

My brother was into pyramids, he lent me a book, excellent all about numbers and strange feature

Funny thing is the Author managed to measure a bloody great big rough old stone structure to greater precision that I could measure fuel system parts in a temperature controlled lab

Many years ago I went on a Geology expedition to look at pillow lava - a couple of months later I sat down in the cinema and on the screen was classic pillow lava with some wombat going on about mysterious roadways laid under the sea

Lots of ignorant people write books full of bollocks about what and how things can be done 

Here is a guy showing what he can do with ancient technology
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage2


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Did I hear pyramid car  Oh and that bit that they covered the pyramids with gold? And where is the proof of that grandiose claim? 


You may not have one to sell but I sure bet this guy does.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

I think I remember seeing one of those in a Disney Parade.


----------



## omnipotent99 (Jan 23, 2014)

If you are just starting out and have a new car, then I think it is not worth of it.


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Electric car with long cord*

Hello, I need your help!!!

I am building an electric 3 series BMW with a 12 volt forklift motor for drag racing.

As I am getting the power through the cord, 

which is 166 volts @ 15 amps (2500 watts) constantly, 

what kind of controller I need? 

Is it possible to put in a 400 amp or 1000 amp controller (for quick launch)?

Lets ignore the cord for now!

what kind of top speed could it get?

What kind of acceleration would it get with this power?

Is this power enough? 

I can double the power if needed. Not a big problem.

If not enough power I can get 25000-105000 watts, but do i really need so much power? Can I drive on 2500 watts or 5000 watts instead?

Tell me everything you know about this please!


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

W. T. F.

You want to run a drag car with a 12v motor from 2.5 kw (3.4 hp) dragging a power cable?

ROFL this has to be a troll.


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

my question is buried in watt hours. 

Lets say electric car uses 200 watt hour per mile. 

If my power is 2500 watt (constant) so i understand it as 2500 watt hour?

Means I can run quickly for distance depending on length of the cord.

Lets say cord is infinite, then range is infinite. on top of that i am not concerned using 200 watt hour per mile, because i can afford waste 2500 watt hour per mile. 

Are my assumptions correct? please tell me.

Also can the controller make more amps to the motor than its coming from the cord? lets say 15 amps from cord and controller converts it into 400 amps for short period of time? Is that possible?


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

How heavy is a mile of cord? If you want a 50 mile range, you will need to see how much 50 miles of cord weighs.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

So you will be consuming 200 wh/mi while drag racing?


----------



## crackerjackz (Jun 26, 2009)

*Electric car with long cord*

Wtf lol ....
Where would you get 166 volts from ? What country has 166 volt outlets ? 

Worse ... 2500 watts of power in a 12 volt motor to drag race ???? 


Either critical information is missing or this is just wrong in to many ways ...


----------



## elevatorguy (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

Don't forget to figure in drag coefficient and voltage drop in 50 miles of line cord


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> If not enough power I can get 25000-105000 watts, but do i really need so much power? Can I drive on 2500 watts or 5000 watts instead?
> 
> Tell me everything you know about this please!


My car takes about 18000 watts to maintain 60 mph. A simple calculation would tell you that you could expect something around 8.33 mph on 2500 watts. And it would take quite a while to get there at that power level. The actual speed will be a little more than this because air drag does not play a significant role at these low speeds.

A 115 volt ac wall outlet rectified to give 166 volts DC is not going to drive your car very fast if that is what you were thinking.

25000 watts is 33.5 hp. 105000 watts is 141 hp. The former could give performance like a 60's VW bug. In other words you would be lucky to ever make it to 75 mph. 100kw is a reasonable amount of power for a small commuter car, but nothing for a drag racer. To be reasonable in the street car divisions you would need 500k to 1 million watts. The drag car Assault & Battery feeds 800000 watts to its power plant and is showing 1/4 mile times of under 9 seconds.

Hope that answers some of your questions.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



elevatorguy said:


> Don't forget to figure in drag coefficient and voltage drop in 50 miles of line cord


That's a whole new meaning to drag. I wonder how hard it is to drag a cord that long? He will need a shopping cart full of watts and amps.


----------



## poprock (Apr 29, 2010)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

I tried this with my Rolls Canardly, but those durned teenagers kept cutting the cord!


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

thanks for comments. 

i understand it now. 

what i need then is the batteries that would give me the power to get to 130 km/h and quick acceleration. 

I need to ignore the range of the batteries, because I will charge them while driving.

what kind of batteries would give me that power? and again - i don't need range, just lightness and some speed


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> what kind of batteries would give me that power?


Do some research. A good place to start is here:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=669

Pay particular attention to:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15508

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11708

After you figure out the power and energy requirements, look at the different battery types available. These include Lead Acid, LiFePO4, and Lithium Poly (LiPo, LiMCN, LiCo, etc). Here is a starting place for battery education: 

http://batteryuniversity.com/



Unhinged86 said:


> I need to ignore the range of the batteries, because I will charge them while driving.


I'm afraid to ask. But it sounds like you might benefit from this thread:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html


----------



## crackerjackz (Jun 26, 2009)

This must be a bad joke ???? ....


----------



## mk4gti (May 6, 2011)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

Funny thread!


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



samwichse said:


> ROFL this has to be a troll.


Nono, think about it! If you make the cord a quarter of a mile long you only have to hit the accelerator at the start and when you reach finish the car will power down automatically when the plug is yanked out!


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

...like an accident I can't stop looking at.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



toddshotrods said:


> ...like an accident I can't stop looking at.


 Todd, I am glad to know I am not the only one with no willpower.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



dragonsgate said:


> Todd, I am glad to know I am not the only one with no willpower.


I've heard that there's help for people like us.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



toddshotrods said:


> I've heard that there's help for people like us.


 Yeah? How much will it cost me?


----------



## JMac (Jul 10, 2013)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

What if he is thinking about doing something like an electric metro trolley/bus?

What if he is coming up with a new form of drag racing where you come with your drivable electric slot car, connect to the juice above like an electric metro trolley system and push the rheostat. 

I don't really think this is what hes talking about, but I can see something like stated above, giving one hell of a ride. 

Driveable drag slotcar.... I already feel lightheaded..


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

I am not sure if he knows how much an ohm weighs, or where to buy a watt.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



JMac said:


> What if he is thinking about doing something like an electric metro trolley/bus?
> 
> What if he is coming up with a new form of drag racing where you come with your drivable electric slot car, connect to the juice above like an electric metro trolley system and push the rheostat.
> 
> ...


Funny you mentioned that. When I was about ten years old a friend and I laid out all the straight track from our electric trains side by side. We stripped the bodies off our trains and the had drag races. After we got bored doing that we pointed them at each other and had head on crashes. That was the last time I played with electric trains. A few years later a hobby shop set up a scale slot car drag strip with a foam cushion at the end of the track for stopping. Those little puppies were fast.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



JMac said:


> What if he is thinking about doing something like an electric metro trolley/bus?
> 
> What if he is coming up with a new form of drag racing where you come with your drivable electric slot car, connect to the juice above like an electric metro trolley system and push the rheostat.
> 
> ...


Personally, I would like to see electric succeed on its own, battery-powered, merits before something like that happened; because it ties into too many stereotypes we're battling.

I'm actually not one to give a rat's @$$ what other people think about what I'm doing, but I get that this is bigger than me, and that society needs to grasp it to turn the corner it must. Think how far ahead we'd be if the industry and politicians hadn't bungled the effort in the 90s...

I also still hate FIA's bullheaded "solution" of having drivers swap vehicles halfway through a race; though I do like the wireless charging they're working on, and plan to leave behind in the host venues.

Ditto for this "long cord" accident of a thread I couldn't stop looking at - it's an irresponsible idea (no intended offense to the OP), that favors a short-term gratification over long-term responsibility.


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

actually its neither of those.

Its going to be an electric car that gets its power from on board generator. 

Now i just wanted to find out what kind of power i will need to drive it. 

I will be working on 2.5 kw of power to get things going and later I estimate to get 25 kw - 100 kw.

That should be enough for a normal car. 

If i succeed with this project I will post a new Thread with different name. 

The cord in this is just for you to get an idea of how it works. There is really no cord. but if i told you in detail i think most of people would not take me seriously. 

anyway, when its all working its going to be all different.


For now i appreciate all your comments, you really gave me some good perspective of how to continue with it  thanks


----------



## poprock (Apr 29, 2010)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> The cord in this is just for you to get an idea of how it works. There is really no cord. but if i told you in detail i think most of people would not take me seriously.


Yeeeep. I start to feel the same way; just have to watch this accident and where it heads towards...


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> actually its neither of those.
> 
> Its going to be an electric car that gets its power from on board generator.
> 
> ...


 Oh Oh, Another top secret project. Go ahead and tell us the details of what it is. It can't be any sillier than a long extension cord. In fact you might get more insightful comments. Details please. Other wise I am going back to reading the weight loss spam.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

I think Major made the most tactful and useful input in post 12. If you are serious about this project, go back to post 12 and follow the links.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> ...on board generator...
> 
> ...later I estimate to get 25 kw - 100 kw...


There are a few ways to look at that - none of them add up, in simple math. They only way to even approach it, from a numbers standpoint, is with some conceptual, hypothetical, magical, generator that can deliver either more power/unit of weight than anything ever realized to date, or with less input energy than anything currently feasible.

Add to that, coded language, from the first post to this last one, and...

Put your cards on the table and find out if it's possible. I'm dreamed from the first day I've been here, and had an overwhelming majority of my ideas shot down, and proven unfeasible. It was never done in malice, and ultimately saved me a lot of time that would have been wasted chasing fairies. The difference is I put my dumb ideas completely on the table.

If you're real, stop speaking in riddles, stop deflecting, stop hiding - put your idea(s) on the table and get some real input on their feasibility.

I'm not trying to be mean. One, we never know whose reading these threads, so we try to make sure that truth is always the final word; for the lurkers who don't speak up, don't ask questions, but walk away with _something_. Two, there is a constant stream of everything from conventional projects, to illogical concepts (I've had a few), to outright trolling. Making all of it measure up to the standards of the forum keeps this board on track, and makes it a place that is squarely focused on real solutions.

Ante up?


----------



## crackerjackz (Jun 26, 2009)

Lol oh now its not a cord but a generator ... Is it still a car or now a plane ? Nothing your saying adds up in any way ... If your gonna actually try to build something sit down and read at least a few successfull build blogs it will help you greatly !!!!


----------



## mgrenzoni (Jan 23, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

This sounds a whole lot like a hybrid to me. 

I worked in college on one in the early 90's that competed in SAE's annual Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge. There were (and still are) two schools of thought. One was to use the gas engine as supplemental power for the electric motor in addition to charging the battery pack (like the Prius). The other (and the one we used) was to use a small IC engine that was strictly run to recharge the battery pack. 

The theory here is that you can run the IC engine at its most efficient point (max. hp / torque band of the RPM scale) whenever it fired. It would only fire when the pack voltage dropped below a given threshold and would shut off when the pack voltage raised above another threshold. Again, the IC engine only ran a generator. The tires were powered by electric motor(s)

This design has benefits in a commuter car but likely just adds unneccessary weight to a drag racer.

Is this what you're working on?


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

So you want the truth? OK

I saw somewhere on the internet the story about Nikola Tesla and his free energy car. 

I thought - that is better than any battery and it was done 100 years ago and no one seems to drive one of these cars now. 

Then I didn't sleep for about a week trying to find something about it. but all i found was just the story.

my wife told me i need to get some sleep because i started to look like a zomby. 

Few days later i talked to my mother on the phone and she told me that my grandmother was a fortune teller. She had never told me that before and it was shocking to me, because I had many experiences that could be explained with that. 

Few times I could hear the voices of the people around me in my head. That was not nice. i wanted it to stop because i couldnt take it, but i couldnt. 

once i talked with my dog telepathicly (she told me that she will soon die, and that I will not see her next time. after a week i had a phone call that my dog and cat was missing. after 3 days cat returned alone. 

there were lots more, but I should get to the electric car now. so...

I called Nikola Tesla into my house. And there he was sitting on my couch with his legs crossed and his hand touching head. The presence of him was very powerful! It seemed to me that he is very strong person and very intelligent.

Now the important stuff:

I asked him: how to make free energy machine?

-Its simple he replied.
Nice - but that doesn't tell me nothing, can you show me piece by piece what parts i need to connect together please? because i don't know anything about electricity or engineering.

Then he showed me pictures in my head.
But he said it doesn't matter how you make it!
He said: Oscillator, Oscillator is the most important!

then i took my laptop and started looking on the interned
about oscillator and devices that has it. 

More days without sleep...

Then i came across one man talking about free energy device that works. 
And guess what - it has oscillator. 

Now - he said take the induction cooker and put a bifilar tesla coil on the place where the pan would be and put the load on the wire. 

what you get is amper magnifying device. not transformer.

It takes 4 amps 220 volts (900W) and gives you 21 amps with 166 volts (3600W). 

this example is from the other man that made this experiment. 

So we have real free energy device. 
If you think you can patent it and sell it forget it!

This device is available for 100 years and no one will let you to give the free energy to people. 

The other thing is you can make it for yourself at home. 

I have ordered 2 of these cookers, and i just got money back without reason. The seller was gone. 

I bought it third time and i should have it today. strange enough i didn't get it. 

I hope i get it. I want to measure everything so i can calculate how much it takes and gives. 

If you want more power there are induction heaters. 

So i thought if you want the truth here it is in your face. do with it what you like. 

I want to make it with battery - inverter - induction cooker - car battery charger and back to the inverter loop. should work. 

Cant wait to test it. 

thank you


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

*munch* *munch* *munch*

Pop corn anyone?

*munch* *crunch* *munch*


----------



## poprock (Apr 29, 2010)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

This reminds me of Jack Nicholson's first big movie. Is that what you're watching?


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

great , seems pointless i even started with this forum. 

hope there is someone interested in this just write me. ignore those who don't care. 

bad jokes just add to my depression of not even getting the equipment t0o start this. 

Anyway i will make it. i found from my experience that stuff that i tell is very offensive to people, its like opposite of what everyone thinks and wants, but its true and eventually get proven. 

this is that time again. i think even if i show you everything working most of people will say its a troll. whatever. 

i really hope to see more response from normal people, not haters. 

great , thanks.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

Way back when, I used to think you guys were a bunch of snobs when I'd see you attack people with crazy ideas. Then, I thought back and realized that I was never attacked, and neither were many others. So, I thought, there must be something they see, or sense, or smell, when they go all bad cop on someone. Then, I thought to myself, why would they, why not just ignore them, what are they protecting? Then, I got it.

Pass the popcorn.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



toddshotrods said:


> They only way to even approach it, from a numbers standpoint, is with some conceptual, hypothetical, magical, generator that can deliver either more power/unit of weight than anything ever realized to date, or with less input energy than anything currently feasible.


A 25kW genset is easily feasible, and it is plenty of power since it doesn't have to contend with peak loads.

Oh, and to OP: I hope your parts come in soon. I've never had the opportunity to drag race against an induction cooker powered car.


----------



## crackerjackz (Jun 26, 2009)

You lost me completly when you said dead nikola tesla told you how to build a power cooker transformer of free energy .... ..... .... 

Uranium is not free energy ... It has a lot of energy at a very high cost . Nothing is just created ...


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Hollie Maea said:


> A 25kW genset is easily feasible...


25kW generator head - minus what ever has enough power to turn it - 380lbs. Now add in the rest of the system, and consider going drag racing with it.


Also, he said 25-100kW:


Unhinged86 said:


> ...Its going to be an electric car that *gets its power from on board generator*.
> 
> Now i just wanted to find out what kind of power i will need to drive it.
> 
> I will be working on 2.5 kw of power to get things going and *later I estimate to get 25 kw - 100 kw*...




A nice package deal. Outta be pretty quick.


----------



## crackerjackz (Jun 26, 2009)

toddshotrods said:


> 25kW generator head - minus what ever has enough power to turn it - 380lbs. Now add in the rest of the system, and consider going drag racing with it.
> 
> 
> Also, he said 25-100kW:
> ...




I love your ebay link to a 100 kw generator lol ....


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

even if you make 20kw induction heater system for car it would charge your batteries and your range would be infinite. 

the same thing you could use to power your house. 

imagine what would that be for people who don't have electricity in other countries.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> even if you make 20kw induction heater system for car it would charge your batteries and your range would be infinite.


Soooe, start building and let us know how it goes? Ok?


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

Unhinged86, Tesla is playing with you. Since his dead he does that a lot. Out of frustration with Edison, I guess. Are you related to Edison in any way?


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

Finally i got all the parts so i can test it if it gives more energy than it takes. 
Im going to work now and i will test it when im back. 
so i will write about it after 9 hours.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> Finally i got all the parts so i can test it if it gives more energy than it takes.
> Im going to work now and i will test it when im back.
> so i will write about it after 9 hours.


I can already tell you how it will come out. If you keep the power levels really low and technically do the best possible job possible you will get about 98% of the energy you put into it back out. A little better than the rate of return on the slots in Vegas. As soon as you increase power levels to something that would be considered useful the efficiency goes down. You are not going to see efficiency levels close to that. I will give you kudos if you can reach 70%.

On your idea of carrying around a generator, yes that is called a Series Hybrid. The only example of this I can think of was the Fiskar Karma. Everyone else has done a parallel Hybrid and this is probably because the overall efficiency is slightly better that way. A small battery pack teamed with a 30 hp motor generator set could be used to make a series hybrid vehicle. Unless you need to go distances greater than 100 miles you are better off just using batteries and charging from a wall outlet at night. It will cost less and have higher reliability.

Good luck with your project.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> even if you make 20kw induction heater system for car it would charge your batteries and your range would be infinite.
> 
> the same thing you could use to power your house.
> 
> ...


 Unhinged, If you are channeling Nick Tesla and like him trying to give everyone free energy be on the look out for a guy named J.P. Morgan. Tesla was building a setup to broadcast free energy around the world and when his backer Morgan got wind of it he (Morgan) pulled funding and blackballed Tesla. That was the beginning of the end for Tesla. Tesla supposedly figured out how to broadcast electricity to run an electric powered Pearce Arrow. If you are truly the genius you perceive yourself to be then forget about on board generators and figure out how to safely send energy to our cars through the ether. The infrastructure is there with cell towers. Maybe then we can get a good phone contract and energy combination.


----------



## JMac (Jul 10, 2013)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

We all learn one way or another.

Some read, some spend money in trial and error, some steal ideas from others.

I don't see how one way is better than another or that anyone has the right to define how someone learns. He will spend his money and learn. Hopefully his creative side will not be crushed by the experience, for we all fail on the road to success, wasting time, wasting money, wasting resources and if you haven't, then you didn't work for it. 

I'd like to see him succeed, hopefully beyond Fleischmann–Pons.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



JMac said:


> We all learn one way or another.
> 
> Some read, some spend money in trial and error, some steal ideas from others.
> 
> ...


If wasting time, money and resources are a criteria for success then I should be a freaking bazzilionare. Knowing what you are doing might also have something to do with it. I saw Fleischmann–Pons and wondered what a ladies face cream had to do with it so I looked it up. My memory is on a need to know basis so when I saw the Wikipedia on it I went Oh yeah I have read about that. I didn't have an immediate application for the possess at that time so put it out of my mind.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



toddshotrods said:


> 25kW generator head - minus what ever has enough power to turn it - 380lbs. Now add in the rest of the system, and consider going drag racing with it.


Nice. You'll have to dig a little deeper than ebay though! Evdrive has a 25kw range extender in which the whole thing fits in the spare tire compartment. Of course I wouldn't drag race with it (aside from OP and Dead Tesla, I don't think anyone would) but it is pretty small and light.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



JMac said:


> I'd like to see him succeed, hopefully beyond Fleischmann–Pons.


The difference here is that Fleischmann-Pons didn't try to achieve free energy but rather generate energy at a potentially very low cost.

A small, but rather significant, difference.


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

Here is some results: 

yesterday no luck - but improved when adjusted teslas bifilar coil

today - luck - got results from minus to plus figures, improved further on teslas bifilar coil.

some of test results:

1) input (1978 w), output (1980 w) over-unity 2 watts
2) input (2088 w), output (2124 w) over-unity 36 watts
3) input (2088 w), output (2214 w) over-unity 126 watts
4) input (1909 w), output (2070 w) over-unity 161 watts
5) input (2064 w), output (2340 w) over-unity 276 watts

measuring the core of induction cooker shows 100 amps which at 180 volts is 18000 watts.

question - how to harness it?

i saw some guys making 3 times more power than it takes to run it. 
the man who was telling about this device said its possible to get 100kw.

i guess its not so easy, maybe its simple but not easy, im definitely missing something here.

plan is to get at least 3 times more power so then i can use the inverter to star the cooker from the battery and put a battery charger as the load on the cooker. when its running like that, just take the battery out of the circle. 

it will take time to get this into a car


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> Here is some results:
> 
> yesterday no luck - but improved when adjusted teslas bifilar coil
> 
> ...


I don't believe you. I will request the administrator to move this thread to our special place: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html It certainly has nothing to do with EV conversions.


----------



## crackerjackz (Jun 26, 2009)

Lol ... Please show us we are ignorant . Make a video with proper testers displaying amps and volts in and out ...


----------



## elevatorguy (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



crackerjackz said:


> Lol ... Please show us we are ignorant . Make a video with proper testers displaying amps and volts in and out ...


Plus one on that....


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



crackerjackz said:


> Lol ... Please show us we are ignorant . Make a video with proper testers displaying amps and volts in and out ...


Better yet, since you have just made the most significant discovery since fire* quit wanking around on a website.

*Assuming you are telling the truth, which you aren't.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

I think you should build a hybrid with your new invention and couple it to an ICE running on Browns gas so that you can increase your over unity figures even more. You might want to put some generators on the axles so that you can capture some more energy to boost up to over unity level as well so that you don't need to keep it plugged in while you commute. Keep up the great work, and keep us posted!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*

We're the wrong crowd to scam.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Unhinged86 said:


> 1) input (1978 w), output (1980 w) over-unity 2 watts
> 2) input (2088 w), output (2124 w) over-unity 36 watts
> 3) input (2088 w), output (2214 w) over-unity 126 watts
> 4) input (1909 w), output (2070 w) over-unity 161 watts
> ...


Right. Now is the question, how do you measure the power?

Since you're talking about "100 amps which at 180 volts" I have the feeling you're measuring Volt and Ampere separatedly and then just multiply the values, but since you've earlier talked about oscillation I conclude that your circuit is AC.

That means that you probably have a bit of a phase delay in the circuit which means that you can't be sure that the power is 18000 Watt. The only thing you actually knows is that it can't be HIGHER than 18000 Watt, but it can as well be zero Watt or negative!

If your circuit is (ideally) capacitive or inductive you can have both a high Voltage and current but NO power will be generated! You need a resistive load for that to happen. Some info:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/phase.html

So how did you measure your values? Measuring things is great, but if you don't know WHAT you're measuring the numbers are just numbers without a meaning.


----------



## Unhinged86 (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Electric car with long cord*



Qer said:


> Right. Now is the question, how do you measure the power?
> 
> Since you're talking about "100 amps which at 180 volts" I have the feeling you're measuring Volt and Ampere separatedly and then just multiply the values, but since you've earlier talked about oscillation I conclude that your circuit is AC.
> 
> ...



i put a load onto the output wires a 2000w cattle and a light bulb, then i measure the volts with volt meter and i measure amps with clamp in the place before cooker and before this load. 

anyway i am still planning to make bmw 3 series conversion to electric. 
i think it will take 2 years to do.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

A friend of mine is mixed up in an over unity racket that I am not familiar with, so I thought I would run it through here and see what the catch is. The device is the tesla quantum energy generator, patent number 511,916. I do not understand how it works or does not work, but I understand that it is over unity. His business has all the traditional hoax markers like how secret it is and how you need to spend a bunch of money to learn more. Obviously if it is an over unity device, it is a myth, but curious if anybody has the rest of the story... Can somebody bust the myth in a nut shell?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

evmetro said:


> ....patent number 511,916.


From what I read it is a Reciprocating Electric Generator. Like you have linear motors; you can make linear generators. That's all it is. Nothing great about it. At the time, he thought it would be an improved mate for the piston steam engines used for generation, and it may have had advantage over the linear to rotary conversion in use. However about the same time, turbines came on line and the rotary to rotary couple at high speed was more efficient than Tesla's concept.

I occasionally see development attempts with what's called free piston generators using combustion chambers pushing moving coils or magnets back and forth. I don't see any magic here


----------



## mgrenzoni (Jan 23, 2014)

Tesla was a pioneer in a lot of ways and got into aspects of electricity that are well beyond my comprehension. Several of his inventions went unpublished and there is a lot of mystery around the circumstances and a lot of theories as to why they never saw the light of day. I remember reading about something he created that could be interpreted as an over-unity device. He worked a lot with high-frequency, high voltage devices. I know enough to know that these behave a lot differently than their DC counterparts so the same rules don't apply. Keep in mind, conservation of energy is one rule they do follow. His theory was to create an oscillator that would build upon itself - using the resonant frequency of the oscillator to boost voltage over time. He likened it to pushing a child on a swing. If you push at the correct time, the kid goes higher. If not, they go lower even though the same force is applied. The idea here is that the circuit is tuned to "push" at the best time. While this is a way to boost voltage (or amps?), it takes time so the input power would equal the output power. However, if you waited long enough, you'd get a huge jolt on the output from a relatively low input voltage.

I think this or something similar is what you are referring to. If this is the case, the fact is that power is conserved but a very large output voltage is coming from a very low input voltage. This has everything to do with the "phase shifting" phenomenon discussed earlier in this thread.

Now with all of that said, I am not an electrical engineer nor am I a physicist. This was my understanding and I may be a bit off on the details. PLEASE correct me if I'm off on this.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Thanks for the replies. Sounds like my friend is mixed up with Keshe as well... I have to figure out how to get this guy straightened out!


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

mgrenzoni said:


> Tesla was a pioneer in a lot of ways ... I remember reading about something he created that could be interpreted as an over-unity device. He worked a lot with high-frequency, high voltage devices. I know enough to know that these behave a lot differently than their DC counterparts so the same rules don't apply. Keep in mind, conservation of energy is one rule they do follow. His theory was to create an oscillator that would build upon itself - using the resonant frequency of the oscillator to boost voltage over time. He likened it to pushing a child on a swing. If you push at the correct time, the kid goes higher. If not, they go lower even though the same force is applied. The idea here is that the circuit is tuned to "push" at the best time. While this is a way to boost voltage (or amps?), it takes time so the input power would equal the output power. However, if you waited long enough, you'd get a huge jolt on the output from a relatively low input voltage.
> ...
> Now with all of that said, I am not an electrical engineer nor am I a physicist. This was my understanding and I may be a bit off on the details. PLEASE correct me if I'm off on this.


Tesla was into a lot of different things, including the resonance aspect. Someone said something about turbines previously, and Tesla was also into that part, with his "bladeless" turbine. Many are willing to dismiss that thing, but if you're willing to experiment just a little, you will find that his turbine was quite efficient. I say this because I didn't actually believe that the thing would work until I built an air mover using the concept. It's not worth printing the results here, since people are willing to dismiss things about which they know nothing.

Remember that the theory during Tesla's time was the ether theory. Now, whether you physicists agree with it or not, what was extant was workable, and the theory did NOT _exclude_ unexplained/errant data as quantum mechanics does, nor did it _include_ such stuff as 'virtual particles'. Since few physicists are willing to do any form of research into ether theory (they _do_ wish to keep their jobs), we're limited to those few, and their funding is miniscule.

Point of that is this: Tesla's stuff, purportedly "over unity" drew upon ether, which was defined as a fluid/elastic solid that was everywhere, and in some aspects was the actual 'matter' of the universe (Phi wave theory). This ether was unlimited energy, and Tesla's goal was to be able to harness this energy. For those who poo-poo this idea, I direct your attention to current quantum mechanics theory, which forwards the idea of dark matter/dark energy. In other words, quantum physics is coming around to the ideas ether theory had nearly two centuries ago, whether qm likes it or not.

So none of Tesla's stuff was creating something from nothing: it was all oriented towards making use of what was theoretically out there. Once J.P. Morgan got wind of that, Tesla's funding was pulled and he was effectively destroyed by legal contract. That's all history.

Aside from Tesla, there are ways to do things with motors/generators that defy the so-called "laws" of physics, except for one: neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Conceptually, once you've used up the power from your battery as a conversion to mechanical energy, it's gone, right? Well, think about that a while, really think about it, and if you're into electronics at all, apply some of that knowledge.

While you're at it, check out the Tesla bifilar coil and its properties. Also check out the Caduceus coil, which qm would have you believe somehow destroys energy (the coil is wound so the magnetic field is self-cancelling). Since that defies the one law I consider absolute (conservation), there is something going on that is unique, in a sense: the conversion of the magnetic fields into longitudinal fields. Since qm likes to think that if something can't be detected/measured it doesn't exist, that field is something of a conundrum, but cannot be denied. All the qm people say is that it is a useless field, therefore must be dismissed. But is it useless, or is it that we just don't know how to utilize it?

I'll leave it at that. Tesla was not a nut case, and ether physics I predict will return, however disguised, since it is more logical and reasonable than physics that demands a limited universe, a universe that was "created" from a singularity, particles that have properties yet don't exist except in equations (after which use the particles disappear) and all the other logical fallacies forwarded. Is it any more difficult to conceive a universe that is time-free and infinite than to conceive a universe that had some weird beginning and does have an end? What happened _before_ the big bang? And what is _beyond_ the 'limited' universe? Some claim there are _other_ universes, which is logical fallacy. The universe must be timeless and infinite, logically, whatever forms of human invented math you use to say otherwise. Fact is WE DON'T KNOW. And yes, I do understand qm, and that's why I say what I say.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Bladeless turbines work rather well. I've studied them to some degree thru involvement with Turbonique. And they were used for turbochargers a few decades back. No magic there.


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

I think there are multiple points people are arguing between when it comes to this perpetual motion/free energy discussion. 

Group A will say something like "how about a windmill in my front grill or a gearbox hooked to a generator that regens without slowing me down?"

Group B will respond with an answer like "It wont work because of conservation of energy. You can't cheat and get out more than you put in."

Then Group A will return by telling group B they are close minded and that we don't understand everything about quantum physics or dark matter or the universe or what Tesla was working on etc.

While this is correct that we don't understand everything there is to know about the universe it does not have much to do with windmills or alternators on gearboxes. It is a completely separate point and in my opinion not an appropriate response to group B's answer. 

Trying the same old windmill in hopes that Tesla or quantum physics will swoop in and make it work this time is a waste of time. On the other hand if a physicist came on here with plans for a dark matter generator or a device that used quantum physics in a way not formerly understood, We would be very interested in it. My point is that it wont be a simple windmill or a conventional electromechanical generator. 

Sandpainter, I don't want to sound critical of what you wrote. It just reminded me that there are different points being argued in the free energy discussion and that's why it seems to go in a circle.


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

DanGT86 said:


> I think there are multiple points people are arguing between when it comes to this perpetual motion/free energy discussion.
> ...
> Trying the same old windmill in hopes that Tesla or quantum physics will swoop in and make it work this time is a waste of time. On the other hand if a physicist came on here with plans for a dark matter generator or a device that used quantum physics in a way not formerly understood, We would be very interested in it. My point is that it wont be a simple windmill or a conventional electromechanical generator.
> 
> Sandpainter, I don't want to sound critical of what you wrote. It just reminded me that there are different points being argued in the free energy discussion and that's why it seems to go in a circle.


I'll be the last one to tell anyone to put a windmill in the grill to recharge batteries. That sort of thing is essentially the same as using a motor to run a generator to charge the battery that runs the motor: it'll work until the battery finally discharges, and it will discharge, because the motor and generator have less than 100% efficiency, as does the battery.

Now then: Tesla, et al, aren't going to help with that, no way. However, if magic is what you want, go to Texas Instruments Application Reports and find SPRA420A, which is a switched reluctance motor control using the TMS320F240. In that app note, you will find circuit diagrams for the power section of the controller. Take note of the transistor drive and diode bypassing on their circuit. Look at the waveforms, especially the current waveforms, that TI has in there, and give it some thought. In the report, there is some comment about 'recovery of some part' of the drive current. That part of the drive current is the rise time of the drive current. During that time, tau, or charge time of the inductance, the current waveform is rising. The charge time, or charge current (can be called flyback), can be recovered using the circuitry in the TI sheets, and will equal the source current less copper losses, semiconductor losses, and field losses; the recovered power will be up to possibly 90% or so, if you do everything right. Now, take the drivers a step further, and never allow the drive current to reach stability; instead, always cut off the drive before stability is reached, using a square wave. There will be _substantial_ recovered power. My own experiments have yielded up to 91% recovered power (total), with the worst case being 64%. Yes, the total mechanical output will suffer some, but the gains are greater than the losses.

This is no magic, it is nothing more than modifications of applications known for ages. You guys are looking for ways to extend range, this is one. I've built SR motors that, in one example, I put 100 watts in (measured), got out 91 watts of mechanical power (also measured), and recovered 64 watts of drive power. Sounds impossible, doesn't it? Only way I can analyze it is by dividing the thing into two separate systems. I suppose people will argue about it, and that's fine, but here's the deal: until someone comes up with experimental evidence that what I have on my test bench is incorrect, I won't do a thing differently, nor will I change my attitude on this. It has been confirmed in my own testing, and on large motors of the PM style in different ways. All I can say is that there are things going on that we just don't bother to use.

Ask any engineer who uses relay drives about that flyback, and he'll tell you if you don't do something with it, you will kill your drivers. The flyback is produced by the collapse of the magnetic field, and must generate the same power used to make it. It doesn't care about voltage or current, only the field, and if you block it, it will generate enough voltage to drive the equivalent power through the circuit; if there are electronics in the way, they're dead. Don't believe me? Try it.

There are a lot of little things that are either purposely ignored or ignored because they are not explained and don't fit the theory. Among those are the effects described above, and others such as the Aspden Effect, aforementioned Caduceus coils, the effects produced by the bifilar Tesla windings, and so on. Some people are calling these oddball things effects of zero point energy, dark energy, or as I prefer, ether. What I do know is this: any mathematical explanation that assumes anything, I won't buy; any mathematical explanation that uses approximations, I won't completely buy; and not only will I not buy it, neither will those who are doing practical things and want experimental data as confirmation, and that includes such people as the skunk works, Sandia labs, and so forth, any of whom are so far ahead of the rest of us it's sad and pathetic.

By the way, I see where M. Strong has stated that we must get away from oil based energy soon. My prediction is that we'll begin to see alternate energy sources using electrical phenomena, solar phenomena, and so forth that many of you consider impossible; unfortunately, we'll get to pay right through the bunghole for it, even though the patents have been around for decades, even well over a century. It simply can't be done with plain old windmills and solar panels, if you look at it logically. Got to be something new (it won't be new but naysayers will say it is). Watch and see. And Strong and his cohorts will make trillions from it all.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Sandpainter said:


> This is no magic, it is nothing more than modifications of applications known for ages. You guys are looking for ways to extend range, this is one. I've built SR motors that, in one example, I put 100 watts in (measured), got out 91 watts of mechanical power (also measured), and recovered 64 watts of drive power. Sounds impossible, doesn't it?


I'd like to see more details of your setup and measurements. It is true that a SR motor is essentially just a series of electromagnets which are switched sequentially to attract an iron rotor, and you can regain a portion of the energy stored in the electromagnet when you switch it off, but there is also energy transferred to the rotor which produces mechanical power. In the operation of the SR motor, the inductance of each electromagnet changes with rotation, so that when it is energized, the inductance is lower, so the energy given by LI^2 will be less than when the poles line up and the inductance increases. But at the same time energy is transferred to the moving rotor and the interaction of the coil and magnetic field will reduce the current in the coil, or cause more current to be drawn from the supply. When switched off, some of the stored energy can be recouped, but there will always be losses so that the total mechanical power will be less than the electrical power provided, and there will be losses due to the resistance of the copper coils, as well as some iron losses due to the changing magnetic flux. It may be theoretically possible to approach 100% efficiency with superconducting magnets, but that can be obtained only with refrigeration (which requires power), and there will also be losses in the switching components.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Sandpainter said:


> I'll be the last one to tell anyone to put a windmill in the grill to recharge batteries. That sort of thing is essentially the same as using a motor to run a generator to charge the battery that runs the motor: it'll work until the battery finally discharges, and it will discharge, because the motor and generator have less than 100% efficiency, as does the battery.
> 
> Now then: Tesla, et al, aren't going to help with that, no way. However, if magic is what you want, go to Texas Instruments Application Reports and find SPRA420A, which is a switched reluctance motor control using the TMS320F240. In that app note, you will find circuit diagrams for the power section of the controller. Take note of the transistor drive and diode bypassing on their circuit. Look at the waveforms, especially the current waveforms, that TI has in there, and give it some thought. In the report, there is some comment about 'recovery of some part' of the drive current. That part of the drive current is the rise time of the drive current. During that time, tau, or charge time of the inductance, the current waveform is rising. The charge time, or charge current (can be called flyback), can be recovered using the circuitry in the TI sheets, and will equal the source current less copper losses, semiconductor losses, and field losses; the recovered power will be up to possibly 90% or so, if you do everything right. Now, take the drivers a step further, and never allow the drive current to reach stability; instead, always cut off the drive before stability is reached, using a square wave. There will be _substantial_ recovered power. My own experiments have yielded up to 91% recovered power (total), with the worst case being 64%. Yes, the total mechanical output will suffer some, but the gains are greater than the losses.
> 
> ...





Sandpainter said:


> I've built SR motors that, in one example, I put 100 watts in (measured), got out 91 watts of mechanical power (also measured), and recovered 64 watts of drive power. Sounds impossible, doesn't it?


No, because you have a system with energy storage capability. Similar to how I can charge a capacitor at 5 Watts and get 50 Watts out of it. So what? That is not free energy.



Sandpainter said:


> There are a lot of little things that are either purposely ignored or ignored because they are not explained and don't fit the theory. Among those are the effects *described above*,....


But what you *described above* is well understood and used extensively in power electronic devices such as motor controllers.


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

major said:


> Bladeless turbines work rather well. I've studied them to some degree thru involvement with Turbonique. And they were used for turbochargers a few decades back. No magic there.


That's a fact. I wrote a paper on the things back in '93, sold it to people everywhere, and some of them did some really good work on them. What was more interesting is that several of them (four, to be exact) ended up in trouble with someone powerful because of it. Don't ask why, all I can say is that one called me and said 'be careful', another disappeared, machine shop and all, a third quit writing because he was in research with Shell, and the fourth wrote to tell me not to try to contact him, as he was going 'underground'. Other than the beauty of the turbine, I won't say what I think was going on there.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Sandpainter said:


> That's a fact. I wrote a paper on the things back in '93, sold it to people everywhere, and some of them did some really good work on them. What was more interesting is that several of them (four, to be exact) ended up in trouble with someone powerful because of it. Don't ask why, all I can say is that one called me and said 'be careful', another disappeared, machine shop and all, a third quit writing because he was in research with Shell, and the fourth wrote to tell me not to try to contact him, as he was going 'underground'. Other than the beauty of the turbine, I won't say what I think was going on there.


If four of your friends have been taken away by the nice men with the wee yellow van and the fancy jackets that stop you from hurting yourself then what does that say about you?


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

PStechPaul said:


> I'd like to see more details of your setup and measurements. It is true that a SR motor is essentially just a series of electromagnets which are switched sequentially to attract an iron rotor, and you can regain a portion of the energy stored in the electromagnet when you switch it off, but there is also energy transferred to the rotor which produces mechanical power. In the operation of the SR motor, the inductance of each electromagnet changes with rotation, so that when it is energized, the inductance is lower, so the energy given by LI^2 will be less than when the poles line up and the inductance increases. But at the same time energy is transferred to the moving rotor and the interaction of the coil and magnetic field will reduce the current in the coil, or cause more current to be drawn from the supply. When switched off, some of the stored energy can be recouped, but there will always be losses so that the total mechanical power will be less than the electrical power provided, and there will be losses due to the resistance of the copper coils, as well as some iron losses due to the changing magnetic flux. It may be theoretically possible to approach 100% efficiency with superconducting magnets, but that can be obtained only with refrigeration (which requires power), and there will also be losses in the switching components.


Are you the one fooling around with SR motors in that thread?

You speak truth, essentially. However, remember this: there is no energy being transferred from the generated field to the rotor. That is a fallacy. The rotor material is attracted by the field, there is a change in reluctance, and so forth. But still, no matter how the math is performed, whatever it cost to build that field is what can be recovered, less the losses I mentioned.

As to other proofs of this, take a look at the output electronics of a sine wave UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply), specifically the online type. The sine is driven by square waves that enable either a + or - rail depending on the half cycle. That square wave is modified by an output choke/cap to make the sine fairly smooth. Also, within such device, if it's a good one, both rails are pumped by an input choke independent of the outputs. If the battery set is 72V, for instance, both rails can be pumped to the required ~200V using a simple inductor. Won't get into specifics here, but that's the way they work. Similar drive circuits work the sine drives of PM motors. I did design work on both.

Now, keep in mind that I did say that if you do not allow the input current to stabilize, your recovery will be much, much higher than if you run the thing in the usual way. This means there will be mechanical modifications, and rpm will necessarily be limited to maybe 5000 rpm or less, because there must be a larger number of stator fields and rotor irons being acted upon. Since power electronics is limited in frequency, that is the determining factor.

If you are the one building the SR motors in that thread, this concept isn't going to work for you. The recovery method works best when the rotor is built such that the irons don't interact (fields don't interact). In fact, alternate setup is best, since you can use the recovered drive from the powered coils to drive alternate and opposite coils. The electronics is more complex, but the benefits far outweigh the detrimental aspects.

I suppose we could get more in line on this if you want. I have problems making the concept understood, since a) people simply don't understand, b) people think it's getting something for nothing - untrue, and c) this flies in the face of what is believed. I really don't care any more if people believe it or not. It is what I've built on my bench and what I'm building on my bench. Current project is to build one of these large enough to power my house, and it will, eventually. The last one, I took apart the electronics, so it won't do for giving waveforms. Also, that one proved the interaction between coils on a solid rotor, took out all the drive electronics.


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

Duncan said:


> If four of your friends have been taken away by the nice men with the wee yellow van and the fancy jackets that stop you from hurting yourself then what does that say about you?


Very mature of you. Perhaps if you had any idea of what these people were doing, your commentary might be worthy of consideration. Since you don't, it's not.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> Don't ask why, all I can say is that one called me and said 'be careful', another disappeared, machine shop and all, a third quit writing because he was in research with Shell, and the fourth wrote to tell me not to try to contact him, as he was going 'underground'.


Now this is just getting too deep and smelly. total crock


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

major said:


> No, because you have a system with energy storage capability. Similar to how I can charge a capacitor at 5 Watts and get 50 Watts out of it. So what? That is not free energy.
> 
> But what you *described above* is well understood and used extensively in power electronic devices such as motor controllers.


First case: you are disregarding time. Of course there's energy storage: there's energy storage in every motor. Where did I claim free energy? What I claim is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and some can be reclaimed. I'm sure you won't like that, but like I said, until you can come up with some kind of test setup on a bench that disproves what I've done, and I can replicate your bench test, such commentary is null and void.

No it's not. It's partially understood, just like all the other inductive/capacitive circuitry, or even rotary mechanical operations. Do yourself a favor and look up what I mentioned re the Aspden Effect, maybe that will ferment some questions in your head.


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

onegreenev said:


> Now this is just getting too deep and smelly. total crock


Whatever you say.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Sandpainter said:


> First case: *you are disregarding time*. Of course there's energy storage: there's energy storage in every motor. Where did I claim free energy? What I claim is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and some can be reclaimed. I'm sure you won't like that, but like I said, until you can come up with some kind of test setup on a bench that disproves what I've done, and I can replicate your bench test, such commentary is null and void.
> 
> No it's not. It's partially understood, just like all the other inductive/capacitive circuitry, or even rotary mechanical operations. Do yourself a favor and look up what I mentioned re the *Aspden Effect*, maybe that will ferment some questions in your head.





> *you are disregarding time*


 Right. The statement was about power. What does time have to do with it



> *Aspden Effect*


 Ah yes. *VIRTUAL INERTIA. *There went 15 minutes I wish I had to do over. Maybe your Caduceus coil can get that time back for me.

Been fun. And thanks for keeping your posts in our special thread here. Good bye.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Sandpainter said:


> Whatever you say.


You have actual proof of your statement? Sounds like the typical urban myth thats old and worn out. Just a crock. lots of BS. Lots of hot air, again.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> What I claim is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and some can be reclaimed.


This is not your claim. Someone already said it. Reclaimed = Regenerative capture. Nothing new here. So your claim is for what?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

major said:


> evmetro said:
> 
> 
> > ....patent number 511,916.
> ...


Just noticed this article. My impression is that it is similar to Tesla's generator. And obviously no free lunch  http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=386509#post386509


----------



## QuietCar (Jan 3, 2013)

I am a total "No free lunch" proponent. I have seen literally dozens of "free energy" gadgets over my lifetime. All were pure hocus.

So, recently I embarked on the trail of recapturing electrical energy from the atmosphere. I built one of the capture towers. The kind with the base plane plate and carefully ran the gathered power down thru a co ax cable, a really/really shielded one, down to a small bank of lithium cells. 

I used a common diode bridge with some caps that I got a diagram off the internet.

It does receive an electrical charge of a type. My calcs show that I needed a hundred pole and cap units to charge a 12VDC battery in 8 hours.

To be really efficient, I would need to move near some primary transmission towers or at least a sub station and leach off of them.

It was fun, but no free lunch.

QC


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Are you thinking of the free piston Stirling Generators? There are some really good animations on the web.











major said:


> Right. The statement was about power. What does time have to do with it


What does time have to do with power??? Time is in the definition of power!
Wikipedia "In physics, power is the rate of doing work. It is equivalent to an amount of energy consumed per unit time."


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

few2many said:


> What does time have to do with power??? Time is in the definition of power!
> Wikipedia "In physics, power is the rate of doing work. It is equivalent to an amount of energy consumed per unit time."


Right. Power is a "rate". The time unit is an infinitesimal. _dW/dt_. 5.6kW is 5.6kW at 1:30 pm or 4:00 pm or for one hour or for 3 seconds or for 7 microseconds. Power is independent of time.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Just as a point of reference and possible interest, here is a link to the lectures which include one on the "Aspden Effect":
http://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

major said:


> Right. Power is a "rate". The time unit is an infinitesimal. _dW/dt_. 5.6kW is 5.6kW at 1:30 pm or 4:00 pm or for one hour or for 3 seconds or for 7 microseconds. Power is independent of time.


P=IE. I is in amps. Amps is electron flow per second.

My perspective is that a good reading of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics would be very informative to all. Also, a good read of the Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulae. A further note should be that the largest portion of those formulae, such as inductance, are _approximations_, and anyone who has wound a precision inductor of any type would know this.

I was going to post a couple weeks worth of current waveforms and other data from a modified SR, but I see that everyone knows everything there is to know about such stuff, it would be a waste of time.

May you all have interesting lives.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

major said:


> Power is a "rate". The time unit is an infinitesimal. _dW/dt_.





Sandpainter said:


> P=IE. I is in amps. Amps is electron flow per second.


Power is the rate at which work is done. _P=dW/dt _Here the symbol _W_ is used to represent work.



major said:


> 5.6kW is 5.6kW at 1:30 pm or 4:00 pm or for one hour or for 3 seconds or for 7 microseconds.


Here the symbol W is used the represent the units of power, namely Watts.

Sorry if there was confusion. 

Your equation shows electric Power and how it is calculated from potential and current, volts and amperes. Yes, current is defined as the flow of charge or Coulombs per second. Realize that a quantity of charge at a potential represents energy or the potential to do work. In other words, Volts times Coulombs = Joules. Electric Power can be calculated from this in the same way as I described; the rate at which Work is done. Or _P=dW/dt_ If the voltage is constant over the incremental time period, this reduces to P=V*(_dQ/dt_). And _dQ/dt_ is the rate of charge, and is how current is defined. So if this charge, Q, is constant over the increment, the equation reduces further to P=V*I. 

So I am glad we agree. I also agree people should read, study and learn about the physics of energy and power. It is so often misunderstood. Some of us have attended university and practiced in the field for years using the tools of calculus and physics. And some of us attempt to help others understand these fundamentals. That is my intent. If you see an error in my logic or presentation, please identify it for me. I am always eager to learn, even better to learn from one's mistakes.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Sandpainter said:


> P=IE. I is in amps. Amps is electron flow per second.
> 
> May you all have interesting lives.


The simplified formula P=IE is one of the most commonly misused ASSumptions in the "free energy" crowd. That equation is true only for DC, or for simultaneous values of voltage and current, or for true-RMS values with purely resistive loads. Most DIY hobbyist DMMs do not read true-RMS, and even some very high precision laboratory meters are average responding and are accurate only on pure sine waves. 

Most of us would welcome demonstrations of SR motors and data as you say you have, but would rather not reveal. If the measurements are well documented, with specifications provided for the metering, and reasonable assurance that they are calibrated to NIST standards, then any "anomalies" you may find would be very interesting. Scientists are open-minded to all realistic and verifiable data, and there very well may be some unknown or poorly understood effects that should be explored. 

There is a great deal of "free energy" available, although most of it that is readily harvested and converted to useful forms is in the form of visible light (solar photovoltaic), geothermal, and derivations of solar energy (wind, biomass). There are also sources of electromagnetic energy such as EM fields near power lines, and interaction of the earth's magnetic fields with other fields and its rotation, and possibly variations in the ionosphere that might be captured by large towers or balloons or orbiting satellites.

Free energy advocates should welcome criticism and proof of erroneous measurements, but instead they lose credibility by making outrageous claims of success or suppression by shadowy and sinister government and corporate interests. It makes for fascinating cloak and dagger mysteries and drama, but mostly it is delusion, misunderstanding, and even greed in attempts to gain funding from gullible people.


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

major said:


> Power is the rate at which work is done. _P=dW/dt _Here the symbol _W_ is used to represent work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. We don't agree.

Interesting, I suppose. But actually, I'd prefer you didn't just quote some BS from some website you don't really understand.

for your information, seldom is an instantaneous value used outside such control loops as a PID control. These are rather more sophisticated than would be normally used in a motor control. Even a 3 phase AC controller would probably not use such a loop unless some interesting situations arose. Otherwise that old standard is the norm. An example would be the output control loop for a UPS that is built for computers. Since computers generally use switching supplies and those supplies turn on at a specific input voltage, there is an instantaneous load applied to the UPS; without a derivative form of control, a standard integral control isn't capable of dealing with that instantaneous load. Consequently, PID is commonly used in such cases.
I really don't wish to continue this sort of discussion after having wasted 30-odd years in doing these things.


----------



## Sandpainter (Mar 15, 2014)

PStechPaul said:


> The simplified formula P=IE is one of the most commonly misused ASSumptions in the "free energy" crowd. That equation is true only for DC, or for simultaneous values of voltage and current, or for true-RMS values with purely resistive loads. Most DIY hobbyist DMMs do not read true-RMS, and even some very high precision laboratory meters are average responding and are accurate only on pure sine waves.
> 
> Most of us would welcome demonstrations of SR motors and data as you say you have, but would rather not reveal. If the measurements are well documented, with specifications provided for the metering, and reasonable assurance that they are calibrated to NIST standards, then any "anomalies" you may find would be very interesting. Scientists are open-minded to all realistic and verifiable data, and there very well may be some unknown or poorly understood effects that should be explored.
> 
> ...


First, that formula is seldom misused by anyone who has studied electronics. Since you insinuate I don't know what I'm talking about, I might ask where it is you gained all your intimate knowledge. I might also state that every lab I ever worked, save one I'd rather not think about, had true RMS meters, along with all the other stuff required for their work. Perhaps you haven't worked in such a lab, or do your thing in some backwater electronics joint.

And second, what, exactly, would be any benefit for me or anyone else interested in these things by placing data here for a series of inane and ignorant commentary when the actual physics won't be understood? That part has been amply shown in previous posts replying to the theory (actually simple fact that every controls engineer deals with every day). Why should I waste my time trying to convince anyone of what I have stated, and any reasonably well versed electronics tech or engineer already knows? The only difference is in application.

Don't mix me up with what you think is some crowd that expects to do the motor-generator-battery schtick. I know what is and what isn't. It's apparent that this crowd is familiar with the standard trade of electric drives, but that trade dates back over a hundred years, and so long as that's the standard, you will be driving electrics that have limited range, far less than what I required when I commuted to work.

As to magnetics, only recently has physics made the admission that some aspects are unknown and/or unexplained, such as the PM Bloch Wall and all its implications. In fact, when I worked at the motor company, I couldn't convince the so-called 'motor engineers' that a single wire immersed in a magnetic field exhibits torque when current is passed. And that is precisely the type of crowd extant here.

As stated, I have no intention of wasting my time here. So y'all have interesting lives, y'hear?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Sandpainter said:


> Interesting, I suppose. But actually, I'd prefer you didn't just quote some BS from some website you don't really understand.


I did no such thing. When I do use a quote or material from some reference such as a website or book, I always indicate such and give appropriate credit and source information. I understand full well what I wrote. It is unfortunate you don't.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Eviesop*

I am new to this site and wanted to introduce myself.

I am currently building an Electric Vehicle from scratch.

I've worked in the electrical and electronic industry well over 15 years.

I began in the industry working on: automotive stereos, generators, and personal computers. I live, eat, talk, sleep, and thrive for the electrical & electronic industry.

I've been researching and designing a renewable energy source for the past two decades and recently decided to convert it over to power an electric vehicle.

I then decided to build the vehicle from scratch because modern cars are too heavy. I had stuff lying around my house and decided to gather it up and put it together. I post pics and vids via kickstarter.

Please check it out.

EVIESOP Electric Vehicle Solar Powered:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1115184944/eviesop-project


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*

It sounds like a fun project. How many and what are the specs of the batteries? How many and what are the specs of your panels?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

Hi Eviesop

I'm trying to decide if you are blowing smoke or running some type of scam,

You will need to learn a lot more engineering and science before your project is at all feasible

First things
Bike or motorbike wheels are NOT designed to take side loads
so using them in a non leaning vehicle is a No No
Solar panels produce at best 400w/m2 - normally less than 200w/m2
And that is in full sun square on to the sun

Compare that to the power required to keep a six seater vehicle going at 60 mph


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*




evmetro said:


> It sounds like a fun project. How many and what are the specs of the batteries? How many and what are the specs of your panels?


Batteries: two 12V 245 Ah Deka Solar Photovoltaic Battteries 150lbs each.

I plan to use 5 or 6 Panels: 53 Watts each. For a total of 265 Watts.

According to my calculations: I drive about 30 minutes to work: with a 3360 watts motor which would drain about 50% of the battery bank. While at work I don't drive so the vehicle would charge using the panels. I work 9 hours per day and the Sun is out during the whole time. In the area I live solar panel companies estimate about 7 hours total sunlight throughout the day and I say at least 8 hours if not 9. Don't forget to take into calculation that while driving the generator produce up to 2400 watts and the panels produce up to 265 watts. Plus depending on the charge that is left on the batteries I have access to 115 VAC 20 amp outlets at work. Now if I added a secondary generator I should be generating up to 4800 watts which would be sufficient to power everything. The only unsure thing I don't know is how the motor handles going uphill.



> Bike or motorbike wheels are NOT designed to take side loads
> so using them in a non leaning vehicle is a No No




I have 2 years’ experience of riding and I was contemplating that too but I have seen trikes, side cars, and other carts that used motorcycle tires and they did just fine. I understand taking corners at above 30+MPH the tread might roll off the rim or blow out or the spokes might give out but I was planning on testing this. I had a few ideas on how to fix this: either by upgrading the suspension to lean while turning or by adding bead locks similar to what the off road industry uses. Though I will need to talk with the tire manufacturers about how much sidewalls can handle before failing.

The reason why I chose to use motorcycle tires and rims was due to the light weight, durability, and less friction. Also, the gear and brakes bolt directly to the rim instead the axle.

According to my calculations the tires and rims I plan to use can handle over 4,000 lbs of force. I took the weight of a 250lb person jumping a 250lb bike 10ft and landing on rear tire with a 12" absorption travel impacts around 4,000 lbs of force on the tire and rim; the sidewalls see just about the same amount of force.

Now keep in mind the frame weighs about 900lbs made out of aluminum; the batteries weigh 300lbs; and the driver and passengers weigh up to 1800lbs for a total gross vehicle weight of 3000lbs. The electrical and electronic equipment will possibly weigh about 200lbs more not including cargo.

I do understand I might be overloading the tires but for this mockup they will suffice. I will look into finding other types of tires maybe T-Model tires or something of that sort. I might even talk with manufacturers to create tires for EVIESOP.

I tried bicycle tires and they did not suffice. 
I can assure you that this is not a scam or blowing smoke.
I'm just a simple guy like you who would love to build his dream.
I'm not here trying to sell anything I am here trying to socialize with similar thinkers like myself.

Please let me know if you had any issues with the project and if there is anything I should change? I appreciate the help.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Eviesop*

You appear to be vastly underestimating the amount of energy it takes to move a car. To move a moderately aerodynamic vehicle at 60mph takes around 18000 watts. Your 4.8kw generator only provides 1/4 of this. You might be able to maintain 20mph. Solar panels at the current costs and the cost of electricity are not worth putting on a vehicle. On my car the break even time would be over 40 years which is longer than the usable life of the cells. Larger vehicles would do a little better because they use more energy and have more surface area for the panels. A higher solar insolation value would also help but it is not really bad where I am.

I believe you will find that to make a comfortable and safe vehicle, it will end weighing more than you expect. Careful use of Aluminum and Carbon composite structures will help but the OEM's use steel because it is cost effective. Ford is going to use Aluminum in the F150 and expects to save quite a lot of weight. But at a cost. A 6 person vehicle that weighs 1500 lbs empty will be quite a trick. To have it capable of carrying 900 lbs of people on top of that.....

You have a lot of work ahead of you and I wish you all the best.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



dougingraham said:


> You appear to be vastly underestimating the amount of energy it takes to move a car. To move a moderately aerodynamic vehicle at 60mph takes around 18000 watts. Your 4.8kw generator only provides 1/4 of this. You might be able to maintain 20mph.[/QUOTE]
> 
> I have tried to take everything into effect of how to move a car at 70MPH. That is why I am designing the vehicle from scratch. I have minimized the weight by removing the: transmission, driveshaft, axles, engine, and steel.
> 
> ...


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*

I have seen VW tires on Harleys....

Another great way to lighten up the load would be using lithium cells instead of lead. Lithium has been a game changer in road going EVs. You could add a little more range, AND make it lighter.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

_Batteries: two 12V 245 Ah Deka Solar Photovoltaic Battteries 150lbs each.

According to my calculations: I drive about 30 minutes to work: with a 3360 watts motor which would drain about 50% of the battery bank. _

There is a slight problem with this - those batteries are 245Ah at a discharge rate of 1/20C

At your proposed discharge rate of 0.5C you will be lucky to get 125Ah out of them so you will discharge 90%+ which will destroy them in about 5 cycles

You need another 300lbs of batteries and all of the resultant weight increase in the support structure

_Don't forget to take into calculation that while driving the generator produce up to 2400 watts_

Don't forget small engine gen sets are incredibly inefficient - twice as bad as a car engine - not to mention giving out a ton of smelly emissions


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*




evmetro said:


> Another great way to lighten up the load would be using lithium cells instead of lead. Lithium has been a game changer in road going EVs. You could add a little more range, AND make it lighter.


I thought about this but I lack the funds to acquire them at this stage. Also, I heard a rumor that lithium batteries are explosive in water is this true?




Duncan said:


> There is a slight problem with this - those batteries are 245Ah at a discharge rate of 1/20C
> 
> At your proposed discharge rate of 0.5C you will be lucky to get 125Ah out of them so you will discharge 90%+ which will destroy them in about 5 cycles


 
The batteries are C/20 @ 245Ah with a draw of 12.25amps per hour: OR C/100 @ 250Ah with a draw of 2.5amps per hour.
I am calculating 3360 watts per hour. It takes me 30 minutes so I divide the 3360 watts in half: 1680 watts total (not including uphill and downhill driving). I should use about 1680 watts / 12VDC = 140Amps total in 30 minutes. The batteries will be in parallel giving me 430Ah - 140amps = 290Ah left leaving batteries at 67% State of Charge (SOC). This is not including the electronics which draw about a 1.2 factor each. Which I add 140amps times 1.2 factor = 168a – 140a = 28 amps per electronic device; only rough estimate. These are rough numbers. When drawing 70 amps from each battery: the rating will be: C/3? @ 215Ah with a draw of 70 amps per hour. Now include the 2400 watt input from generator and 265 watt input from solar panels.

Note: everything is rated in Watt-Hours for those who don't know.




Duncan said:


> Don't forget small engine gen sets are incredibly inefficient - twice as bad as a car engine - not to mention giving out a ton of smelly emissions


 
The generators are not powered by engines so no pollution.

(Edit: To figure C/3: I took the C/100 @ 250 - C/20 @ 245 = 5 amp difference. Then I took 12.5amps - 2.25 amps = around 10amps and subtracted 10 amps per each 5 amp difference up to 70amps. 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 70: seven 10's for a 35amp (7 times 5) difference from 250ah = 215ah per battery. Then I took 215/70 = 3 for C/3 in other turn I have a 3 hour run time at 70 amps. If I run 1 hour then I drained 33% of SOC giving me 67% SOC left.)


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

OK
I'm not trying to discourage you but you need to start from a sensible place

_The generators are not powered by engines so no pollution._
So what powers them? - Hamsters?? 

You don't seem to understand my comments about C rates
Lead acid batteries suffer from a thing called Peukert's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peukert's_law

This means that if you take the current out faster - you get LESS total charge out of the battery

Example
250Ah at 20C = 12.5 amps for 20 hours -12.5 x 20 = 250
The same battery at 250 amps would only work for 30 minutes - 250 x 0.5 = 125

Lithium batteries have a Peukert of about 1 so you can just use the discharge rate and the capacity

But for lead acid you need to about double the capacity if you are using them in a car


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*

Something sounds wrong when you speak of a generator that is not powered by a combustion engine, or any generators for that matter. If something can power a generator, that something should be able to power the driveline directly with out the power loss that the generator would introduce.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*

I am not an engineer, and for that matter, I only have 3 years of high school, so I am certainly not an engineer or physics major. With that disclaimer out of the way, I have read lots of.threads on this site and have done some web surfing about using alternative energy in EVs. My personal conclusion is that alternative energy is a fantastic way to power an EV, but there is a catch... It needs to be left behind when you drive off. When you get home, you plug it back in. If you have a better way, I am very interested. If you can present the whole plan and it makes sense, this may be the ticket to a much healthier build budget.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



Duncan said:


> OK
> I'm not trying to discourage you but you need to start from a sensible place


 No problem. I appreciate your inputs it makes me think more on the issues I face. I have built this by myself and there are many things I will end up overlooking. It's like trying to run a fast food restaurant with one person during lunch hour  



Duncan said:


> So what powers them? - Hamsters??


 "It took me 8 months to get the little one to say ROW!" Guinea Pigs GEICO commercial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWLQxkffFM
hahaha
Just kidding. It is simple and easily overlooked by many. I don't want to say it because I will lose my edge on the market. I haven't worked on the design yet. The generators are capable of supplying 2400 each. The generator system design is still on paper and have not been tested; though the system does exist and being used in several applications so it is feasible.




Duncan said:


> Example
> 250Ah at 20C = 12.5 amps for 20 hours -12.5 x 20 = 250
> The same battery at 250 amps would only work for 30 minutes - 250 x 0.5 = 125
> 
> ...


 Okay understand, I was wondering how you got the 0.5C. Thanks for the link. I will research more. So my calculations are wrong. I will correct them.

Though, the batteries are AGM; and I use them for sound systems in vehicles. I heard rumors that AGM's can handle high amp draw.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



evmetro said:


> My personal conclusion is that alternative energy is a fantastic way to power an EV, but there is a catch... It needs to be left behind when you drive off. When you get home, you plug it back in.


  This is true but there are ways around it. 




evmetro said:


> If you have a better way, I am very interested. If you can present the whole plan and it makes sense, this may be the ticket to a much healthier build budget.


 It is a good way to generate energy but I think it will never produce what you use so you will always be short. I have to do some more testing to be able to state that this will provide 100% of power. I am assuming it produces partial power.

Forgive me for not telling but I feel this is a good idea and I have past it by some of my co workers and got their thumbs up. So it might give me an edge on the market.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

_Just kidding. It is simple and easily overlooked by many. I don't want to say it because I will lose my edge on the market. I haven't worked on the design yet. The generators are capable of supplying 2400 each. The generator system design is still on paper and have not been tested; though the system does exist and being used in several applications so it is feasible._

I don't like the sound of that
We have a special place where we put the free energy "enthusiasts" while they are awaiting the wee yellow van and the nice gentlemen with the funny jackets


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



Duncan said:


> I don't like the sound of that
> We have a special place where we put the free energy "enthusiasts" while they are awaiting the wee yellow van and the nice gentlemen with the funny jackets


It is not free energy it requires some type of input. The Navy uses it to power high radio frequency transformers. I just need to design the system to fit within EVIESOP. I know it will generate some type of energy but don't know how much as of yet. I need to find calculators to help with finding the output charts. I've been working on other things because I know this is a for sure thing. Like I said I don't think it will provide the full power you use but it will extend the life of the battery to some extent just don't know the actual numbers. I now need to calculate the new battery drain numbers you gave me early.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

Now if I add two generators there is a possibility of producing more than what I use. I still don't know for sure until I test it out. Once I build EVIESOP I will post pictures of it on here and I know that several will slap their foreheads saying, "Why didn't I think of that!"

Well, since Duncan stated I have miscalculated my amp draw on batteries the generators will not supply the full power needed by the motor.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Eviesop*



eviesop said:


> Also, I heard a rumor that lithium batteries are explosive in water is this true?


Not true for the kinds of secondary Lithium cells we use. Unlike primary lithium cells there is no lithium metal in these batteries to react with water.




eviesop said:


> The generators are not powered by engines so no pollution.


I have no doubt you think you have something but it is almost a certainty that you don't. There is no free lunch. Every conversion of energy from one form to another has losses. If you have a mechanical source of energy that is capable of turning a generator it is almost certainly better to apply this energy towards moving the vehicle rather than generating electricity. In a well done system there will be around 20% lost to heat in the conversion. If this mechanical source gets the energy due to the vehicle moving (no energy if the vehicle is stationary) then it is never going to work because you are providing additional load which the motor must overcome to continue moving the vehicle. And it is always going to take more than you get back. 

Don't waste a lot of time on this. Build a working model, perhaps an RC car and stick one of your generators on it. When you find it doesn't work the way you think at least you wont be out a lot of money. The argument that it needs to be full size to work is one that has been heard over and over and when the full size one is built it never works either.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Eviesop*



eviesop said:


> Now if I add two generators there is a possibility of producing more than what I use. I still don't know for sure until I test it out. Once I build EVIESOP I will post pictures of it on here and I know that several will slap their foreheads saying, "Why didn't I think of that!"


If two is better then why not three or four? Then you wouldn't need the heavy batteries at all.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

I will have research into the secondary lithium's. Thanks.

As for the generators, like I said it is so simple that people over look it. I have already given several hints as to what I use. The navy uses this and it works.

It isn't a big factor in the whole project. I want to build EVIESOP from scratch. I have more control of what I put into it. Same as building my own computer. 



dougingraham said:


> If this mechanical source gets the energy due to the vehicle moving (no energy if the vehicle is stationary) then it is never going to work because you are providing additional load which the motor must overcome to continue moving the vehicle. And it is always going to take more than you get back.


 This statement is so true! The motor does not connect to the generators in any way or form other than using the generator's outputs.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



dougingraham said:


> If two is better then why not three or four? Then you wouldn't need the heavy batteries at all.


I still need the batteries. I wish it wasn't so but I do.

The more you have the more weight you have to move. The efficiency of using two generators versus their weight could decrease as you add more. Though I have not done the numbers; it might be possible to add several of them and it might not have any effect on the efficiency at all. I have to test it first.

The reason why I am using only two is because of limited space. I plan to use one on this model because of limited space.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

eviesop said:


> As for the generators, like I said it is so simple that people over look it. I have already given several hints as to what I use. The navy uses this and it works.


And... this whole project just jumped into over-unity nuttery. 

Free energy not accounted for... check
Secrecy... check
Appeal to authority... check

Unless you're installing a compact RTG, this thread belongs in the unicorn corral.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



samwichse said:


> And... this whole project just jumped into over-unity nuttery.
> 
> Free energy not accounted for... check
> Secrecy... check
> ...


That is what they said about Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Nicola Tesla, and several other inventors.

When I finish the project you will see. You can call me whatever you like.

There is NO free energy.
Secrecy: I have every right to keep it to myself.
Appeal to authority... so simple that several overlook it.

Think of several ways to generate electricity and one of them is being used. One person on this thread came close but was off by a mile.

I am not going to tell those who are skeptical but those who are open minded.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

I tried to send private messages but don't know if they made it to their recipients. The sent messages don't show up in my CP.

I provided a link to my project page: if you have not read it then commenting on this thread is like jumping into the middle of a movie that has been playing for an hour.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1115184944/eviesop-project

I tried to send the generator I use to those recipients.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

Hi Eviesop

You can use the wind - but it won't give you any benefit 
Your speed will produce the wind and you can harvest some energy from it,
Unfortunately your wind harvester will add drag and require your main motor to increase power to compensate

The Gods of engineering decree that that you will need MORE power from your main motor than you can possibly harvest

It is possible to make a sort of sailing car that can use the wind to propel itself,
such a machine is limited to about wind speed
And needs a relatively huge wind turbine
You can do better than wind speed if you have space to tack - but that's not very practicable for a road car 

The best thing to do as far as the wind is concerned is to design your car so it slips through the air as cleanly and easily as possible


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

I understand it will create drag. The design I have is engineered by professional aircraft designers. They weigh about 50lbs and generate less drag due to their design.

I am not saying it will generate all the power for the motor but it will generate something. Something is better than nothing.

Combined with the solar panel inputs the draw from the batteries should be less.

I worked in the aviation field and I know a great deal about drag: tail wind, head wind, side wind, and weight factors.

I know the motor will need airflow to keep it cool so I plan to use this airflow to power the generator.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*



eviesop said:


> I understand it will create drag. The design I have is engineered by professional aircraft designers. They weigh about 50lbs and generate less drag due to their design.
> 
> I am not saying it will generate all the power for the motor but it will generate something. Something is better than nothing.
> 
> ...



No you don't understand! 
The gods of engineering decree that it will produce more drag than you can possibly get power out of it
I'm sorry but its simple physics

You are taking energy from the airflow - it has come from somewhere
In the case of a car it has come from your main motor
Any any energy conversion must be less than 100% so you put energy into the wind (with the gods taking a share) then you take energy from the wind (with the gods taking a share)
You are better off just making it as slippery as possible

_I know the motor will need airflow to keep it cool so I plan to use this airflow to power the generator_

The most efficient way to do this is to use the minimal air flow to cool,

Disturbing more air flow in order to rob energy from it will take more energy than you get


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

Well, I am going to use it anyways. If it doesn't work I can always remove it.

Enough about the generator; is there anything else that might be an issue?

I am trying to make it as aerodynamic as possible.

What would be the best type of windshield should I use? I was thinking about Plexiglas for windshield and rear window.

I plan to build custom doors using the jeep's door design with zipper plastic windows.

As for air conditioning I plan to use a window A/C and use the inside parts. Heater I plan to use an electric heater. I will use an inverter to power both the A/C and Heater.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

_What would be the best type of windshield should I use? I was thinking about Plexiglas for windshield and rear window.

I plan to build custom doors using the jeep's door design with zipper plastic windows.
_
Here you may be getting into problems of regulation - you need to find out what is legal in your country

I went the easy way
No doors - no issues with hinge and closure requirements
No windows - no issues with heaters, demisters, washers, wipers

If its not there it doesn't contribute any weight


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Eviesop*



eviesop said:


> I am trying to make it as aerodynamic as possible.


Single person vehicle with a teardrop shaped body. Reverse trike layout is good for stability and fitting an aero body to. Second choice would be a two person again with the reverse trike. Google Aptera for an example of this. A good example of a 4 passenger aero car is the Seven and info can be found here. http://illuminatimotorworks.org/



eviesop said:


> What would be the best type of windshield should I use? I was thinking about Plexiglas for windshield and rear window.


Plexiglass is pretty soft and easy to scratch. I think you would have problems with pitting and scratches. The DOT has approved polycarbonate for windshields on cars in the US in the last year or so and I have seen people replace both the front and rear with it as a weight saver. It is reasonably easy to form into simple curves.



eviesop said:


> I plan to build custom doors using the jeep's door design with zipper plastic windows.


This will not be aerodynamic or comfortable. In a jeep they don't care about either of those.



eviesop said:


> As for air conditioning I plan to use a window A/C and use the inside parts. Heater I plan to use an electric heater. I will use an inverter to power both the A/C and Heater.


Good to think about how you would do it but that is so far down the list of stuff you need that at this point not a good use of time. You have thousands of little problems to solve before you get here. And you are planning on using enough batteries to power a small window unit for about 6 hours including the losses in the inverter so it will be a significant hit to range.

Get a rolling test bed first and then worry about improvements.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*



eviesop said:


> Well, I am going to use it anyways. If it doesn't work I can always remove it.
> 
> 
> I am trying to make it as aerodynamic as possible.


Since you can't really have both of these, any reduction in size and weight of this added burden will help. Also, It will take less time to research and study enough to show us why we are wrong about this than it will to engineer and build this option into your car. I would think that it would be difficult to still want to pursue this option after having read the entire thread that is devoted to what you are wanting to do. Here is a link to the thread: 

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html 

There is a wealth of knowledge in this thread, and it is something that anybody who wants to build an EV should read and add to his knowledge base. It was especially helpful for me, since I did not dive into the EV industry with the leverage of having the traditional formal education of an electrical engineer. 




.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

I thought that this might be a fun thing to share here. This is a pic of something that I came up with before I read this thread and spent some time studying thermal dynamics and perpetual motion. It was right around this time that the idea building an EV started to form in my brain. I had tested this 140 amp alternator with a small drill, and confirmed that it was working. In the moments that followed, I realized that the drill was drawing less than the 140 amps rating on the alternator without understanding how hard it is to spin it fast enough to see 140 amps. I instantly envisioned cars with 30 alternators and long serpentine belts, that would run forever... Anyway, I ended up rigging a 140 amp alternator to a 60 amp 12v motor, and a battery to test my theory first. The system surged quite a bit, and was unable to maintain a steady speed, and it certainly did not make any free energy. I wish I had seen this thread back in those days...


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

evmetro said:


> I thought that this might be a fun thing to share here. This is a pic of something that I came up with before I read this thread and spent some time studying thermal dynamics and perpetual motion. It was right around this time that the idea building an EV started to form in my brain. I had tested this 140 amp alternator with a small drill, and confirmed that it was working. In the moments that followed, I realized that the drill was drawing less than the 140 amps rating on the alternator without understanding how hard it is to spin it fast enough to see 140 amps. I instantly envisioned cars with 30 alternators and long serpentine belts, that would run forever... Anyway, I ended up rigging a 140 amp alternator to a 60 amp 12v motor, and a battery to test my theory first. The system surged quite a bit, and was unable to maintain a steady speed, and it certainly did not make any free energy. I wish I had seen this thread back in those days...


Awwwww man, I thought it was a video. Cool story anyway.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Yea, I wish I had taken video of that. It would be pretty funny to watch after all that I have learned since those days. That motor now resides in a 3 wheel power wagon that used to have a briggs and straton in it, and the alternator moved on to Pelton water wheel testing. Lucky for me I finally started to probe around the internet looking for info on building an EV... We all know what forum I would stumble across when researching for a DIY electric car.


----------



## sirwattsalot (Aug 27, 2012)

I have long understood why turning an alternator does not work to any advantage. Many people have tried the same experiment and failed. What people often miss, however is that energy can be used effeciently, or it can be wasted in a big hurry. There are miles ahead before the next charging station and how you drive and how the car was built will play a role in the sucess or failure to reach your destination. While there is no perpetual motion or overunity device that works, a lot of time and money has been spent creating regenerative systems. The store of energy in a regenerative system might be an ultra-capacitor or a flywheel gernerator as was designed by NASA. As for free energy goes- well, I charge my car with solar and wind energy when it is parked at home and the wind and Sun light are free. Everything else is expensive.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

California will allow vehicles without windshields as long as a dot approved helmet and goggles are worn.

I will check into polycarbonates.  I think I seen these in the local Home depot.

Thank you for the links I will read or check them out in due time. 

I know I have a lot of other things that are more important to worry about than cosmetics. Though I do plan to get this DOT approved.

I want to say thank you for all the advice, comments, and suggestions and they are all taken into consideration. Don't take offense if I don't jump on the band wagon just yet. Usually the laws of physics/Gods decree forces me to go with the flow so you might see me taking your advice at a later time.

Currently I am working on the motor controller which has my brain working into overdrive. I am working with stuff I have around the house to minimize the costs. I'm trying to find the most efficient way to build one. My spending budget is under $1,000 out of pocket for the whole project. This doesn't include the materials around the house which was either purchased or given. Currently I spent $300 so far. 

Also, I am about to tear apart the 1984 Honda 350 and use the parts to partly complete the vehicle tires and suspension but want to do more research before deciding to hack up the parts and make a drastic mistake.

I'll post pics as I go along. When I get a chance I'll take a look at those links posted throughout the thread.

If you haven't done so yet please take a look at the pics posted already and give me some feedback as to the design of the frame and body.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

Hi Eviesop,

When you are thinking about your suspension and chassis -
Think about having to pull a full power evasive action maneuver and the loads that will be imposed on the chassis
Think about having the chassis or the suspension fail under those conditions

I am using my car on the track - so the loads are probably higher 
But I have 80Kg of lithium
If you use lead you will have much more weight to lug around (as well as the passengers)


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

I am thinking about that and I know aluminum has some flex to it. I am curious as to what will happen under those circumstances; evasive maneuvers.

I plan to take it out to the dry lake bed and test it out once I get it fully operational before ever registering it.

Once I fully test it I will make the changes needed and test again.

For the most part, it will be me as the only one in the vehicle and no passengers. I plan to use it to and from work once registered. The six seats is just a show case mostly. I will test long distance travelling but I will need to make sure I have everything squared away first.

More to come.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

Hi
I have never driven on a dry lake bed,
but I have heard that it is a slippery surface - compared to tarmac
In this case it will not be a good test environment for your chassis/suspension as all of the loads will be much lower

You need to "model" what will happen if as a result of a bumpy surface or a control input you manage to get close to 100% of your vehicles weight on one wheel with a maximum friction side force applied at the same time 

It's doable - but its not trivial and motorbike bits will not be designed for those loads

_I know aluminum has some flex to it_
That is a worrying statement, all materials "flex" - the issue is their stiffness and their behavior at the limits 
Mild steel for instance is used in a lot of applications because it can permanently deform without losing it's structural integrity


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



Duncan said:


> Hi
> I have never driven on a dry lake bed,
> but I have heard that it is a slippery surface - compared to tarmac
> In this case it will not be a good test environment for your chassis/suspension as all of the loads will be much lower
> ...


I live in the deserts so dry lake bed means bumpy hard packed dirt similar to pavement. Several trucks during raining seasons have left tire tracks which dry solid during the summer which gives the bumpy parts to test suspension. As for side loading there are several hills and rocky terrain to test side loading. It isn't the tarmac but I plan to test tarmac/pavement terrain as well.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

Forgot to add:

The aluminum is 1/8" thick. It will flex under load but it will maintain its integrity; not as strong as steel but close to it. Aluminum will also allow for crumple zones in a crash. The aluminum will absorb more of the impact due to high flexibility.

This is the same type of aluminum used in motocross racing. My dirt bike uses aluminum frame and rear swing arm.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Eviesop*

This is my car - the weights may be interesting

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...ns-dubious-device-44370.html?highlight=duncan


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



Duncan said:


> This is my car - the weights may be interesting
> 
> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...ns-dubious-device-44370.html?highlight=duncan


Awesome, I skimmed through it but paid attention to the weight had to convert it to lbs. 

Congrats on it. Looks professionally done.

As for brazing it is used on several applications here in the US just not on vehicle frames. I.E.: hot water pipes, vehicle radiator repairs, and pot metal repairs; though very rare to come across jobs that require this. Throughout my years of learning how to weld from a certified welder I watched him bronze/braze about 10 times total. I never had the chance to practice because he past away and I lost my reference for certification. 

When I stated the weight of EVIESOP; I actually over estimated knowing that I had several other parts not present. Though the parts I have present I have weighed and took into calculations. I estimated the total weight will be around 3,000lbs (1360Kg). Though empty weight estimation: 1500lbs (680Kg) not far off but a little more from your estimates . 1500lbs is my goal but don't know until I finish the car.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

Update: I am still here guys 
EVMetro: I skimmed through some of the thread you provided a link for  still working through it from time to time .

I know you guys might not believe me but I was actually able to power a generator via a motor. Was it directly powered? No.

I was actually able to see what the driver motor used versus what the generator produced.

I used a 4.5" grinder to rotate a 3360 Watt alternator setup for 24VDC @ 140amps.

Now, I was not able to produce the full 140amps but I was able to rotate the alternator at 2000 rpm's which was the minimum required rotation to produce the minimum output. I was able to verify the draw and saw a 5vdc drop per hour. I was able to power a small portable welding shop which uses about 1500 watts total. This had no effect to the draw/generation. I then requested an article via the local newspaper.

From this, I learned if you balance the inputs and outputs you can almost achieve perpetual motion with a gain for a period of time. Though, the grinder was already maxed out; it would have never lasted over a week of continuous running. I was able to run it periodically for a few hours each day throughout the week with no issues. The grinder still works as a grinder but the bearings and brushes show a little wear and tear. 

I used a battery bank, inverter, transformer, alternator, and a 4.5" grinder.

After this test, I redesigned the system. I eliminated the resistance the magnetic fields created during rotation of the rotor through the stator. The design became a solid state device. No rotation, no magnetic fields that create resistance, and no heavy parts. All I had to do was vent the heat created from the device. 

I was able to power an 1800 watt window air conditioner for an hour. I watched the voltage drop of 3vdc per hour. I was also able to power a 75 watt light bulb with no visible voltage drop. I know there was a voltage drop but so small that the test equipment I was using was not able to see it. I powered both the light and window A/C and saw the 3vdc per hour drop.

I am still working on this device and testing. I will update throughout the testing phase.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*

I want to use EVIESOP as a testing bed but the device requires modification to power the 3 phase motor.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

eviesop said:


> Update: I am still here guys
> EVMetro: I skimmed through some of the thread you provided a link for  still working through it from time to time .
> 
> I know you guys might not believe me but I was actually able to power a generator via a motor. Was it directly powered? No.
> ...


I wish there were a way to ban whole threads from my feed.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*



samwichse said:


> I wish there were a way to ban whole threads from my feed.


Yes via your user cp: though I doubt you can figure it out without asking for help. 

Simple minded people never stray to far from home. Years later they are still doing the same things when the world around them have advanced. Those with open minds travel the vastness of the universe learning great knowledge and experiences. Those who take initiative goes places that only closed minds dream of. Which one are you?

I work hand-in-hand with electrcial and electronic engineers; they design, approve, and stamp. Who do you think builds and tests them? I do. I respect engineers just as they respect me. We couldn't do our jobs without the other. Engineers put their name and reputation on the line while we technicians put our lives at stake.

I'm always advancing in my field of work. There is not a moment in time that I sit idle. I'm constantly researching and reading forums.

Give me any schematic and I will build and test your circuit. If you need any type of output I can build it. If you want 480 volts AC @ 400 Hz I can build it. If you need 5vdc from that very same source I can do it. You name it: direct current, single phase, split phase, or 3 phase alternating current from 0Hz to 1 Giga-hertz and higher. Even if you want to transfer your voice or data across the same power lines I can do it. I'm also a certified level 2 Information Technology Technician. You want to be able to monitor your system I can do it.

So if you think I am blowing smoke up your @$$... I can shove copies of my certificates up there too if you want.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*

I don't really want to encourage you to skip to the end of the perpetual motion thread, but I posted a little something just the other day that you reminded me of you regarding alternators. I love seeing your enthusiasm, but I should let you know that all of the tests that you have done, as well as the tests that you are about to do have already been done. We are able to make forward progress if we learn what those who have gone before us have already documented. Those of us who have read about perpetual motion, thermal dynamics, and have read the perpetual motion thread on this site, can see what you are doing and where you are going through a special lens that you are unable to see through yet. We need your enthusiasm and drive in the EV industry, so please read up on these things and see what is possible. If I can read and learn that material with a formal education that stops after three years of high school, surely you can too.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

eviesop said:


> Yes via your user cp: though I doubt you can figure it out without asking for help.
> 
> Simple minded people never stray to far from home.


Thanks for the insults, I'll take them with a grain of salt from a guy who doesn't understand grade-school thermodynamics.

As for blocking threads, you can't do this, only change subscriptions and block users. The threads themselves still show up in your Tapatalk feed over and over again.

A shame, it's frustrating to see someone do something you haven't the means to do (build an HE vehicle from scratch) only to saddle the whole project with a bunch over-unity junk. Best I can do where i live is work on a pedal assist ebike.

Sam


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*




samwichse said:


> Thanks for the insults, I'll take them with a grain of salt from a guy who doesn't understand grade-school thermodynamics.





samwichse said:


> As for blocking threads, you can't do this, only change subscriptions and block users. The threads themselves still show up in your Tapatalk feed over and over again.
> 
> A shame, it's frustrating to see someone do something you haven't the means to do (build an HE vehicle from scratch) only to saddle the whole project with a bunch over-unity junk. Best I can do where i live is work on a pedal assist ebike.
> 
> Sam




First off you're the one who wanted to remove yourself from my thread; then you post about it publicly. If this forum doesn't have the option to remove yourself from threads then you are screwed. The only option is to beg and plead to the administrator to remove you. Maybe next time you’ll think twice in posting on threads you don’t want to be part of.

Correction it is an EV not HE: as for your grade-school thermodynamics comment... HA! Sorry, that was funny. 
Plus you took it as an insult and took my statement out of context. Read it again before getting all bent out of shape.

As for your pedal assist ebike statement: before stating the same old "over-unity junk bit" via EVIESOP. Read my post about using crap around the house that was either purchased or given to me. I only spent $300 since I started this project; everything else is the best I can do. If I had the means I would do so much better. Plus it is a lot easier to work with ebikes. Speaking of that, have you seen the new Harley Davidson Electric Bike?


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Re: Eviesop*




evmetro said:


> I don't really want to encourage you to skip to the end of the perpetual motion thread, but I posted a little something just the other day that you reminded me of you regarding alternators. I love seeing your enthusiasm, but I should let you know that all of the tests that you have done, as well as the tests that you are about to do have already been done. We are able to make forward progress if we learn what those who have gone before us have already documented. Those of us who have read about perpetual motion, thermal dynamics, and have read the perpetual motion thread on this site, can see what you are doing and where you are going through a special lens that you are unable to see through yet. We need your enthusiasm and drive in the EV industry, so please read up on these things and see what is possible. If I can read and learn that material with a formal education that stops after three years of high school, surely you can too.


 
Trust me, I have read thousands of threads that pertain to perpetual motion since 1996 I was reading books that pertained to perpetual motion before the residential internet ever existed. I'm not trying to build a free energy device. I am trying to create energy more efficiently. 

How do I put this? You mentioned that we should all work together. I can point out three posts on this thread as to why we can't work together. The number one reason is that everyone has bills to pay and at least 1 out of 10 would screw everyone else over.

People are quick to be skeptical than inquiring about the design. Half of the people don't even know how to read designs. And many of them have tunnel vision. They don't see anything outside their point of view. Too many closed minds and too many greedy minds stop progresses in the industry.

Another thing there is truly no: "Jack of all trades, Master at none". To advance in the EV industry it requires one to be jack of all trades. Just think of all the things required: aerodynamics, electrical and electronic theories, thermodynamics, physics, mechanics, architects, engineers, etc. etc. these are just a few of all the industries needed to build an Electric Vehicle. Each industry has their own point of view and point fingers that their counterparts don't know crap. For instance: electronic industries versus electrical industries are two separate industries. Electricians say that electronic techs know nothing about electricity and vice versa.

With that said, I have seen techs who didn't know the difference between a standard screwdriver and a flathead. So each person can be more advanced than the next. So I don't speak for the whole industry. I don't know everything that pertains to my industry but I seek knowledge on everything about my industry which includes a lot of topics: for instance: gaming, computers, digital television’s, sat-coms, radios, ham radios, citizens band radios, electric vehicles, solar panels, wind generators, hydro-generators, thermal dynamic couplings, performance sound systems, public address systems, information technology, etc. etc. you get the idea.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

eviesop said:


> Maybe next time you’ll think twice in posting on threads you don’t want to be part of.


Doesn't matter if I ever posted in it, I'm not referring to subscription, again.



eviesop said:


> Correction it is an EV not HE: as for your grade-school thermodynamics comment... HA! Sorry, that was funny.


HE: High Efficiency... it can be gas or electric or swamp gas or whatever.



eviesop said:


> Read my post about using crap around the house that was either purchased or given to me. I only spent $300 since I started this project; everything else is the best I can do. If I had the means I would do so much better. Plus it is a lot easier to work with ebikes.


My point was that I wish I could do more than build an e-bike. Can't very build a car from scratch in on the street parking or in a tiny apartment.



eviesop said:


> Speaking of that, have you seen the new Harley Davidson Electric Bike?


I'm glad a manufacturer as conservative as Harley is getting into the electric arena. It certainly should spur other makes (BMW, I'm looking at you) to jump in as well. If I ever get a real house with a garage or even a driveway, a motorcycle, or maybe a tadpole... depending, will be my next project.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I am impressed to see so much enthusiasm and energy being devoted to this idea, but there is always something that proponents of such schemes miss, in a big way, that dooms them to failure. I usually keep up with this thread, often for amusement, but hopefully to correct certain mistakes and inject a reality check. This thread must have blossomed elsewhere and then has been transferred to this one, which may also be relegated to:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

If you have put together some sort of demonstrable set of components that you think proves your concept, then please make a video and put it on YouTube for all to see and comment on. You may even make it unpublished and provide your link here for those who can be trusted not to divulge any "secrets" for personal gain, as we all share common goals of energy efficiency and reduced consumption of precious resources in dirty ICEs. But it is much more likely (and in fact a certainty) that the errors of your assumptions will be detected and pointed out for you to see. 

If nothing else, I think we would like to reduce your expenditures and mistakes in what you are trying to accomplish. In my own case, I am working on a small riding mower/tractor/utility vehicle that I am building from junk, surplus, and inexpensive materials and components, and I plan to take careful measurements using a datalogger to determine the actual power and energy needed for such a vehicle, to see how well they correlate to my theoretical calculations.

I often refer to my online http://enginuitysystems.com/EVCalculator.htm which should help you with your calculations. It also has a Peukert calculator which will be useful since you plan to use lead-acid batteries. That's also what I will be using for my tractor, and for that they are ideally suited because the extra weight is useful for traction, and they are inexpensively available from retail stores anywhere and can be charged with simple cheap equipment.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

*Eviesop*



samwichse said:


> Doesn't matter if I ever posted in it, I'm not referring to subscription, again.
> 
> 
> HE: High Efficiency... it can be gas or electric or swamp gas or whatever.
> ...


 Well, this all doesn't matter now since the thread moved. I'm moving on to bigger and better things.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

Duncan said:


> I left your thread in ChitChat until you went over the to on the free energy crap
> Then I moved it to the forum for the guys in the funny jackets
> 
> 
> ...



He didn't even read my threads. Don't judge unless ye be judged.

I am a certified electrical and electronic technician: what qualifications does he have?


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: Eviesop*



eviesop said:


> Trust me, I have read thousands of threads that pertain to perpetual motion since 1996 I was reading books that pertained to perpetual motion before the residential internet ever existed. I'm not trying to build a free energy device. I am trying to create energy more efficiently.
> 
> How do I put this? You mentioned that we should all work together. I can point out three posts on this thread as to why we can't work together. The number one reason is that everyone has bills to pay and at least 1 out of 10 would screw everyone else over.
> 
> ...


If you are at a point where you really understand what over unity is, the next step would be to evaluate whatever alternative energy source you are compelled to build into your project to see if you can harness more energy than your car will use while driving. You would want to be able to see this mathematically. If your alternative energy collection device makes plenty of energy but less than your car consumes while driving, you will probably want to use the alternative energy source on the other end of the charge cord, the end that plugs into your house or garage. I have been objectively trying to envision an electricity factory that would provide an acceptable rate of charge that you could haul around with you, but I just can't imagine it. If you come up with such a system, you will be able to get huge money backing for your project, but you will need enough knowledge to slap around the pessimistic crowd that you have encountered here. You may want to take a refresher study session on the topics that I have mentioned, the ones that you said you have already read. It may be boring, but it could lead you to that big money backing....


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

eviesop said:


> He didn't even read my threads. Don't judge unless ye be judged.
> 
> I am a certified electrical and electronic technician: what qualifications does he have?



Eur.Ing. Duncan Cairncross C.Eng, BScMechEng, FIMechE, MFEANNI, DMS, 

And I did read your threads
It is possible I misinterpreted it but I read

_You connected a motor to a generator
And obtained more power out than you were putting in_

That logic path gets you here with the over unity "enthusiasts"

If I have misinterpreted it please tell me


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Duncan said:


> Eur.Ing. Duncan Cairncross C.Eng, BScMechEng, FIMechE, MFEANNI, DMS,
> 
> And I did read your threads
> It is possible I misinterpreted it but I read
> ...


I would have moved the thread here as well. If nothing else, it gets him a little closer to what he needs to read. Can you imagine what a guy with his drive could do if he read this thread from beginning to end? It is a long read, especially if he feels that being referred here is insulting, but there is enough knowledge here to open his eyes to a whole new world.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

Duncan said:


> Eur.Ing. Duncan Cairncross C.Eng, BScMechEng, FIMechE, MFEANNI, DMS,
> 
> And I did read your threads
> It is possible I misinterpreted it but I read
> ...


 


eviesop said:


> Update: I am still here guys
> EVMetro: I skimmed through some of the thread you provided a link for  still working through it from time to time .
> 
> I know you guys might not believe me but I was actually able to power a generator via a motor. Was it directly powered? No.
> ...


Tell me where in my post did I say I obtained more power out than putting in?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

eviesop said:


> Tell me where in my post did I say I obtained more power out than putting in?


"From this, I learned if you balance the inputs and outputs you can almost achieve perpetual motion with a gain for a period of time."

And if you smoke enough week, you can imagine accomplishing anything.


----------



## eviesop (Jun 10, 2014)

Ziggythewiz said:


> "From this, I learned if you balance the inputs and outputs you can almost achieve perpetual motion with a gain for a period of time."
> 
> And if you smoke enough week, you can imagine accomplishing anything.


 
You need to lay off the glass pipe because it sure has fogged your reading abilities.

Let me underline key words for you so you can see more clearly:
"From this, I learned if you balance the inputs and outputs you can almost achieve perpetual motion with a gain for a period of time."

"if you balance" which this is impossible.
"almost achieve" did I truly achieve anything?
"period of time" does this truly define perpetual motion?

So quick to read out of context and then judge. The second sentence states that the motor would not have lasted a week of run time. The third sentence verifies that the motor was ran periodically.

First off: did anyone read that I had a battery bank? The bank was a 24vdc 450amp hours which could run my whole house for a few hours. The purpose of the test was: "How much power does a motor use while turning a generator?"

Can a motor turn a generator? This is true. Is it feasible? This is a big fat N...O...!

Did anyone pay attention to the voltage drop seen across the battery bank? 5vdc & 3vdc? Electronic devices that run off 24vdc has a low voltage shutoff around 20vdc. A 24vdc battery bank dropping 5vdc per hour would drop to 19vdc in one hour meaning the inverter shuts off at 20vdc. The inverter powers the motor. So what happens to the motor when the inverter shuts down? It shouldn't take rocket science to figure this one out.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

eviesop said:


> "almost achieve" did I truly achieve anything?


So you call up the local newspaper because you achieved nothing? You must keep them pretty busy.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

Evisop,

You should feel free to start a build thread. I would love to follow along watching what you come up with. The thing to not do is talk about anything that even hints of over unity. Things like alternators or generators connected directly to the power train or indirectly via airflow or an extra wheel which derive their energy from the movement of the vehicle. Those things are nothing but time and money wasters and can NEVER increase the range of your vehicle no matter how cleverly they are implemented. That being said, it is your build and you should feel free to experiment to your hearts content. My goal (and hopefully others here) is to educate, not belittle, to assist in the conversion or fabrication of electric cars. The quest for over unity does not help anyone build an EV and does not belong on this forum anywhere but this specific thread.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

I've been watching this discussion. Don't ask me why. Bored, I guess. Anyway, with comments like these in the rambling posts this guy authors, I support his placement in this thread. 



eviesop said:


> with a gain for a period of time





eviesop said:


> I then requested an article via the local newspaper.


*Gain* typically means an output greater than the input. Requesting media coverage typically infers a breakthrough or something spectacular. 

If our enthusiastic member has the qualifications he claims, he should be able to draw schematics, document test conditions, supply data and prove he has done something of value. Otherwise he is just talking about a pile of junk and wasting our time. As such, this belongs here.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

This particular part of the conversation at least hints of some understanding of the impossibility (or at least high improbability) of an actual over-unity device, or even unrealistic claims such as the "100 MPG carburetor". That item was supposedly developed and proven for even 2 or 3 ton muscle cars and trucks of the era when this was first claimed (1960s?). Of course it also included the cloak and dagger elements of government "black ops" raids and mysterious disappearances of the inventors.

"eviesop"'s explanation of his experiment is more credible when he emphasized that it included a battery pack capable of running his entire house, although the 24 VDC sounds like the previously mentioned two lead-acid storage batteries with 450 amp-hour capacity (10.8 kWh). But I don't know of any commercially available 12V battery with anywhere near that rating. Perhaps it is a confusion with Cold Cranking Amps (CCA) in which case it is an ordinary starter battery and not a deep cycle version as needed for an EV or house emergency power, at least not with any sort of life expectancy.

It is well known that an automotive type alternator is perhaps 50-70% efficient, as it is made cheaply and designed only for charging the battery and running accessories in conjunction with an ICE that has at least 20 times the power rating and is itself at best 25-30% efficient. This experiment seems to use an inverter, probably 24V 2000W which is probably 90% efficient and will probably run an 1800W air conditioner which most likely consumes only about 500-1000W continuous. If you measure the BTU/hr of an A/C you will probably find that it appears to be over-unity, which allows EER of 10-12 but that is because it is a heat pump and the extra energy comes from the air. You must actually measure the wattage consumed using a wattmeter (and not volts * amps) because of the normally low power factor.

So the inverter may also power a 1500 watt welder, but unless it is actually welding, it probably consumes only a couple hundred watts. The incandescent (I assume) lamp is a legitimate load device where volts and amps can be used for power. But I saw one example on YouTube where the guy measured the lamp (cold) at perhaps 20 ohms, and then applied 120 VAC to it and declared that his motor/generator was putting out 120/20 or 6 amps and thus 720 watts! But it was just a 60 watt bulb and sure didn't look as bright as a 720 watt lamp!

Reading the "voltage drop" is an extremely inaccurate and virtually useless measurement, especially if you are drawing 100 amps from a lead-acid battery. You really need an accurate clamp-on true-RMS DC meter or other instrumentation. 

We would welcome a more professional and scientific presentation and analysis of your setup and experiment. As it is, there is not nearly enough information to make any reasonable assessment of what was demonstrated. If you do indeed have the credentials you boast about, you should be capable of understanding our skepticism and even ridicule.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Lets not speculate on how he did what he says he did. This is all just BS.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

I see the Rossi E-cat is in the news again.
This time an independent 3rd party test report on a (non-Rossi built) device concludes a positive surplus of energy !!
http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/9602543_Apoc ... sis_E-Cat/


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

This is a well-written and impressive article, but there are some anomalies. Apparently the power output was (again) measured by IR emissivity, and the input power was measured using equipment that is not necessarily accurate. Here is what was stated:



> To calculate the input power, several high tech devices were utilized, such as two power and harmonic analyzers and three digital multimeters, to make sure no DC current was being fed into the reactor. This was to quench the rumors from cynics that “ground loops” were somehow providing extra power to the reactor that their other test equipment could not detect. To measure the output, two infrared cameras were used to determine the temperature of the surface of the reactor. By using the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, they were able to calculate the amount of power radiatively emitted in the form of infrared radiation.


The true input power should be measured at the point where ordinary mains voltage and current enters whatever device creates the high frequency square or other wave shape. Assuming this device is reasonably efficient, or if its efficiency can be determined, the actual input power can be measured. Even if efficiency is only 50%, it would still show a COP of 1.6 to 1.9 without adjusting for the losses. And the actual losses could be estimated by the heat given off by the apparatus.

The output power could also be measured more accurately by enclosing the reactor in a chamber with known thermal characteristics of steady state temperature vs watts dissipated in a resistive heating element. This would be far more accurate (and simpler) than the IR emissions, which rely on a close approximation of a black body. For example, a 1 watt IR LED aimed at the IR detector would show a very high power level if you assumed it was coming from a nearly ideal homogenous spherical black body.

Finally, it requires only a hobbyist level of electronic engineering to make a self-contained, self-regulating system. The heat from the reactor could be transformed to electricity by means of Peltier (or Seebeck) effect junction thermopiles, or even by means of a Stirling or steam engine driving a generator. The "computer" needed to read the internal temperature and provide adjustment for the input power would consist of a PIC or an Arduino.

This article appears in the PESN website, so it is not necessarily accurate or credible, but more likely crafted to amaze and astonish the ranks of the "over unity" crowd, by posing a more realistic mechanism than zero point energy or tapping into aether waves or such.

The evidence of transmutation of the fuel to a much different isotopic constituency is interesting and compelling evidence, but I would like to see details of the methodology. I'm not a physicist and I don't know how this would be done, but there is probably an explanation that a layman can understand.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Yes, Rossi was present to to refuel the device. Also things were found in it to totally support that it was a nuclear reaction occurring. No opportunities there...

And... a calorimeter? WTF is that, apparently?

I'm sorry, this doesn't seem scientific and still smacks of sleight-of-hand.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm with Paul
_two infrared cameras were used to determine the temperature of the surface of the reactor. By using the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, they were able to calculate the amount of power radiatively emitted in the form of infrared radiation. _

This is very sensitive to your "assumed" emissivity 

The isotope change however would be a rock solid result -
But how was it measured?
And by who?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

samwichse said:


> And... a calorimeter? WTF is that, apparently?.


A Calorimeter measures the energy output - quite a common device,

When I worked for Cummins we had a "Bomb Calorimeter" For measuring the energy in different diesel fuels

This was a stainless steel vessel about 1ft high with valves, connections and a big label "Bomb Calorimeter"

We always put it in the checked luggage when flying
Didn't want to have it in our carry on luggage

(Most calorimeters allow the chemical reaction to go at room pressure, a Bomb Calorimeter uses a fixed volume so the reaction goes on with an increased pressure)


----------



## TooQik (May 4, 2013)

Duncan said:


> The isotope change however would be a rock solid result -
> But how was it measured?
> And by who?


Appendix 3 and 4 of the report details this. Very interesting at face value.

Maybe there's some merit to the old alchemy myths afterall.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Duncan said:


> A Calorimeter measures the energy output - quite a common device,


I was being sarcastic and saying that these three scientists had somehow not heard of a calorimeter.

And they let the guy poke around in the thing mid experiment. Letting a convicted fraudster poke around in there at any point totally invalidates any isotopic analysis.


----------



## Shawncrockett (Dec 26, 2014)

Interesting thought but even if you had a motor that had no drag coeffiecient wouldnt that mean 100% efficiency? Or in other words 1 electron for 1 electron. In that scenario there still wouldn't be a creation of energy. Isnt there a LAW of physics that says energy can niether be created nor destroyed. If you want to make a sound argument use existential syllogism or in other words show the world that a perpetual motion motor works. Did you buy some plans for 49.99 that would guarantee you that you would make you millions? Quit wasting people's time trying to validate your purchase.


----------



## HarBeK (Feb 4, 2015)

*Noice to free energy methods - questions on a couple theories.*

Greetings,

Forgive me if any of this seems incorrect but I would appreciate any information as to how or why utilizing enough batteries, 120v - 240v electric motors operating off a 12v/24v DC to AC inverter could not work in building an electric vehicle.

Battery life is always an issue, however, my thoughts have been to implement a few magnetic motors ( not sure how long they will keep operating but they do seem to allow one to operate an electric generator of sort to power various electronic devices ) that can rotate a generator to provide electricity to aid the batteries ( along with possibly recharging them as needed... ) in providing electricity needed to operate the motors allowing the vehicle to move.

I consider say two magnetic motors in operation each turning two generators to which can supply energy to the vehicles mobility motors in unison with a few DC batteries connected to an DC/AC inverter that may operate a couple electric motors used to spin a few automotive alternators helping to put charge back into the batteries.

One forum stated this defies some laws or rules of electricity somehow yet, in having more than one possibility to place electricity to the drive motor of a vehicle along with keep the batteries charging ( as in the regulators built into the auto alternators ).

I have combined two 12v deep cycle marine batteries ( series ) connected to a 5,000W dc to ac inverter offering 120v AC capability. On this Plugging a 110v (120v rated) capacitance motor ( air compressor motor ) into the inverter to operate the cap motor, which turned the v-belt connected to a regular automotive car alternator putting charge back into the batteries.

The theory was interesting however it became more of a wonderful battery charger rather than decent supply of electricity. I was able to use this during a power outage to keep one house lamp on and the refrigerator running to keep my food cold - for an eight hour stretch. Problem was, the compressor motor being capacitor start didn't quite want to kick from the inverter used. Thoughts on this were adding the capacitors to store the needed energy for the motor to run. I did make mistakes in experimentation where instead of making my home capacitor, it turned out to be a home made resistor instead - however, even of this mistake, connecting jumper cables from a running vehicle direct to the two deep cycle marines, everything ran just fine. Problem there was utilizing the fuel powered motor adding an additional 12 volt plus charging from the fuel powered vehicle itself.... yet the experimental setup actually performed as expected - it worked.

From this, my larger experimentation would have gone into the following:

Additional deep cycle 12v marine batteries ( maybe parallel to obtain 24V DC output to operate a higher wattage 240V inverter to maybe power a higher voltage 240V industrial motor. It was a thought. Possibly an experiment using just the same 12v dc / 120v AC - testing needed.

Now, having this in place on a vehicle might provided enough energy to push the drive motor to at least make the vehicle move - maybe not for long.

This is where looking into magnetic motors came up that could be used to provide rotation of additional generators to power if not the battery recharge situation then maybe aid in the drive motor energy.

In consideration of wind turbine ( which would not be too practical on a vehicle... ) a consideration of a good number of 'fan banks' that would catch the headwind 'blow through' rotating a few dozen smaller fans as the vehicle traveled along the road - offering additional power generation to once again charge either the batteries or the drive motor, maybe both.

The necessity is in powering the vehicles main drive motor. If this being battery, the batteries need to either recharge or maintain charge. So this brings me to my question.

Can magnetic motors rotate a generator to supply battery recharge / drive energy, maybe even rotate some alternators?

Can the head wind be utilized from the vehicles forward motion to rotate a fair amount of fan blade banks turning magnets across wire windings to generate additional energy to aid battery recharge and/or drive motor requirements?

Downfalls may be - parts wear out ( replace as needed.. ) magnets, fan bearings, windings, magnetic motors stopping at some point needing a restart ( or magnet replacements ).

My theory offers a few methods that could each be coupled together within a single vehicle all working together to not only operate an electric vehicle, but keep it in operation for much longer than most have been able to do to this day.

I would appreciate all the feedback as to why none of this would be workable - I see this as simple as your current fuel vehicle only fuel is being used to keep the alternator rotating to keep enough charge in the single battery to run oh.. headlights, turnsignals, windshiled wipers, radio, etc... yet, mainly due to the fuel engine required to keep that alternator charging the battery as the energy is used.

So in answering if you could take into consideration the fact all fuel required vehicles utilize the fuel engine to get it down the road - with the alternator keeping the battery charged. Now in this, most electric drain on the battery is minimal. So if stepping that alternator charge up a notch while doing away with the fuel requiring engine, replacing it with an electric motor and having all the extra charging capability in place ( what maybe like ten times that of the current single alternator setup... ) could very well be what everyone is seeking - long distance, no fuel, without needing to charge.

This is the technology I have been looking into heavily though lack the funds to bring it all into actuality. My initial experiment components ran around the $2,500.00 mark - but managed to function to some extent.

It was fun to have all my neighbors knock at my door during that power outage to ask how I had electric when they did not. I had the only light on in a mile radius. The 25yr electrical engineer was highly impressed upon seeing my experimentation components in operation - didn't have to recharge the two batteries until the next day. Basically that experiment made one handy dandy battery charger - self contained.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Noice to free energy methods - questions on a couple theories.*

There is no free energy. And you posted this twice. I have requested the admin to move your post to our special place here: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html


----------



## HarBeK (Feb 4, 2015)

There is no free energy was the reply I received.

Two deep cycle marine batteries powering a 12v dc to 120V AC inverter allowed me to operate not only a capacitor motor from an air compressor, but that compressor motor also rotated the 80amp alternator allowing recharge power back into the batteries.

What I have yet to uncover is how or why everyone claims even that won't work - when I personally watched it in motion, and with a witness at that.

Now.. if free energy does not exist, then how are there numerous videos showing just exactly this? Magnetic motors - still in infancy - can provide the rotation one needs to rotate a generator - as witnessed within the numerous videos across the internet.

I believe one was caption - something for the engineers to figure out - which not only showed a magnetic motor rotating a generator, but power a good number of 100 watt light bulbs, in unison with operating a house fan and... hey, the thing never stopped or even faultered - well, until the guy over turned the whole thing causing it all to stop.

Free energy - a simple set up I put together - allowed for just that, fully mobile 110v ac current... on a board that could be carried anywhere you like, and power up to 5,000w in power... well close to 5,000 anyhow.

Now, granted the components are not always going to hold up... how long is anyone's guess without performing the experiment to find out, but then -

Fuel powered setups wear out just the same.

If a magnetic motor can rotate magnets within windings - it will assuredly provide electricity. How much depends how large the winding / generator setup actually is and upon how fast the magnetic motor can rotate the magnets in the windings.

Please... there are videos showing a regular computer fan powering a small light bulb - as the person working this demonstration simply uses a can of air to force the fan to turn - that my friends, is free electricity.

We just need a way to increase the amount of electric current to operate a decent enough electric motor capable of moving a vehicle down the road at a decent speed for a decent amount of time.. that maintains it's electric capability - i.e. recharging the batteries as it moves like maybe using the back force of the head wind to rotate a decent number of electric generating fans.

Please... to hear free electric doesn't exist doesn't jive for me as I myself have had mobile regular house electricity since 2009.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

HarBeK said:


> Two deep cycle marine batteries powering a 12v dc to 120V AC inverter allowed me to operate not only a capacitor motor from an air compressor, but that compressor motor also rotated the 80amp alternator allowing recharge power back into the batteries.


If you measure the energy entering the batteries and leaving the batteries you find that less goes back in than leaves. And if you remove the generator (alternator) then the battery takes longer to run down. In other words there is less loss.



HarBeK said:


> What I have yet to uncover is how or why everyone claims even that won't work - when I personally watched it in motion, and with a witness at that.


Oh you can certainly hook a battery to a motor. Hook the motor to a generator and hook the generator to the battery. But it will run down the battery. There are losses in the conversion of electricity to mechanical energy in the motor. There are also losses in the generator when converting the mechanical energy back to electricity. And there are losses in the conversion of electricity to chemical energy in the battery. The losses in the battery are both directions. A good motor will have an efficiency of 94%. That means 6% of the energy that goes in leaves the motor as lost heat. Generators with similar efficiency are also possible. And with Lithium type batteries you get as high as 98% energy recovery. The best you can do is about 86% efficiency and that is if you do a really good job of it.



HarBeK said:


> Now.. if free energy does not exist, then how are there numerous videos showing just exactly this? Magnetic motors - still in infancy - can provide the rotation one needs to rotate a generator - as witnessed within the numerous videos across the internet.


The simple answer is that they are all hoaxes. The power always comes from outside or it will run down. Often it is from a hidden battery.



HarBeK said:


> Free energy - a simple set up I put together - allowed for just that, fully mobile 110v ac current... on a board that could be carried anywhere you like, and power up to 5,000w in power... well close to 5,000 anyhow.


If four of these will fit on my car then I can remove the batteries and go 60mph for free. If you can do this you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams. Unfortunately you can't do this.



HarBeK said:


> If a magnetic motor can rotate magnets within windings - it will assuredly provide electricity. How much depends how large the winding / generator setup actually is and upon how fast the magnetic motor can rotate the magnets in the windings.


Yes, but the energy has to come from somewhere. The amount of electricial energy you get out is always going to be less than what you put in.



HarBeK said:


> Please... there are videos showing a regular computer fan powering a small light bulb - as the person working this demonstration simply uses a can of air to force the fan to turn - that my friends, is free electricity.


No, this is the energy stored in the can when the air was compressed. It is an outside source of energy. If you have the wind spin the fan it is powered by the sun and the energy in this case could be thought of as free, but only because you harvested it with a wind generator. If there is no wind and you run fast enough to spin the fan and light the bulb the energy is coming from you. It is not free because you needed to eat in order to give you the energy to move around. It is also not free because in moving the fan through the air your motion was impeded by the air drag through the blades. It cost you more energy to move with the fan than if you didn't have it.



HarBeK said:


> We just need a way to increase the amount of electric current to operate a decent enough electric motor capable of moving a vehicle down the road at a decent speed for a decent amount of time.. that maintains it's electric capability - i.e. recharging the batteries as it moves like maybe using the back force of the head wind to rotate a decent number of electric generating fans.


This does not work because the additional load on the electric drive motor from the fans is greater than the energy harvested from the fans.



HarBeK said:


> Please... to hear free electric doesn't exist doesn't jive for me as I myself have had mobile regular house electricity since 2009.


You will have to explain this. The energy must come from outside a closed system. Solar cells or a wind generator are harvesting solar energy. This is not at all the same thing as a battery driving a motor which is then driving a generator which then charges the battery. And uncoupling the motor and generator shaft by having the motor spin the wheels of the car and a fan mounted to the generator sticking out in the relative wind from the moving car does not change this. It just slightly obscures things.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Harbek, if you spent $2500 building this contraption, you should be able to buy a $50 video camera and show it in operation. You will also need maybe $200 to $500 for the proper instrumentation to measure the true RMS voltage, current, and power (not VA) that is being generated and used by the various components in your system. 

A 12V 100 A-h deep cycle battery can hold about 1000 W-hr of energy, although Peukert effects may reduce that to about half if you draw anywhere near 1C (100A). Your 5000 watt 12V to 120 VAC inverter will draw over 400 amps at full output, and that will deplete the battery in about 15 minutes. If you are using it for a 60 watt light bulb, it may stay lit for 10 hours or more, and if it is a CFL or LED, it probably draws only about 10 watts. The refrigerator may require 1000 watts while the compressor runs, but it may have a duty cycle of 10% for an equivalent load of 100 watts.

I have never seen a convincing video of a magnetic motor or any other contraption that provides "free" energy. There are some that use highly capacitive or inductive loads where the actual power is much less than the voltage times the current (VA). Another video showed a motor/generator connected to a 100W incandescent lamp, which measured about 9 ohms. When the rig was started up with a 12VDC source and about 10 amps (120W), it produced 120V which made the lamp shine brightly, but it was claimed that 120V into 9 ohms was 13 amps at 120V or 1560 watts. 

If you don't understand these concepts you have no hope of making any sort of device that seems to violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. And if you have no pictures or video, it didn't happen.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> And if you have no pictures or video, it didn't happen.
> 
> 
> > Hear Hear.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

I love how people think that as soon as magnetism is involved, you can just throw physics right out the window.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

But magnets ARE magic, aren't they? I just love dropping a rare earth magnet into the bore of a piece of 1/2" copper water pipe and watching it hover slowly as it falls. Really, the eddy currents the moving magnet are generating in the surrounding conductor are no more miraculous than watching a rock sink slowly in a jar full of glycerine, but it still looks like magic!

Most over unity scams exploit the difficulty to accurately measure true RMS or especially pulse mode DC power. Batteries are often used to add even more measurement difficulty.

The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy are really useful in debunking these scams. I particularly like the laws of thermo, redux:

0th: there's only one game in town, and you must play
1st: you cannot win
2nd: you can't break even except on a very cold day
3rd: it never gets THAT cold!


----------



## bigbadbob (Jan 17, 2015)

i did not read all 93 pages becasue i cant stand people who dont even check what they talk about . but I work with magnets what most people do not know is they come out of the mold non magnetic n48h to get the magnetic field we put it in a big coil and zap it with lots of magnetic energy at a huge loss it also slowly looses energy as you draw it away by moving the magent closer to another one. One latching relay i designed has only 100,000 cycles before the magnet is done , no secret energy no special deal , a magnetic motor is a loss before you would even turn it on and it wil l not last long. if ever at all.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

HarBeK said:


> Now.. if free energy does not exist, then how are there numerous videos showing just exactly this?


Real simple because there is a Sucker like yourself born every minute.\ willing to waste their money on foolishness. There are dozens of organizations that offer huge cash rewards for the first person to present a working model for testing, and those rewards have been in place for decades. No one has ever done it, or ever will.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*

Ok folks, all DC motors built today are crap. They have this thing called CEMF. Ruins your torque curve. They are built on the basic Edison design, one continuous wire connecting all motor coils, which just wastes energy. As each primary winding hits its comm segment and gets energized, and does its work, it come to the end of its time on and the brush slides off the comm segment. Mother Nature doesn't like this sudden discontinuation of current, and sets up the back EMF reaction of the coil. The battery power is then used to fight off this effect. So ask yourself how can you build an electric motor that eliminates or even uses this force? Guess what? Tesla patented DC motors in 1888 that had no CEMF, and used Mother Nature to assist in rotation. This force may be harnessed in Assistive EMF. All that needs done is to isolate each pole winding from the others. NO CONTINUOUS WINDING of coils with one wire throughout the motor. I believe* Electric car enthusiasts can double battery range with this style motor at least.* 

It is not hard to redesign an electric motor in this style. I mean it is work, you have to wrap the motor windings yourself. The way to isolate coils is to build a motor with TWO commutators and brush sets on both sides of the motor. When a coil is isolated as it slides off the commutator segment, Mother Nature kicks in and tries to keep the current going and the field in the coil must now act as a battery and discharge instead of a sink being charged from the battery in its power stroke. THIS REVERSES THE FIELD, and now you get an additional power stroke even as the coil is disconnected from the battery! Almost any style rotor may be wound in this style. This is heavily documented in this thread: *My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines*
This guy is an electric motor genius who has cracked Tesla's Patents, combined other info and has generously given all his knowledge, and will help anyone and has given ample information so that any motor can be remade in Tesla's style. IMHO, he has proven his motors can make more energy than they consume. I can explain all this in due time. For now, I have a coworker who wants to build his own electric car and I told him about this motor and I realized those car enthusiasts were conspicuously absent from that forum, so I found this site and had to break this news. If you guys can build your own electric car, just as any motor head soups up their ICE, so to it can be done even more easily than that on an electric motor. 

So just realize this guy can and has laid out all you need to know on how to rewind and rebuild the motor, on almost any style. Look over his instructional videos, get on his youtube channel. There are about 250 pages and thousands of posts, lots of off shoot ideas, just focus on the motor building diagrams, videos, explanations. He started off doing what he called N-S windings, and then found Unipolar or homopolar windings to be more powerful in the last 50 pages. Use only this style. There has been some controversy lately over single style windings vs overlapping styles for coils, and I would say which is better is still TBD. But anything you do there is better than a funky Edison style motor designed to waste energy and power to make the fat cats tap into us like parasites.

Here to grow this out!

Sam

PS: Tesla is rolling over in his grave as I am sure Tesla Motors is not using a single true Tesla motor!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*

"A Free Energy Machine Methodology" was on the youtube link.

credibility pretty much lost completely at this point.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*

Don't be blinded. I just gave you in one paragraph the kernel of knowledge needed to re-engineer the goofy edison motor designs and understand the physics in simple layman terms. Capturing the Back EMF as a motive force is free to all those who can capture the basics of motor design. This of course is lost knowledge, not being taught in any EE degrees on the face of the planet. Looks like deliberately buried.

Hah, just buy one of those used fork lift motors for a few hundred, and extra commutator, brush endplates, and you are in business, soup up your electric motors.

Do you know how Tesla made his discoveries? He would stay awake and work round the clock for days, the pure excitement of his discoveries must have been a pure adrenalin rush...

FYI CEMF: Counter Electromotive Force. Constant topic of discussion in all electric motor tech manuals.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*



sampojo said:


> Ok folks, all DC motors built today are crap. They have this thing called CEMF. Ruins your torque curve. They are built on the basic Edison design, one continuous wire connecting all motor coils, which just wastes energy. As each primary winding hits its comm segement and gets energized, and does its work, it come to the end of its time on and the brush slides off the comm segment. Mother Nature doesn't like this sudden discontinuation of current, and sets up the back EMF reaction of the coil. The battery power is then used to fight off this effect. So ask yourself how can you build an electric motor that eliminates or even uses this force? Guess what? Tesla patented DC motors in 1888 that had no CEMF, and used Mother Nature to assist in rotation. This force may be harnessed in Assisitve EMF. All that needs done is to isolate each pole winding from the others. NO CONTINUOUS WINDING of coils with one wire throughout the motor. I believe* Electric car enthusiasts can double battery range with this style motor at least.*
> 
> It is not hard to redesign an electric motor in this style. I mean it is work, you have to wrap the motor windings yourself. The way to isolate coils is to build a motor with TWO commutators and brush sets on both sides of the motor. When a coil is isolated as it slides off the commutator segment, Mother Nature kicks in and tries to keep the current going and the field in the coil must now act as a battery and discharge instead of a sink being charged from the battery in its power stroke. THIS REVERSES THE FIELD, and now you get an additional power stroke even as the coil is disconnected from the battery! Almost any style rotor may be wound in this style. This is heavily documented in this thread: *My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines*
> This guy is an electric motor genius who has cracked Tesla's Patents, combined other info and has generously given all his knowledge, and will help anyone and has given ample information so that any motor can be remade in Tesla's style. IMHO, he has proven his motors can make more energy than they consume. I can explain all this in due time. For now, I have a coworker who wants to build his own electric car and I told him about this motor and I realized those car enthusiasts were conspicuously absent from that forum, so I found this site and had to break this news. If you guys can build your own electric car, just as any motor head soups up their ICE, so to it can be done even more easily than that on an electric motor.
> ...


Because of this phrase


sampojo said:


> ...... he has proven his motors can make more energy than they consume.


 in your post, it deserves our special place, http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html I will request the admin to move your post to our special place. This keeps the rest of our forum based in reality.

You are mistaken about how DC motors commutate. There is no sudden disconnection of current in the armature coils. And CEMF, or more commonly called BEMF, which is the generated voltage in the armature is a good thing and responsible for the electromagnetic energy conversion. It is hardly something which ruins the torque curve as you put it. Maybe you should not preach how to improve the DC motor when you do not understand how it works.

{edit}
1.) Thanks to the admin for moving this here from the reality based discussion forums, electric motors.
2.) I wasn't wrong about this guy judging from his subsequent posts. He is really over unity.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*

Not preaching. Have to throw it back to you not understanding CEMF. Its called Counter because the voltage builds with rotational speed to where It plus friction will cancel the emf power of the battery. You are at the top end of the motors range and there is zero torque there. 

The Tesla motors take a fraction of the amperage of the edison motors, about 1/3. I will post a video on a performance test the man ran on a 56-frame motor later. Just want to share real practical knowledge here.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*



sampojo said:


> Not preaching. Have to throw it back to you not understanding CEMF. Its called Counter because the voltage builds with rotational speed to where It plus friction will cancel the *emf power* of the battery. ...


"emf power"  You clearly have no clue. With that, I'll leave it. Readers are warned, if it is not obvious to them, that you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*

Gees, gimme a break, ok shoulda said voltage, scuse me


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*

I've built a number of these from hobby size to medium size motors that can do work. Working on my own 56-frame motor, a Baldor. Here is what a Tesla rotor looks like.










As you can see a brush plate is needed on both ends.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Edison motors vs Tesla motors.*



sampojo said:


> Gees, gimme a break, ok shoulda said voltage, scuse me


do you know the difference between voltage and power and current and energy?


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Isolation of coils is key*

What's important here is that individual coils are isolated as clearly stated in N. Tesla's Patents. You can intuitively see that as you wind a coil from one commutator using your selected winding Pattern over the needed set of poles to form one coil then out the other end of the rotor to the other commutator. On this particular rotor, there are 20 poles. The winding design uses this architecture to make 20 coils, grouping several polls together, depending on the selected design. The isolated coils allow the BEMF to be converted to Assistive EMF or AEMF vs CEMF in every Edison DC motor running today.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Please post a video or even just actual measurements of the voltage, current, power, RPM, toque, and efficiency of any such motor. 

Oh, that's right, every successful model created more energy than it consumed so it just kept going faster until it exploded.. 



> PS: Tesla is rolling over in his grave as I am sure Tesla Motors is not using a single true Tesla motor!


He may very well be rolling over in his grave and rolling his eyes, but only because of the cult following that has totally misunderstood his inventions, and continues to perpetrate crazy ideas and warped concepts.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Here's what he said: winding the motor my way will double your range!

Since most motors are over 90% efficient... ? (The question mark stands for "magic")

https://marklolson.files.wordpress....cartoon-a-miracle-occurs-here.gif?w=300&h=364


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Asymmetric motor video*

You are wrong about edison motors being so efficient. When an edison electric motor spins up to its max, all energy being fed into it by the battery is being cancelled out by the matching energy in the CEMF. Nothing is even left over to do any work at that point. zero efficiency there. So all the way up the power curve its pi$$ing away energy.

I am going to point any one interested to this video posted on the Asymmetric motor Thread. The guy running it took his redesigned imperial 56 frame motor hooked it up to 3 12v batteries to run an AC generator. He turns on the power to 2 500w floods pwered by the AC generator. He shows a watt meter hooked up to the light circuit, and shows the amperage and voltage coming from the batteries under load. He shuts down and takes the temps on the motor. Rpm must be kept up over 3000 for AC generator to work.

Asymmetric Motor post 3132 with video of motor doing work

Notice the amp draw, 23A. The GE configuration of this motor has a rating of 60A.

He is only using 2 brush sets to power the motor. This motor is a Quad stator and as a result has 4 brush sets and 8 total connections to the outside world. A little mind-boggling at first... In the video he explains this and you see the 2 power switches, one per brush set of course.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Tesla Patent 390414.*

This is where he tells you he insulates each coil from all the others using a second commutator.

"On the shaft of a given generator, either in place of or in addition to the regular commutator, I secure as many pairs of insulated collecting-rings as there are circuits to be formed."

Edison (GE) motors are one continuous wire, where emf's from all coils are felt throughout the circuit at all times.

The Patent is attached. Notice he doesn't tell you anything more exact than that, no how it's wound, poles per coil, etc, etc. A+ from me for not divulging critical information, protecting his intellectual knowledge. He unfortunately never seemed to follow through when it came to getting a return. I have to thank him heartily for giving his patent away on AC to Westinghouse, he was a good man, and we all have a modern life as a result. But he overdid it, should have held a little bit back, he surely needed the money later. Really overdid it with JP Morgan signing all his patents over to him on the first allotment of that contract. He never really recovered from the Wardenclyffe debacle.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*coils and BEMF*

Does any one really know what is going on with the magnetic field of a coil? Lets see. We throw a piece of paper over a magnetic field and throw steel filings down on the paper and viola there it is. Real scientific. We have just learned what a magnetic dipole really looks like, more like an X than a bar magnet. So in a coil we have a steady state current with the resultant magnetic field. Well I guess the energy we are putting into the coil must be projected into the resultant magnetic field, RRIIIGGHHTT? as my 3 year old grandson says. Thats the simple answer. But what real proof of that is there? I don't see anything for sure. Now we cut off the current, no more energy for the coil, but yet immediately after this the coil will find a way to zap a high voltage shot in reverse through the circuit, mother natures way of keeping the current flowing for an instant. The coil goes from acting like a load instantaneously to acting like a battery. The Tesla motor captures this field reversal as AEMF. This reversal happens at TDC of the power stroke of the battery just when the battery is done doing that work, then the coil will supply extra power to push off as the rotor rolls past TDC. I submit to you that the video submitted as evidence shows the return of excess energy from the zero point energy field we are immersed in, surrounded by and a part of, as opposed to simply draining the energy from a collapsing magnetic field we just energized. Then it is not correct to assume this is a violation of the physics law of the conservation of energy, as this is not a closed system. This is like putting a sail up to the wind. Tesla called his dynamo transformers energy multipliers. Go figure that one one out... So far the multiplier is a meager 1.25... If you read ahead, even better performance found in the unipolar windings.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



sampojo said:


> Tesla called his dynamo transformers energy multipliers.


I think you have confused energy and voltage again. It is really important that you understand these terms and apply them correctly.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

*Re: coils and BEMF*

I love how when people discover a way to create free energy, breaking the very laws of physics and fulfilling the 3000 year search for the Philosopher's Stone, they hang out on the internet arguing about it instead of becoming the wealthiest person the world has ever seen...


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



sampojo said:


> Does any one really know what is going on with the magnetic field of a coil?


Yeah. Yeah, they do. You don't, but others do.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*

This motor converts quite nicely as the brush end plate and plain end plate dimensions are identical and the plain end plate can be replaced with a brush end plate. Shaft is just long enough, but the seat for the additional commutator had to be enlarged and a bearing seat had to be made higher up the shaft. The Imperial didn't need anything like that.

original motor










Asym assembly










some internal views


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*



sampojo said:


> This motor converts quite nicely


converts what? What is the efficiency before and after? How do you determine that?


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



Hollie Maea said:


> I love how when people discover a way to create free energy, breaking the very laws of physics and fulfilling the 3000 year search for the Philosopher's Stone, they hang out on the internet arguing about it instead of becoming the wealthiest person the world has ever seen...


Are you ready to work around the clock to build it as Tesla did?


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*



dcb said:


> converts what? What is the efficiency before and after? How do you determine that?



Let me point out the facts in the video, the motor is manufacturing 1020w and using only about 794w, or 34.5v x 23A, hence a factor of 1.28 or 1020/794.

By convert here however, I simply mean that the Baldor can be changed from a symmetric motor to an asymmetric Tesla motor rather easily but not even as easy as the Imperial as it is totally off the shelf conversion slapping the parts together straight from the factory. They have consented and even have listed the motor kit assembled with parts for the forum. Its the Ufopolitics kit, 

I just wanted to show how its done. For a car we need to look at the innards of one of these forklift motors!!!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*



sampojo said:


> Let me point out the facts in the video, the motor is manufacturing 1020w and using only about 794w, or 34.5v x 23A, hence a factor of 1.28 or 1020/794.


You will have to draw a schematic diagram and show what you measured where. I have no idea what you are talking about here (and the video is insufferable)


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



Hollie Maea said:


> Yeah. Yeah, they do. You don't, but others do.


I submit to you recent CERN discoveries that show the magnetic dipole is X shaped as opposed to a simple bar magnet look. This was discovered in 2013. This has turned cosmology on its head. They say this eliminates the mathematical theories for black holes, dark matter and dark energy, i.e. they don't exist. How's that for stable scientific theory, and knowing what things are...


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*



dcb said:


> You will have to draw a schematic diagram and show what you measured where. I have no idea what you are talking about here (and the video is insufferable)



Watch the video, pay particular attention to the numbers he shows you. Use freeze frame. Its hard to see there but there are plenty of pics, but this is a dc motor driving an AC generator. All documented in the thread. You are getting a couple years worth of work there, just thrown right into your face, and we are just cutting to the chase, double your driving range with this.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: coils and BEMF*

Can't watch it, I'm "blind" remember? Well at least I am now after the first 5 seconds of that video.


sampojo said:


> I submit to you recent CERN discoveries


You didn't submit anything, no supporting links for any assertions so far. 

I am getting the notion that overunity folks subconsciously keep their experiments vague and leave out obvious details because they don't want to risk being proven wrong, they WANT to believe. And doing proper research and documentation and thorough supporting evidence increases the risk that their hopes for free energy will be debunked (though they already are ).

But it is really painful to watch, it is so obviously flawed, but you cannot answer simple questions without a huge smokescreen. I don't think it is conscious on your part, but it is still flawed.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



dcb said:


> I think you have confused energy and voltage again. It is really important that you understand these terms and apply them correctly.



Sorry just reusing the language from N Tesla's new biography on this matter. Simply stated, he used his dynamos to multiply the amount of energy on hand for the wireless energy transmission he was trying to do at Wardenclyffe.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

The video was useless for full energy accounting purposes. Sad that people waste so much time on this.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



dcb said:


> Can't watch it, I'm "blind" remember? Well at least I am now after the first 5 seconds of that video.
> 
> 
> You didn't submit anything, no supporting links for any assertions so far.
> ...


What you are seeing are the results of people who are using modern tools available to the masses while they still have to make a living, so you will not see a lot of polish. Here is a video of the CERN discovery, The Primer Fields. Another, Bizarre discovery out of CERN . I think this is by MIT scientists. Hey but I thought this was about electric cars?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: coils and BEMF*

Electricity from the dynamos are run through transformers. Nothing magical and no change in energy. Well, some change but always at a loss. I think maybe you need to understand transformers and what they can do. By boosting the voltage it allows the transfer of electricity over very long distances.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

dcb said:


> The video was useless for full energy accounting purposes. Sad that people waste so much time on this.



your concern for other people is very heartwarming.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



onegreenev said:


> Electricity from the dynamos are run through transformers. Nothing magical and no change in energy. Well, some change but always at a loss. I think maybe you need to understand transformers and what they can do. By boosting the voltage it allows the transfer of electricity over very long distances.



good one captain obvious


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

lol, electrodes shaped like the pantheon. Dude, you are really in deep here. I aint wasting another second on crackpot videos. 

If you cannot draw a simple schematic (I do it for "fun") and answer direct questions, then I have nothing else to say. Those videos are punitive.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



sampojo said:


> Are you ready to work around the clock to build it as Tesla did?


What??? Just a few posts ago you were saying it was easy and you just had to disconnect the poles and add an extra commutator..

What a bait and switch!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: coils and BEMF*

Sampojo,

what about 70.000 volts being sadwiched between two magnetic flat plates in a vacuum? How about between two magnetic diamond shapes in a vacuum? How about sandwiched between nothing? What the hell does two magnetic bowels with 70K of voltage prove. Not a damn thing. Except you get some interesting shapes. 

Good luck capturing and harnessing your inductive spikes to provide FREE power above and beyond what you put into the system.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*videos*

Just posting what you guys asked for, I know you aren't physicists. what diagram, electric motor powers electric AC generator all covered in excruciating detail on the other thread. energy out and energy in, all explained there. Just trying to help. Soup up those edison motors with 2 commutators. Nobody gutsy enough out there to rebuild an electric motor? I got news for ya, the nuke sub computer tech I work with is up to the job.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: coils and BEMF*

Heck, I play with plasma when I weld. I use a sharp tungsten and sometimes rounded. So what. It makes for a nice ball of light and makes for a good weld.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: videos*



> I know you aren't physicists.


 Nor are you.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*



sampojo said:


> Watch the video, pay particular attention to the numbers he shows you. Use freeze frame. Its hard to see there but there are plenty of pics, but this is a dc motor driving an AC generator. All documented in the thread. You are getting a couple years worth of work there, just thrown right into your face, and we are just cutting to the chase, double your driving range with this.


So prove this in a vehicle and then we may believe. Until then its just hocus pocus bull shit. We have seen all sorts of BS on youtube and there is no way in hell you are going to have some dolt playing around and post a video on youtube that blows physics out of the water. It is just pure bull shit. Wake up.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: coils and BEMF*



onegreenev said:


> Sampojo,
> 
> what about 70.000 volts being sadwiched between two magnetic flat plates in a vacuum? How about between two magnetic diamond shapes in a vacuum? How about sandwiched between nothing? What the hell does two magnetic bowels with 70K of voltage prove. Not a damn thing. Except you get some interesting shapes.
> 
> Good luck capturing and harnessing your inductive spikes to provide FREE power above and beyond what you put into the system.



My point is that those discoveries will shake particle and astro-physics to the core. We just found this out. So you mean to tell me that a back emf spark can't come from the zero point energy field and what we know eliminates that possibility. I think this example makes the point. And the motor video may be proving the point...


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> Just posting what you guys asked for, I know you aren't physicists. what diagram, electric motor powers electric AC generator all covered in excruciating detail on the other thread. energy out and energy in, all explained there. Just trying to help.



I can't see the other thread, you will have to explain yourself here. Be very specific, because so far you havent substantiated a damn thing.

Edit, forget it, you don't answer direct questions and can't be bothered to provide evidence, you are talking to yourself from now on AFAIAC.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: videos*



onegreenev said:


> Nor are you.


This gave me a good laugh, magna cum laude U of Pitt


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> This gave me a good laugh, magna cum laude U of Pitt


As in Pitt skool of corespendance


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: videos*



dcb said:


> I can't see the other thread, you will have to explain yourself here. Be very specific, because so far you havent substantiated a damn thing.
> 
> Edit, forget it, you don't answer direct questions and can't be bothered to provide evidence, you are talking to yourself from now on AFAIAC.



No reason to get so offended is there?

here is a pic of the setup. As a nemesis of mine used to say, hope this helps.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Magna cum Laude of *Meta*physics, maybe, or *Physic*al Education. Yeah, the video was hard to watch, and there were wires and meters being knocked around without showing anything in usable detail. If someone has something exciting and important to show the world, at least it can be neatly executed and well presented. 

Now, here's a guy who really knows his electrical theory and has the guts to present it in the proper way that your experiment should be:


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: videos*



Duncan said:


> As in Pitt skool of corespendance


 undoubtably a very kewl administrator has just chimed in! But I passed up my chance to work in the field at Westinghouse many years ago.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: Baldor Motor conversion to Asymmetric Motor*



onegreenev said:


> So prove this in a vehicle and then we may believe. Until then its just hocus pocus bull shit. We have seen all sorts of BS on youtube and there is no way in hell you are going to have some dolt playing around and post a video on youtube that blows physics out of the water. It is just pure bull shit. Wake up.


 You can aslo search the net and read about the CERN discovery and the credits on those films are out of MIT, as I mentioned. I gaurantee you that this will not show up in the textbooks for a while. quite radical, no black holes etc.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: motor-generator video*



PStechPaul said:


> Magna cum Laude of *Meta*physics, maybe, or *Physic*al Education. Yeah, the video was hard to watch, and there were wires and meters being knocked around without showing anything in usable detail. If someone has something exciting and important to show the world, at least it can be neatly executed and well presented.


use pause to get the numbers. He wasn't showing the world, and I am just showing it to you, and he is a work a day stiff like me, doing stuff in whatever space can be found.

Been fun, good night


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> Now, here's a guy who really knows his electrical theory and has the guts to present it in the proper way that your experiment should be:


This guys is awesome. He has some very entertaining videos.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> .......... magna cum laude U of Pitt


If you're so smart, prove this:



sampojo said:


> .... the motor is manufacturing 1020w and using only about 794w, or 34.5v x 23A, hence a factor of 1.28 or 1020/794.


You can't. You've been fooled. 

Answer this for me. You claim to have a motor which outputs more power than it uses. Why then does the EV range only double? Why would you not size the motor such that the motive power is completely supplied from the excess output power which exceeds the input to the motor and be able to travel indefinitely without depleting the battery? Hmmm. Why would you need a battery?

It amazes me that over unity/free energy nut-jobs come to these EV forums. Why? If you have a device which produces free energy, build it, sell it, solve the world's problems, eliminate war, save the environment, end human suffering, take the Nobel Prize and enjoy being the richest most powerful being on the planet. Why come here and bother us


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

sampojo said:


> This gave me a good laugh, magna cum laude U of Pitt


What year?


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: videos*



major said:


> If you're so smart, prove this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I don't have any 36v 23A power supplies laying around... 

Hey I believe in this technology and am building as fast as I can. I am trying to build a scaled down self-runner, seeing if a 1-5 amp motor has the same characterisics. I have a few of those power supplies laying around. Except now I need to also build a small AC generator, I just don't think they make them. See the difficulties? I'm not ready to throw my retirement money into it, and am trying some more economical approaches.

I was hoping simple description of BEMF from a coil with its resulting field reversals conveniently at TDC when the coil slides off the commutator to provide an additional propulsive stroke could convince people. Whatever propulsive force is used approaching TDC, just the opposite is needed after TDC, and Tesla's design graciously provides it. As this coil is detached from the battery at this point this back high voltage is isolated from the battery now, and thus this motor has NO CEMF. THE BATTERY NO LONGER HAS TO FIGHT THE BEMF! Look it up all edison style DC motors have it. I think this logical statement should allow people to visualize the secret of this motor. But perhaps I am wrong about that... I don't move so fast these days and if somebody else catches the ball, fine with me.


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> I know I don't have any 36v 23A power supplies laying around...


3 car starter batteries will work.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: videos*



> It amazes me that over unity/free energy nut-jobs come to these EV forums. Why? If you have a device which produces free energy, build it, sell it, solve the world's problems, eliminate war, save the environment, end human suffering, take the Nobel Prize and enjoy being the richest most powerful being on the planet. Why come here and bother us


Thank you so much. We should have huge sign on this forum with this statement. Might keep them all away.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> .... But perhaps I am wrong about that...


Bingo! You are wrong about that. BEMF, or CEMF as you call it, is not a bad thing. It is to be embraced. It facilitates the whole electromechanical energy conversion process. And like I told you before, in the conventional DC motors we all use, the armature coils are never disconnected during the commutation process. You clearly do not understand how motors work and that is why you've been hoodwinked into believing this BS you see on the interweb videos.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

*Re: videos*



onegreenev said:


> Thank you so much. We should have huge sign on this forum with this statement. Might keep them all away.


And miss out on all the fun? This thread is such an entertainment, I make my teenage son read it, so he does not become such dumbass as these guys and learns how to use his head properly. This thread has a lot of entertainment and educational value, please don't ban this crock, this forum needs it, as long as it stays in this thread and doesn't spread to normal discussions.

Just the link to Youtube channel made by Paul above totally made my day, I have been laughing my ass off, yet my son might also learn from those videos. If it wasn't for this thread I would miss out on this gem.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: videos*



major said:


> Bingo! You are wrong about that. BEMF, or CEMF as you call it, is not a bad thing. It is to be embraced. It facilitates the whole electromechanical energy conversion process. And like I told you before, in the conventional DC motors we all use, the armature coils are never disconnected during the commutation process. You clearly do not understand how motors work and that is why you've been hoodwinked into believing this BS you see on the interweb videos.


Let me try to be even more clear. I was hoping I could lead people thru the thought experiment to understand Tesla's design. After your statement here, it is again clear that I have failed in this, wrong about this, not that I was wrong about counter emf. 

Let me quote from Basic Electricity about counter emf from the Navy Electrician Training Manual on p374: "It is found that this generated voltage is in opposition to impressed emf". Can we agree that means it cancels out the battery voltage? and obviously a bad thing? To say it is an important part of good motor design, shows who does not understand motors here. CEMF is a PARASITIC force, sucks the energy out of edison motors. Period, plain and simple.

For you to conflate my statement about being wrong with something technical I have stated so for, I would say, seems somewhat deliberate.

Just trying to lead a horse to water here...


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I've seen this sort of desperation before, an old guy thinking they have one last shot to leave a mark. Usually it doesn't lead to insanity, though sometimes it does. I hope I die before that happens.


----------



## sampojo (Mar 3, 2015)

*Re: desperate*

Let's go back over this a little. I bring studies forward from CERN. I try thought experiments. I quote from and explain N. Tesla's patents. I quote from eletrical manuals. And insults are returned. Those who have a mind to get past the emotionalism, please take note.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> "It is found that this generated voltage is in opposition to impressed emf"


This is true. And it is responsible for the power conversion. The actual power converted across the air gap in the motor is equal to this generated voltage (BEMF or CEMF as you call it) times the armature current. So actually, the higher the BEMF, the more efficient the motor becomes for a given applied voltage and load.

You don't like the BEMF? It is easy to rid the motor of BEMF. Stall the rotor. BEMF equals zero. How efficient is the motor then? Or, remove the flux field. The BEMF will become zero with no flux. What good is your motor then? No good. No torque without flux. BEMF is a God send. Thank you Michael Faraday for enlightening mankind.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

*Re: videos*

Almost 100 pages of this bullshit....


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

*Re: videos*



sampojo said:


> Let me quote from Basic Electricity about counter emf from the Navy Electrician Training Manual on p374: "It is found that this generated voltage is in opposition to impressed emf". Can we agree that means it cancels out the battery voltage? and obviously a bad thing? To say it is an important part of good motor design, shows who does not understand motors here. CEMF is a PARASITIC force, sucks the energy out of edison motors. Period, plain and simple.


BEMF is based on the principle that the movement of a conductor in a magnetic field generates a voltage, and also that a change in the current will generate a force on the conductor in relation to the source of the magnetic field. Thus every motor is also a generator, and in the absense of any losses (friction, resistance) or mechanical power extracted, the BEMF will equal the applied voltage and no current will flow. Thus the power extracted by a motor will cause the BEMF to reduce, and the difference between applied voltage and BEMF, times the winding resistance, is what determines current, and thus torque. If the shaft of the motor is turned faster, the BEMF increases and it becomes a generator which charges the battery.

There is also some energy which is stored in the inductance of the motor windings, and when commutation occurs, it will cause an inductive spike which causes arcing of the brushes and commutator. *This can be seen in the stupid video!* Arcs have a current and voltage which are in phase and thus take power away from the system in the form of light, heat, evaporation of material, and EM radiation. Electronic commutation can take some of this energy and return it to the battery, but it is generally not a large portion of the power involved.

Hopefully discussions such as this will help those who may be confused by the claims of internet hoaxters and delusional Tesla worshippers. If these people would instead spend time, energy, and money on developing valid and as yet not fully explored concepts like the SRM and homopolar generator, we may have more practical products that may increase efficiency and decrease costs.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

sampojo said:


> This gave me a good laugh, magna cum laude U of Pitt


What year?


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

*Tesla's 2 commutator motors*

Hi Guys & Sampojo

I been working on Tesla's 2 commutator motors, also.

Here are some vids:

12volts with 2 Inputs. It was smooth. Output generator average was 20v 
(Sorry, I couldn't hold the video recorder and take a reading. The 12v jumper last for 5mins at full charge) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=izPKtuXoGUg


12volts with 4 inputs. I need to do some fine adjustments for the timing but It ran stronger on 4 inputs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncIUzWGviaw


I was going to keep *Tesla electric motorcycle *on the overunity forum but Sampojo is here all alone.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bqlvWeBWvE4

Be cool, we need all the help we can get


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: Tesla's 2 commutator motors*



midaztouch said:


> Hi Guys & Sampojo
> 
> I been working on Tesla's 2 commutator motors, also.
> 
> ...



And these videos show and prove what again? That you can connect a wire to run a motor and stick a bunch of other wires on the other end of the motor to look like they are doing something?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*Re: Tesla's 2 commutator motors*

*If you have a device which produces free energy, build it, sell it, solve the world's problems, eliminate war, save the environment, end human suffering, take the Nobel Prize and enjoy being the richest most powerful being on the planet. 

Why come here and bother us.​*


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

*Re: Tesla's 2 commutator motors*



onegreenev said:


> *If you have a device which produces free energy, build it, sell it, solve the world's problems, eliminate war, save the environment, end human suffering, take the Nobel Prize and enjoy being the richest most powerful being on the planet.
> 
> Why come here and bother us.​*


Be cool, like I said!


What Sampojo should have said is, "Its just an Alternative DC Motor with 2 commutators. Please take a look. What do you think?"

The motors have good RPMs and good torque. We have been researching about the energy consumption of these motors versus a standard OEM motor. These motors tend to have sparking at the output commutator because adjustable brush housings are needed. It's not about money, just the research.

My vids are to show it spins. It's just another DC motor in the End.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

*If you have time, please take a look at my page below. Studying something new is always good!*
http://www.energeticforum.com/renew...-gen-teslas-gift-electromagnetic-reactor.html


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Do you agree with his overunity claims?

Or his "this will double your mileage" claims?

yes or no please, not another sermon on witchcraft, those are not helpful.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Do you agree with his overunity claims?

Or his "this will double your mileage" claims?


No


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

To members sampojo and midastouch,

I don't object to you experimenting or researching with electric machinery. Good for you. But you both appear to be taken by this fellow who calls himself Ufopolitics. sampojo links to him and says this about him: 


sampojo said:


> This is heavily documented in this thread: *My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines*
> This guy is an electric motor genius who has cracked Tesla's Patents, combined other info and has generously given all his knowledge, and will help anyone and has given ample information so that any motor can be remade in Tesla's style. IMHO, he has proven his motors can make more energy than they consume.


He has this video which I assume you believe and use for a basis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4rV0AoI-Q&feature=plcp 
I watched a good portion of it in detail. He makes a grievous error near the start which invalidates his entire premise. I'll use his exact example values for a motor with 12.1 Volts applied. He says there is 9.0V of BEMF and 3.1V of what he calls "actual operating power". He then calculates 25%, which is assumed motor efficiency.

His mistake is that the 3.1V is the drop across the resistance of the motor and and attributed to the loss in the motor. The 9.0V of BEMF is the component of power converted to the load. So by his numbers, the efficiency would be 75%, not 25%. 

Let's say his example was at 10A. The input power to the motor is 12.1V*10A = 121W. Output power = 9.0V*10A = 90W. Loss = 3.1V*10A = 31W. Efficiency = Power Out / Power In = 90W / 121W * 100% = 74.36%. 

His assumption or statement that "3.1 Volts of Actual Operating Power" is dead wrong. I copied that statement directly from a freeze frame of his video. A big clue to this guy's competency can be seen in the fact that he calls "Volts" "Operating Power". I think we all know Volts are units of electric potential and not that of power. And I have shown that the 3.1 Volts figure is related to the motor loss and not operating anything.

I don't know what Mr. Ufopolitics end game is, but he is an idiot.* Maybe clever with his tricky video, but an idiot just the same.

And I pulled up Mr. Tesla's Patent 390414. It is for a rotary converter or can be called a rotary transformer. He has no claims of improvements in motors using dual commutators. True, you can pull off, or put in, mechanical shaft power while using the rotary converter. But always, the total power input will exceed the total power output. 

Early in my career I evaluated, built prototypes and tested several rotary transformers. One called the Triodyne and one by Dr. Middlebrook. Both were found to function acceptably but never made it to production due to cost reasons and the advent of reliable cost effective solid state electronic power converters. Another example I have on hand at home here is a 500W converter. It is a PM machine with a 24Vdc commutator at one end and slip rings at the opposite end for 110Vac output. It is an electromechanical inverter. It is far more robust than a 500W electronic inverter which is so common nowadays. It will start and run induction motor driven water pumps which take 3 or 4 kVA of electronic inverters to start. It is a very good example of Mr. Tesla's invention.

BTW. You can still find these Redi Line inverters. Here's one on eBay just like mine only 12V for $199. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Red...0b4896d&pid=100011&rk=1&rkt=3&sd=171549364468
edit} You can see my Redi Line and a test I ran here: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=596266#post596266

*edit} I happened across a statement by this fellow Ufopolitics which I think confirms my opinion of him. He says: 



> *I have been measuring Amperage on NEGATIVE POLE OF BATTERY....AND THAT IS VERY WRONG!!!*...
> 
> *NEVER, EVER, DC AMPERAGE GETS MEASURED ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE POLE OF LOAD...AS THIS CURRENT...IS...NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS...THAN THE MANIFESTED CURRENT BACK TO BATTERY FROM MY MACHINE (THE EXCESS, THE RESIDUAL)...SINCE...CURRENT "MANIFESTS"...NEVER TRAVELS LIKE VOLTAGE DOES...WELL, IT MANIFESTS AS INPUT AS MY MOTOR REQUEST IT ONLY AT POSITIVE TERMINAL OF BATTERIES...NEVER AT NEGATIVE!*


The guy doesn't know basics of electricity yet professes to be some type of teacher and has poor guys like sampojo believing what he says. BTW, the quote is from http://www.energeticforum.com/219221-post3163.html I have been looking around that forum/thread trying to find one valid test. I have yet to see any.


----------



## GerhardRP (Nov 17, 2009)

Thanks Major,
For a larger rotary inverter, see: http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Rotary_Converter_Power_Technology
Gerhard


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I watched the video on Asymmetric Machines and the "Witch" of BEMF. Yes, his initial premise is wrong, and was similar to what I had incorrectly stated and now corrected. The difference in BEMF and applied EMF is imposed on the resistance of the windings and brushes, and determines the amount of current, which is generally proportional to torque. The BEMF voltage is proportional to speed, and torque times speed is power. Thus the drop in BEMF shows power losses and the ratio of BEMF to applied voltage is essentially the efficiency. 

The video was well-done visually as a work of art, but there are many grammatical and spelling mistakes that further detract from the obvious technical misrepresentation of known principles. The initial premise and the concluded 25% efficiency is easily refuted by simple testing of a motor, which is particularly easy for a DC machine. But it should also be obvious with a motor-generator set putting out 500 watts cannot be dissipating 1500 watts anywhere without producing a lot of heat.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

The public is easily fooled, as a whole are pretty ignorant, and desperate wanting to believe there is a conspiracy out there . This makes the Public an easy target and a great source of income. Like PT Barnum said: "*There is a Sucker Born Every Minute*" PT Barnum and his family are very rich. 

People who promote or believe in Unity Gain like HHO or other contraptions fall into 1 of 2 Categories:

1. Stupid and/or Ignorant. 
2. Part of the Scam like mechanics.

*So which categorize do you fall in? *

Most likely #2 trying to rip the public off and cheat them out of their money because the public at large falls into Category #1 which is tried-true-tested way to make a living. 

If #1 is pretty sad and pathetic.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

People hope and wish that conservation of energy is merely a theory rather than a law. Frauds take this hope and conflate it with the lie that big bad business interests suppress the technology that would set us free.

Give up, folks- you get back less than you put in. That's basic physics. Ain't no way around it- you cannot win. The very best you can do is try to waste as little as possible, especially of the high grade energy- work, or electricity- energy that can easily and efficiently be converted to work.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Guys,

For me, working on Tesla's work is fun and a great learning tool. From what I've seen from the Tesla 2 commutator motor, that I built, it performs just as good as anyother DC motor. 

Some of you guys know me. I wanted to build an ev back in the days but I was unhappy with the motors I could afford... So be cool, this is Midaz. 

This is just info.

I found Tesla's 2 commutator motors and I wanted to build one. So I did! It's 28poles, 4 stator, 8 brushes, 2 commutator motor & 20kg. I used 18 AGW wire @ 23 turns per coil with a max of 4 inputs.

From the light tests that I've done, No load:

1900rpms @ 12v
3600rpms @ 24v 
4900rpms @ 36v

What I can also tell you Is that each independent overlapping singular coil's timing is set 5° past *EVERY *stator bisector.(*there is an input at every stator).... 23 turns of 18 AWG is about 7meters long.... With 4 inputs, the torque is good. 
(*I need to use a thicker wire gauge*)

The motor is power hungry on 4 inputs but the motor can run on 1 input or 2 inputs or 3 inputs.... The system is very flexible. 

*Also,* what ever input that is not being used, produces energy... This is very important---> You can charge your batteries while driving. Yes, driving! That extends your range.

I know how to build these motors but I want some outside advice. I need some people with high skill levels to really look at Tesla's 2 commutator motors. 


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## z_power (Dec 17, 2011)

midaztouch said:


> You can charge your batteries while driving. Yes, driving! That extends your range.


What a great summary of 1000 earlier posts in this thread


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

z_power said:


> What a great summary of 1000 earlier posts in this thread


Z,

It is what it is! I don't like to waste time and I'm not here to BS anyone. Im telling you what I know, from what I've done on my own.

I'm asking you to look at what I actually have ALREADY BUILT in my house. It works and Im putting it on my Aprilia RS50.

I need you to look at this with an open mind but objectively! I'm not a professional EE.

For real

Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> I need you to look at this with an open mind but objectively! I'm not a professional EE.


If the energy to charge the battery comes from the battery, then you are moving electrons unnecesarily and making extra heat, and will get worse mileage.

I've yet to hear a single objective statement from the overunity crowd, or answer a direct question, but lots of false claims and "name" dropping, and that is uncool beyond measure.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> Guys,
> 
> For me, working on Tesla's work is fun and a great learning tool. From what I've seen from the Tesla 2 commutator motor, that I built, it performs just as good as anyother DC motor.


That's cool. Building motors is fun. And learning is good, when you learn correct and valid material. When you learn false and erroneous stuff, it is bad. That is the case here. This fellow Ufopolitics is teaching you lies and BS. You are a fool to believe and follow him.



midaztouch said:


> I found Tesla's 2 commutator motors and I wanted to build one. So I did! It's 28poles, 4 stator, 8 brushes, 2 commutator motor & 20kg. I used 18 AGW wire @ 23 turns per coil with a max of 4 inputs.


So here is an example of what you've learned incorrectly. The Tesla dual commutator converter behaves the same as any conventional dynamo and can be described by the same theory, equations and terminology. Your machine has one stator. It has 4 poles, or magnets, having 2 South poles and 2 North poles. The armature has 28 slots and teeth. It will be wound to 4 poles the same as its stator.

The reason you use the wrong terminology is your teacher does not know motor theory and has no knowledge of what he is talking about.



midaztouch said:


> From the light tests that I've done, No load:
> 
> 1900rpms @ 12v
> 3600rpms @ 24v
> 4900rpms @ 36v


These appear to be general or rounded numbers. The no load speed will be proportional to the applied voltage. The ratio is the motor's voltage constant, Kv. If the exact value at 12V is 1900RPM, then it will be 3800RPM at 24V and 5700RPM at 36V. You should also record the current draw (Amps) at each point.

The other important test to run at no load is to measure armature resistance. Since this is typically too low of an Ohmic value to register on a meter, lock the rotor and apply 1V and measure the current. Repeat with 2V. Then 3V. Use R = V / I (= Volts divided by Amps) to get the armature resistance. If the 3 values are slightly different, take the average. In your case, apply the voltage using the multiple inputs to the brushes tied together.



midaztouch said:


> *Also,* what ever input that is not being used, produces energy... This is very important---> You can charge your batteries while driving. Yes, driving! That extends your range.


The input not being used will have a voltage as it is connected to the commutator through a brush set. This is a voltage, not power, not energy. If you connect this to something which draws current, like to charge a battery, then it will take that current from the motor. So for every Watt you put into the the battery with this "unused input", your motor will take 1.2Watts more from the battery. So you used 1.2W from the battery to put in 1.0W. That is a loss. It will decrease your range, not increase it.

This is another lie which you have learned from Mr. Ufopolitics. Dump that teacher and read a text book on the subject.



midaztouch said:


> I know how to build these motors but I want some outside advice. I need some people with high skill levels to really look at Tesla's 2 commutator motors.


I am trying. Listen to me. And study the subject from text books and known reputable sources, not from anybody associated with over unity/free energy.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

it is so easy to fool people, photoshop (and video/sound equivelants) or just grainy videos and distractions, hidden power sources, etc. Everyone claiming they have defeated the laws of thermodynamics is full of crap.


This is one of my "faves"

watch this, see if you can waste years of your life figuring it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljKX9Om7Z4s


Then watch the giveaway and realize you wasted years of your life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-poc9JSHoWA

Objectively, why would there be so many downvotes on those videos? Because people are out of their minds.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Dcb, thank you- I loved that!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

here is another one, but the guy isn't claiming it to be fake (indeed he says he has no idea how it works (he does), yet leaves us with "if it is too good to be true, it usually is").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBMKZqNE7OE

But it is obvious he switched boards between cuts (presumably to one with an internal supply), and his other videos are pretty inane. So it is mostly about click counts and ad revenue I guess. He is an idiot, only fooling other idiots.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> I need you to look at this with an open mind but objectively! I'm not a professional EE.


That is obvious, nor are you an EE or even a technician. Otherwise you would know what you are saying is complete nonsense. As stated before anyone who claims of over unity falls into 1 of 2 categories.

1. Ignorant fool.
2. A Con Artist or Scammer trying to cheat people out of money. 

You stated you are not here to sell anything. so that makes you an Ignorant Fool.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

It would have been more convincing if they had allowed the light to very slowly fade so you would not suspect any foul play and play it off as an energy extender rather than perpetual.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

onegreenev said:


> It would have been more convincing if they had allowed the light to very slowly fade so you would not suspect any foul play and play it off as an energy extender rather than perpetual.


Hah, I'd have gradually turned it up until the bulb burnt out... that's way more enticing.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

samwichse said:


> Hah, I'd have gradually turned it up until the bulb burnt out... that's way more enticing.


That works too. 😜


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Z,
> 
> It is what it is! I don't like to waste time and I'm not here to BS anyone. Im telling you what I know, from what I've done on my own.
> 
> ...


I'm sure most of us would be much kinder and more helpful if you could post some relevant data that shows what you believe to be over unity operation (or even a huge boost in efficiency). It's not difficult for a DC motor, although if you are using a PWM controller some meters can give an incorrect or misleading reading.

It is very important to have at least a solid understanding of energy, voltage, current, and electrical power, as well as the physical equivalents in a motor which include speed, torque, and rotational inertia. Magnetism is a bit more difficult to understand, but consider the fact that it does not take any power to create a magnetic field in an electromagnet, as demonstrated by superconductor coils, so there is no different "magic" in a permanent magnet.

The RPM figures for your motor show that there are additional losses at higher speeds, which can be because of inefficient commutation or "windage" from the rotation of the armature or rotor acting as a fan and thus performing work. DC motors commonly have a "KV" factor which is RPM per volt.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

hollowed out base has battery in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izvitxGgZiQ


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Sunking said:


> That is obvious, nor are you an EE or even a technician. Otherwise you would know what you are saying is complete nonsense. As stated before anyone who claims of over unity falls into 1 of 2 categories.
> 
> 1. Ignorant fool.
> 2. A Con Artist or Scammer trying to cheat people out of money.
> ...


Dude,

You a senior member. Please act like one. This type of bullying/down talk is not what we do on this forum.

Thank you 
Midaz


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Thank you guys for talking to me. 

I will start the simplest motor for collecting Data, a 3pole, 2 stator motor. Imagine the 3 pole rotor & shaft . It has commutator #1 on the right shaft side of the motor and commitator #2 on the left side. 

*WIND*
1.) Start at comm#1 
2.) wind coil with a North field facing out. Wind one pole. (Per right hand rule)
3.) finish the north coil by connecting to comm #2 which is parallel to comm #1.(each comm is Straight across from eachother)
4.) finish the other 2 coils in the same fashion. Done.
*Each coil is an independent circuit*

_The coil timing is set 5° past the *SOUTH stator bisector*
_


This is Tesla's patented 3 pole, 2 commutator motor. It's a simple DC Motor. 

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Pete sent me a nice detailed mail. 

Pete, is it ok for me to post it or can you post it?


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> Thank you guys for talking to me.
> 
> I will start the simplest motor for collecting Data, a 3pole, 2 stator motor. Imagine the 3 pole rotor & shaft . It has commutator #1 on the right shaft side of the motor and commitator #2 on the left side.
> 
> ...


Please show me where Tesla patented a 3 pole, 2 commutator motor. It is not Patent 390414 which was the subject of discussion before.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> Please show me where Tesla patented a 3 pole, 2 commutator motor. It is not Patent 390414 which was the subject of discussion before.


Major

Thank you for your awesome post earlier. I got some valuable info from it.

Let's think about it. Yes, Tesla made most of his inventions in his mind but he had to start at the beginning just like everyone else... A 3pole to collect data. 

The 3 pole is my conclusion on Tesla's 2 comm motors. He had to! It's the simplest form to see if it works!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> Major
> 
> Thank you for your awesome post earlier. I got some valuable info from it.
> 
> ...


Do you not read and understand my posts? It is a 2 pole motor with a 3 slot armature. And if you do not have a document from Mr. Tesla, do not put words in his mouth. So the following statement is a complete fabrication, correct? 


midaztouch said:


> This is Tesla's patented 3 pole, 2 commutator motor.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> Do you not read and understand my posts? It is a 2 pole motor with a 3 slot armature. And if you do not have a document from Mr. Tesla, do not put words in his mouth. So the following statement is a complete fabrication, correct?


Major


Ok, I see what your saying..... It is a 2 pole(magnet) motor with a 3 slot armature.


The 3 teeth/slot armature thought is my own personal observation... Tesla had to work on a 3 slot armature, just like everyone else has to do to start collecting simple data. Is that common sence/usual/fair to say?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Guys

*Midaz said nothing about Overunity!... Please remember that fact!*

I'm sharing/telling you what I see from what I've done on my own.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I found another place where Midaztouch linked to some of UFO's videos:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renew...en-teslas-gift-electromagnetic-reactor-3.html

Here is a video showing, supposedly, a dynamometer test on a motor with 5.1 HP in and 5.3 HP out:





 
Set the time frame to 3:47 or so for the conclusion. I think the error is due to the assumption that the pound readings of two scales on either side of the pulley should be added to get total force, but instead they should be subtracted. This can be proven by trying this with the pulley stopped, and both scales will read the same, indicating a radial force on the shaft but zero torque, since there is no rotation. So the input power is 33.6V * 114A = 3830W = 5.13 HP. The output torque is based on 35.6-6.7 = 28.9 lb at a radius of 1.33/pi*2 = 0.21 ft * 28.9 lb at 3146 RPM = 19245 / 5252 = 3.66 HP or an efficiency of 71.4%, and not the 104% claimed.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> I found another place where Midaztouch linked to some of UFO's videos:
> 
> http://www.energeticforum.com/renew...en-teslas-gift-electromagnetic-reactor-3.html
> 
> ...


* Don't try to put works in my mouth! I didn't link any of his vids! Plus, I don't like dude!

I already know about his unaccurate test. I already told him personally and so have others, about his testing mistakes... Also, the RPM reading was wrong. *


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

_*Let's stay focused on the 2 magnet, 3 teeth/slot armature motor!*_


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> Major
> 
> 
> Ok, I see what your saying..... It is a 2 pole(magnet) motor with a 3 slot armature.
> ...





midaztouch said:


> Is that common sence/usual/fair to say?


No, it is still too much of an assumption on your part about Tesla. Please supply the Tesla documents or the source you use for this and where you obtained your wiring scheme.

The Tesla Patent 390414 shows Gramme ring armatures which have no slots.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> Guys
> 
> *Midaz said nothing about Overunity!... Please remember that fact!*
> 
> I'm sharing/telling you what I see from what I've done on my own.


This statement by you implies that your devices takes energy from the battery and puts more energy back into the battery thereby fitting the definition of an over unity device. 



midaztouch said:


> *Also,* what ever input that is not being used, produces energy... This is very important---> You can charge your batteries while driving. Yes, driving! That extends your range.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> This statement by you implies that your devices takes energy from the battery and puts more energy back into the battery thereby fitting the definition of an over unity device.


I don't know! I didn't say overunity.

I'm telling you what I know...

Does the coil store a charge after it has been energized?

Keep to the 3 teeth/pole/slot armature motor example.



> Thank you guys for talking to me.
> 
> I will start the simplest motor for collecting Data, a 3pole, 2 stator motor. Imagine the 3 pole rotor & shaft . It has commutator #1 on the right shaft side of the motor and commitator #2 on the left side.
> 
> ...


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is what tesla patented.

Anyway, keep it simple. the number of commutators/poles/slots has nothing to do with it.

A magnetic field isn't power, it is a potential coupling.

If you pass a conductor through a magnetic field you can generate power. 

If you pass current through a conductor that is near a magnet, you can create motion.

With resistance and drag and lots of other losses, these motion-energy conversions are never %100 efficient (%100 being unity). 

the more electrical load on a generator, the harder it is to turn the generator.

The more mechanical load on a motor, the more electrical power it takes (i.e. for a given rpm).

what are you hoping isn't true? Or don't understand? Where exactly is this range increasing power supposed to come from? 

If you lose energy as a motor and again as a generator, then put that back into the battery somehow, to go through the whole cycle again, it is going to really really suck efficiency wise.

I think you might be taking the suggestion that experimenting is "cool" and ignoring the part where this experiment is rediculous, and has been for many decades.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

I told him to do the experiments with a real load on the motor and generator to see what happens. I told him to write his hypothesis then his write his experiment for that hypothesis and then be sure to document and video everything. Document very meticulous and be sure the experiment is not a jumbled mess on the garage floor with crappy video. Be clean, concise and most of all the experiment is not to prove or disprove. it is to gather information and the information is what answers the hypothesis and the experiment must be reproducible by someone else following the pattern given. 

The experiment can't be subjective. It must be well planned out and most of all with a real load on the motor and generator at the same time and with proper tools to for reading voltage and amperage in and out on both the motor and generator end of the experiment. 

Only in this way will he KNOW. If he injects his subjective thoughts it has failed. Just to do the work. If someone suggests that he need to change how or to make it easier then accept the knowledge of those that DO know. 

I will put no more into this until the experiment is completed and the results presented. 

This is for his education.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> Nobody in their right mind thinks that is what tesla patented.
> 
> Anyway, keep it simple. the number of commutators/poles/slots has nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...


DCB

We are all adults here and I'm 45yrs old. Be respectful with your wording. This is a civilized conversation. I'm new to motor building. I built a Tesla motor because it's an interesting hobby! Further more, I DIDNT say its overunity! You guys and Sampojo did!

I'm asking for some clarification/a better understanding on this simple 3 "teeth/pole/armature slot", 2 commutator, 2 magnet, 4 brushes DC motor(brushes set 180° parallel on both comms)... 


Keep it Simple! You have a singular coil in the middle of a commutator on the left side and a commutator on the right shaft side. The commutator segments are parallel. 

When that coil is activated/energized, the right shaft side comm is the positve brush and the left side comm is is the negative brush. Coil rotates then disconnects from the brushes. ... Is there any energy left in that coil? Is it stored or dissipates in a 180° rotation before it comes in contact with the next set of brushes?

Remember all 3 coils are independant from eachother. The 3 coils are 3 independent circuits.


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

_*I don't have any props for an example or CADs. I will make a quick simple vid. Maybe that will help for better understanding.*_


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Midaz

Here is a really easy way to check efficiency
Wasted energy almost always appears as heat (I can't think of any time when a significant amount of wasted energy appears as anything else except in nuclear reactions)

So check the temperature of your motor before and after your tests,
You will find that a normal DC motor is converting about 90% of the input energy to power and 10% to heat
(if you lock it in place then 100% will go to heat)

That gives you a good starting point - and easily explains why people claiming any more than about a 5% increase in efficiency have done something wrong!

You get the same with rotary engine enthusiasts (IC Engines) who don't realize that for all of its up and down motion reciprocating engines are only losing a tiny amount of power in the motion - 1% maybe - so eliminating the inelegent up and down does not buy you much


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

How can you tell me to be careful with my wording when you have been so incredibly sloppy? You did make overunity claims, like it or not.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

dcb said:


> How can you tell me to be careful with my wording when you have been so incredibly sloppy? You did make overunity claims, like it or not.


Yeah, he seems to have a short fuse and shorter memory. He complained when I posted a video he linked in his own post on that other forum, saying I was "putting words in his mouth" or something. I looked through more of the thread and it seems that he is questioning the claims of UFO and others who are over unity fee energy nutters, but he still seems to be confused about basic electrical and magnetic principles. 

As for the energy stores in a coil, that is determined by the current and the inductance, both of which are changing as the rotor turns in the magnetic field of the stator and the commutator(s) perform their switching function. Most of the energy is transferred as power to the output shaft in an efficient motor, and most of the losses are I^2R due to finite winding resistance. A motor is very similar to a transformer, and its efficiency is comparable, being about 70% for small motors and transformers, and approaching 98% for those in the hundred kilowatt realm.

I don't really know if Midaztouch is serious about learning electronics and motor theory, or if he has an "agenda" to promote some miraculous and mysterious concept that can greatly increase efficiency. The fact is that motors are already easily 90-96% efficient in normal use, and even cutting losses in half will only make that 95% to 98% efficient. Since most of the power and energy to propel a vehicle is determined by mass, acceleration, friction, and aerodynamic drag, the motor is no longer the target for obtaining improved performance and range. So, statements that claim to "double" the range with an improved motor are simply impossible because it would require an "over unity" machine.

There may well be forces and sources of energy that could be tapped without using fossil fuels or nuclear reactors, and not the usual solar, wind, and geothermal. I think Tesla had some good ideas about tapping into the ionosphere and transmitting and receiving power through that medium, but these little "basement experiments" are nothing like that. 

Midaztouch would do well to set up an experiment to measure the actual efficiency of a stock DC motor, and then perform whatever improvements might be possible and using the same criteria to prove the claims of a better design. But, as in the BTO song, "I ain't seen nuthin' yet".


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Don't have CAD or 3 teeth motor... This vid is all shits and giggles for me! But this is what I'm seeing! 

I made the worst vid ever! and I want the YT award for it! Lol

Averyone needs a good laugh every now and then! After you stop laughing...

Sorry guys, this is way to pitiful but im going to use my masterpiece!Hahaha

Hope this helps!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb47HpbiA40

Don't laugh too hard! You might miss the important key points!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> Yeah, he seems to have a short fuse and shorter memory. He complained when I posted a video he linked in his own post on that other forum, saying I was "putting words in his mouth" or something. I looked through more of the thread and it seems that he is questioning the claims of UFO and others who are over unity fee energy nutters, but he still seems to be confused about basic electrical and magnetic principles.
> 
> As for the energy stores in a coil, that is determined by the current and the inductance, both of which are changing as the rotor turns in the magnetic field of the stator and the commutator(s) perform their switching function. Most of the energy is transferred as power to the output shaft in an efficient motor, and most of the losses are I^2R due to finite winding resistance. A motor is very similar to a transformer, and its efficiency is comparable, being about 70% for small motors and transformers, and approaching 98% for those in the hundred kilowatt realm.
> 
> ...


*Thank You!*

This is what I want to get from you guys! Everything boils down to this 3 circuit motor. It is the basic and simplest 2 comm motors! 

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

I'm not joking/don't need condescending posts. I'm seriously trying to get to the bottom of this. That's why I came here. I needed fresh eyes with wisdom.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Duncan said:


> Hi Midaz
> 
> Here is a really easy way to check efficiency
> Wasted energy almost always appears as heat (I can't think of any time when a significant amount of wasted energy appears as anything else except in nuclear reactions)
> ...


Hey Duncan!

The motor coils are cold/room temp at 12v & 24v. No load for 20 mins.
I did the temp check the old fashion way... Lick the finger and the touch the wire coils!lol
The comms were hot though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WtVyZtZEss4

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Yeah, the tuna fish can motor model is pretty funny, but I think I see what you are saying. However, you should use the proper terminology, so rather than "energy flow" the only things in a motor are voltages (between two points), current (through a conductor), and magnetic fields. Energy may be stored (as current in an inductance), transferred (to the rotor shaft as mechanical power) or dissipated (as heat).

There will be voltage induced in the non-energized windings and this will appear on the second pair of brushes. But unless the circuit is closed and current can flow, there is no power and no energy transfer. Power is just the rate of energy transfer from one form to another. If you connect a load on those brushes, it will create a force, or torque, that opposes the rotation of the motor and slows it down or extracts more energy from the source.

TANSTAAFL!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

saw the video, ok, so what is the experiment? you've described a rather wonky motor generator, where part of the rotor is driving, and part is driven. 

What do you think is going to be the result when you put electrical load on the second brush set and mechanical load on the shaft? Indeed, how do you expect to actually "push" energy back into the battery? Generators typically put out less volts than they take as motors.

Do you have a calibrated dynomometer to measure the shaft power, so you can compare it to the total volts/amps coming out of the battery and determine efficiency?


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Ok, now that you seen the soon to be a YT classic, "Tuna Cans Motor".

1.) What happens to the CEMF?
2.) Do you think the gen brushes are totally independant from the input brushes?
3.) Is this a true motor/generator?
4.) Is there energy stored in the coil then released into the gen brushes?
5.) are the permanent magnets producing a voltage on the coils?

Look at my crazy vid again, then give me your honest opinion on what I'm seeing!


I don't have test equipment. I just know it works. And I built my own version, A1Mo-Gen, with I believe is Tesla's original work. That guy over there went nuts when I made & released the A1Mo-Gen Tesla motor! 



> What do you think is going to be the result when you put electrical load on the second brush set and mechanical load on the shaft?


 When you use the second brush as an input, it increases in torque and RPMs. 
When you use the second brush as an generator output, it charges a battery supply/caps bank.




> There will be voltage induced in the non-energized windings and this will appear on the second pair of brushes. But unless the circuit is closed and current can flow, there is no power and no energy transfer. Power is just the rate of energy transfer from one form to another.


The comm segments are the circuit "switches". When the coil is disconnected from the power supply via comm segment... Is there energy stored in that coil? 





> If you connect a load on those brushes, it will create a force, or torque, that opposes the rotation of the motor and slows it down or extracts more energy from the source.


 I will adress this at a later date. But for now.... Here's a tesla 3 teeth motor in action. It slows down when it charging. 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8dZz05oC-90



Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I don't know a lot about DC motors, kinda jumped into this when AC became feasable for DIY. But I *think* that the commutator/brush interface means that it doesn't have a spike, as the commutator gap swings across the brush face it sees increasing resistance do to being exposed to a smaller area, and any potential difference with the incoming commutator would create current within the brush (wich sees decreasing resistance), perhaps a small effect.

Anyway, looking at: http://www.pcbheaven.com/wikipages/How_DC_Motors_Work/

has two pictures of interest below. The coils are wound in "delta" in terms I understand, and presumably reconfiguring the coils as you are proposing will have an effect on the kv rating, and without nobody in the whole of "tesla " <barf> motordom even acknowledging the need for a dynamometer in any worthwhile motor efficiency experiments, it makes me wonder what they have been doing for so many years.










I have done a number of simulations with AC motors, where you can do whatever you want with a coil at any time instead of relying on brush timing and overlap, using various configurations, and there is no free lunch. You shut off the coil, and you get an inductive voltage reversal that feeds through the diode and completes the circuit for the coil (not unlike a buck converter).

There may be something particularly crappy about a 3 bar 2 pole motor also. As well, a de-energizing coil will also interact with the magnets, as it appears as relative motion, lines of flux are changing.

But bottom line in terms of setting up an "experiment", no way of accurately measuring shaft power? not a motor efficiency experiment.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> When you use the second brush as an generator output, it charges a battery supply/caps bank.


This might be, but not the battery which is powering the device in the first place. So when you go further and claim it will extend EV range, as in your quote below, it becomes a claim of over unity and hence belongs in our special place, this thread. 



midaztouch said:


> *Also,* what ever input that is not being used, produces energy... This is very important---> You can charge your batteries while driving. Yes, driving! That extends your range.


And, again, please answer this question. Why do you attribute that design to Tesla? I can not find any legitimate reference to Tesla having ever recorded or built a device wired like what you describe. Where did you come up with your armature coil connection scheme? 

Also, what is your objective in using a "different" motor other than a convention one for your electric motorcycle build?

From some of the video of your motorcycle motor, it appears to be a 28 slot 4 pole PM motor of 5.56 inch diameter frame. I have had some experience with these or very similar motors. They used ceramic magnets. At 36V, the continuous rating was less than 1 hp (750W). They were not durable and failure prone with overload as will be seen accelerating the vehicle mass. Any brushed PM motor is a poor choice for an EV larger than a toy in my opinion. This motor is a particularly bad application. Even if you can somehow improve the motor with more copper, it will disappoint you on that bike.

I again suggest you study some established motor theory. Text books are great places for this. Here is a short treatment which would be helpful to you. http://www.reliance.com/mtr/mtrthrmn.htm You can answer many of your questions with that material and Faraday's Law in particular.

Good luck,

major


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

#1









#2









Since we are dealing with 4 Brushes & 2 commutator motor is best for the images to be displayed like this. *Thank you for the link!*


From the images above can we agree that the top brush pair and the bottom brush pair are totally 100% independent from each other in both images #1 & #2!?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

simply duplicating the image didn't do much for me, the field connections are still wrong. 


Anyway, the red brushes are isolated from the blue brushes (except for magnetic couplings). So what? The brushes would be isolated if you had a regular motor driving a regular generator.


How are you going to measure shaft power? Is there any point to your experiment if you don't figure that out?


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> This might be, but not the battery which is powering the device in the first place. So when you go further and claim it will extend EV range, as in your quote below, it becomes a claim of over unity and hence belongs in our special place, this thread.
> 
> *I agree with you, that's why it's here... BUT my EV build is just another conversion.*
> 
> ...


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

saying it is a tesla design is a childish appeal to authority. The commutation scheme is entirely different. It is a bold faced lie, think about that.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> saying it is a tesla design is a childish appeal to authority. The commutation scheme is entirely different. It is a bold faced lie, think about that.


*You can ONLY wind a 3 slot, 2 commutator motor one way! No mater how you slice it, both comms on one side or on either sides of the shaft! Tesla's motor is 2 comms.
The OU community all Agrees! ...You Think about that...
*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> *ONLY wind a 3 slot, 2 commutator motor one way! No mater how you slice it, both comms on one side or on either sides of the shaft! Think about it... Tesla's motor is 2 comms. The OU community all Agrees!
> *


It isn't 3 slot, it is 2 slot, and has slip rings. So you are saying the OU community is all idiots too, glad we agree on something.

"ooh it has wires, it must be a tesla design!"


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> The brushes would be isolated if you had a regular motor driving a regular generator.


Exactly. The top input brush pair's coils(motor) are independant from the from the bottom output brush pair's coils(generator).


Now explain the CEMF in this motor, A1Mo-Gen, to me.



Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> It isn't 3 slot, it is 2 slot, and has slip rings. So you are saying the OU community is all idiots too, glad we agree on something.
> 
> "ooh it has wires, it must be a tesla design!"


Since you disagree with them, Go tell they your thoughts. You know the page! LoL
Here is simple and peaceful everyday! Over there is the Wild Wild West!
I don't think you can handle the OU crowd. You have been here too long and your soft now!
They will tear you apart! LOL ...jokes! Hahaha... Or is it!?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I found this image (attached, not really the same thing as the dual comm as it is 2 slot 4 comm), cross referenced to every patent image filed by tesla in 1888 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents

Tesla did not patent anything with that image in 1888.

You have all been fooled on such a gigantic scale. Never bothered to look at the original patent from an independant source. appeal to authority is the oldest trick in the book.

And I'm not foolish enough to ignore the possibility that you aren't here for linkbacks or clickbait (or more chum), or you are another idiot. I don't see any other possibilities.

edit: strange you would endorce a "wild west" forum, after acting all butthurt earlier.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

#1









#2









Since we are dealing with 4 Brushes & 2 commutator motor is best for the images to be displayed like this. *Thank you for the link!*


From the images above can we agree that the top brush pair and the bottom brush pair are totally 100% independent from each other in both images #1 & #2!?



dcb said:


> The brushes would be isolated if you had a regular motor driving a regular generator.


Exactly. The top input brush pair's coils(motor red circle brushes) are independant from the from the bottom output brush pair's coils(generator blues circle brushes).


Now explain the CEMF in this motor, A1Mo-Gen, to me.



Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

*Wild Wild West is for the REAL fighting!!! Go talk your talk over there and you'll see the WWWest!

If you can answer the Cemf question, it would be helpful.*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> Now explain the CEMF in this motor, A1Mo-Gen, to me.


First you explain why measuring shaft power (and battery power) is necessary, and how you intend to do so.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Now explain the CEMF in this motor, A1Mo-Gen, to me.
> 
> If you can answer the Cemf question. I would be helpful.[/COLOR][/I][/B]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force

There you go.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

samwichse said:


> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force
> 
> There you go.


Thanks but we are talking about the CEMF in the 2 commutator, 4 brush, 3 teeth A1Mo-Gen motor


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> First you explain why measuring shaft power (and battery power) is necessary, and how you intend to do so.


I don't know! Please, tell me about the CEMF in the A1Mo-Gen... I'm confused!???

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> I don't know! Please, tell me about the CEMF in the A1Mo-Gen... I'm confused!???


<measuring shaft power> is important, because that is how you determine efficiency (again 100% is unity, and is not achievable).

Actually ufopolitics did come up with a reasonable setup (if you trust all his measurements), but thought he could fool everyone into thinking he achieved overunity (never retracted it when corrected), really I think this is your whole motivation, and to say it is misguided is the understatement of the year.

There are so many layers of misconception upon misconception, yet consciously or subconsciously folks still "want to believe". Do like major said and read a damn book/pdf on the subject. My only interest in this is the psychology of it at this point. It must be such a thrill for him to screw with so many people.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

This was interesting for awhile, but now it has become tedious and frustrating. Seems that Midaztouch is hung up on isolated windings and multiple sets of commutators and now is asking us to explain the BEMF (or CEMF) of his own A1Mo-Gen design. That's not what we do. It's up to you to provide details of your design and test data and we might be able to explain why you are seeing a certain level of performance. I'm not interested in arguing with starry-eyed devotees of the pseudo-Tesla religion. I have encountered people with firmly held illogical and irrational beliefs in politics, economics, AGW denier "science", dog training, and religion, and it seems their minds have closed to any evidence contrary to their beliefs, and they manufacture an enormous amount of dogma accompanied by emotional fervor trying to perpetuate their claims and attract more "converts".

So, unless I see some actual schematics, drawings, pictures, video, and test results, other than the crap so far presented, I'm done with this. Good luck with your motorcycle. And, BTW, how is an electric bike limited by the 50cc parameter? And why is the full-size vehicle test so difficult that you failed? I got my motorcycle license in 1966 when I was just 17, and I don't know why it should be that difficult, unless Japan has some very complex requirements.

[edit] I searched for A1Mo-Gen and found some videos that seem to be yours, and this seems to be your channel (Richard Batts):
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsmKwTXSsZ9bCmgYOeKkv-A

I didn't watch them all, but they only seem to show a DC motor running on battery power with no load and RPM measurements of 1200 to 4900 RPM with voltages of 12 to 36 VDC. Without current measurement there is not much to comment on, and without load and torque measurement there is no way to even estimate its output power or efficiency. It's not that hard to read the torque. You could even use a torque wrench and apply a variable voltage until you reach a current similar to what you expect at rated power, so if it's a 1 HP motor (750 watts) designed for 36 volts, that would be about 20 amps. The torque should be 1 * 5252 / 4900 = 1.07 lb-ft. You could also hang a 1 pound weight on a 1 foot bar horizontally attached to the shaft and raise the current until the weight is lifted. Or you can attach a spring scale similar to those used in UFO's video and see how the torque increases with current. A DC motor will usually have maximum torque under locked rotor conditions but it should remain fairly constant up to maybe half of rated RPM. There may also be variation in torque depending on the relative position of the rotor and stator, and that is a good measurement to make. When running, this produces "torque ripple", which is minimized in well-built motors with lots of poles and commutator segments. AC motors often use a "skew" in the rotor laminations, and possibly in DC motors as well.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

The void tests you are showins are from 2 yrs ago. Things have change a lot since then. Lol

The A1Mo-Gen is infront of you! What's up with the CEMF!?

You 2 guys seem to know it all, so please explain the CEMF in the A1Mo-Gen.
If you can


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> The void tests you are showins are from 2 yrs ago. Things have change a lot since then. Lol
> 
> The A1Mo-Gen is infront of you! What's up with the CEMF!?
> 
> ...


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force

There you go again.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> This was interesting for awhile, but now it has become tedious and frustrating. Seems that Midaztouch is hung up on isolated windings and multiple sets of commutators and now is asking us to explain the BEMF (or CEMF) of his own A1Mo-Gen design. That's not what we do. It's up to you to provide details of your design and test data and we might be able to explain why you are seeing a certain level of performance. I'm not interested in arguing with starry-eyed devotees of the pseudo-Tesla religion. I have encountered people with firmly held illogical and irrational beliefs in politics, economics, AGW denier "science", dog training, and religion, and it seems their minds have closed to any evidence contrary to their beliefs, and they manufacture an enormous amount of dogma accompanied by emotional fervor trying to perpetuate their claims and attract more "converts".
> 
> So, unless I see some actual schematics, drawings, pictures, video, and test results, other than the crap so far presented, I'm done with this. Good luck with your motorcycle. And, BTW, how is an electric bike limited by the 50cc parameter? And why is the full-size vehicle test so difficult that you failed? I got my motorcycle license in 1966 when I was just 17, and I don't know why it should be that difficult, unless Japan has some very complex requirements.
> 
> ...


I don't have test equipment. I used people to check the torque. 

Im 220 pounds and the motorcycle shop staff is 185lbs. One person held the motor down and the other tried to stop the motor by standing on the key shaft @ 12v 17ah old, can't take a full charge, lead acid battery...

Guys, the motor would not STOP/stall!!! I can easily say, with out a shadow of doubt, 100%, ABSOLUTLY positive, the torque is over 50lbs.

I'm telling you what I see!

Keep it Clean and Green
Richard Batts*

and Yes, you must take a written and driving test, AGAIN! for anything over 50cc in Japan. 
Hence, the Aprilia RS 50*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you are just a scammer.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

If you don't use proper equipment to do a proper test and experiment its all just BS. 

Standing on a motor proves nothing and how the hell does one extrapolate 50 lb ft of torque from not being able to stand on it and stop it? Very scientific. 

Im done. 

Im calling this just plain BS. 

I told you what you need to do. If you don't no one will take you seriously.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> I don't have test equipment.
> 
> I'm telling you what I see!


Which is the problem. You are telling us what you want us to hear, not what is really happening.

That makes you a SNAKE OIL SALESMAN. 1 Big fat liar and a con artist. Really you need to go away. You are just embarrassing yourself here and to stupid to know it.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Sunking said:


> Which is the problem. You are telling us what you want us to hear, not what is really happening.
> 
> That makes you a SNAKE OIL SALESMAN. 1 Big fat liar and a con artist. Really you need to go away. You are just embarrassing yourself here and to stupid to know it.


What am I selling!? I'm not embarrassed and obviously I'm smarter than you are!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you can't measure torque or current, not too bright...


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> If you don't use proper equipment to do a proper test and experiment its all just BS.
> 
> Standing on a motor proves nothing and how the hell does one extrapolate 50 lb ft of torque from not being able to stand on it and stop it? Very scientific.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I don't have any test equipment. And yes I know the Scientific part!


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> you are just a scammer.


Since your so smart, I only asked you to explain the CEMF in the motor!?

Why can't you explain it!?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> Since your so smart, I only asked you to explain the CEMF in the motor!?


Because it has been explained, countless times, it is exactly how you can generate output voltage and current with that doohickey, it is just conductors and magnets and motion. Why don't you do some explaining?

think about this:

watts are electrical power, it is volts X amps.

there are 746 watts in one mechanical horsepower

horsepower is 550 foot-pounds per second (1 hp can lift 550 lbs 1 foot in 1 second, or 1lb 550 feet in one second, or any permutation thereof).

in terms of torque (US measures) HP=(torque in foot lbs * RPM) / 5252

you measure the hp out of the motor, compare it to the watts from the battery, and you do so carefully and repeatably and accurately, the ratio of power out/power in tells you the efficiency.

Anything you "see" that doesn't account for all of that, is just useless garbage.

Do you agree? If you don't have the equipment, or the knowledge, you can't make any useful claims.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> you can't measure torque or current, not too bright...


What I can tell you in the A1Mo-Gen, I made.

23turns of 18awg at 7meters per coil = 4amp... no heat

One input brush pair usually contacts 2 coils = 8amps... No heat

Four input brush pairs = 32 amps... No heat

Check it on a voltage drop calulator!

24v x 32amps = a 1 hp electric motor for a 50cc bike that my wife will drive to the food store and daily thing. It's all that I need!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

see my previous post, you are not "seeing" so much of the picture, or incapable of putting it into a coherent form, and since OU is your authority, you are probably too far gone till you want to learn how it actually works. You are too convinced you are on to something, that isn't really sciencing and performing unbiased and thorough testing.

BEMF isn't a handicap. If you have to put more volts in for a given current, to make more rpm at a given torqe, it all balances out. power in vs power out, for the most part.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> Because it has been explained, countless times, it is exactly how you can generate output voltage and current with that doohickey, it is just conductors and magnets and motion. Why don't you do some explaining?
> 
> think about this:
> 
> ...


I told you what I see. That's all. I'm building an electrical motorcycle for my wife to go shopping in town! She loves her Aprilia RS50! Its the perfect size for her. And I handmade, my first handmade motor, the only motor I've ever made is for her bike! It's an awesome gift and she is super excited! 

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

see previous post, don't care who is using it or why. Only what you "believe" you have created or are in the process of creating. And nothing in your response shows the slightest bit of comprehension.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Ladies,

Please don't fight over me!LOL

I've explained the A1Mo-Gen as best as I could. It's a nonconventional DC motor and from what I see, it works fine. I don't care about your perfect Scientific tests BS. 

I have to put the bike together! We can BS and shoot the shit some more on the main EV Build page! Let's get this EV bike rolling!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

*On the forum build page, I want to name the bike "Controversy". It seems to be a fitting name!!! Hahaha*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> I don't care about your perfect Scientific tests BS.


If you make claims, you need to back them up, or you are just talking out your ass.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> I don't care about your perfect Scientific tests BS.


You should care because if you don't you will get no where. So I will then say. Put the damn thing on your motor cycle and then try to charge your battery while driving it. That is all that you need to do. You don't need us to verify anything because we won't. You get to do that. We have told you and yet YOU continue to put us off. 


Ive told you what to do. Its simple and easy and will confirm exactly what we have all been talking about here. We won't give you answers you can learn yourself. This is a site about building electric vehicles. 

If you have a vehicle to build then by all means do so and join in. But don't flood us with this nonsense.

My suggestion is to build a small vehicle like a bicycle or something with a small version of your setup and see exactly what happens before you spend a crap load of money on something we have told you does not work as you expect it to work.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Ladies,
> 
> Please don't fight over me!LOL
> 
> ...


If you don't understand it how can you explain it. You can't. All you are doing is parroting someone else. You MUST be able to understand how it works. It is up to you. We won't hold your hand. If you don't like our method then its time to part ways. Right?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> If you make claims, you need to back them up, or you are just talking out your ass.


Absolutely. If you make the claim it is up to YOU to prove the claim. No one else.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> You should care because if you don't you will get no where. So I will then say. Put the damn thing on your motor cycle and then try to charge your battery while driving it. That is all that you need to do. You don't need us to verify anything because we won't. You get to do that. We have told you and yet YOU continue to put us off.
> 
> 
> Ive told you what to do. Its simple and easy and will confirm exactly what we have all been talking about here. We won't give you answers you can learn yourself. This is a site about building electric vehicles.
> ...



Yes, your right! I do care about the test. The problem is that I don't have the proper test equipment.

I've paid attention to every test detailed that was recorded. I studied all the ups and downs. Then I decided to do my own thing. And the A1Mo-Gen is my own thing!

I made the best motor that I could from the test results and using OEM standard specifications... Then connected it to batteries. It does what I knew it would do, no heat, good torque and good RPMs @ 24v and 32 - 50amps!

As far as money goes, I usually spend less than what I can afford and that goes for this project also. Don't worry about me, Sir! I'm a big boy now!lol

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> Yes, your right! I do care about the test. The problem is that I don't have the proper test equipment.


But you are making claims, and not substantiating them.

Anyway you are messing with the KV rating of the motor. More than a few DIY'ers were suprised by crappy performance by not accounting for the performance characteristics of their motor. 

So you are adding variables on top of variables, none of which you seem to understand.

Don't make claims you can't back up. You say this is "your thing" but it was obviously copied from the OU crowd, with the hope of being something it isn't, and absolutely %100 guaranteed worse than it was if you ever try to draw electrical power from it while motoring.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> And yes I know the Scientific part!


If you understood the Science, you would know your claims are impossible.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> But you are making claims, and not substantiating them.
> 
> Anyway you are messing with the KV rating of the motor. More than a few DIY'ers were suprised by crappy performance by not accounting for the performance characteristics of their motor.
> 
> ...


It's just a cheap DC motor. I was with the OU group since the beginning, over 2yrs! 

The A1Mo-Gen work fine! And for a new $300 motor you can't beat it!!! 

Stop being a hater and be a congratulator!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

*Sampojo, this is why you have to "Spoon Feed" the builders on main stream forms... They cry like babies if you don't! *


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> 24v x 32amps = a 1 hp electric motor for a 50cc bike that my wife will drive to the food store and daily thing.


No Sir, 24 volts @ 32 amps is 1 hp input. Since no motor is 100% efficient means it is less than 1 hp output.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> be a congratulator!



Congrats, that your wife apparently can't pass the driving test either?!?


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Sunking said:


> If you understood the Science, you would know your claims are impossible.
> 
> No Sir, 24 volts @ 32 amps is 1 hp input.


Dude,

You need a hug and drink more water! Cause, you got problems!


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> Congrats, that your wife apparently can't pass the driving test either?!?


F-U man!haha She is Japanese, the test is no problem for her but she is too small for a big bike anyway. She can barely touch the ground on the Aprilia RS50! I hope she doesn't crash! LOL

We looked at helmets last weekend


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> It's just a cheap DC motor. I was with the OU group since the beginning, over 2yrs!
> ...be a congratulator!
> 
> ...Sampojo, this is why you have to "Spoon Feed" the builders on main stream forms... They cry like babies if you don't!


are you expecting congratulations on achieving overunity perhaps?

Just come out and admit it. Your standards of proof are demonstratably horrible, so you don't have to worry about anyone believing it or you. 

I hadn't really thought of it as a cult, just a bunch of idiots, not really sure where the line is there.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> The problem is that I don't have the proper test equipment.


Get what you need. If you don't want to test then don't bother.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> are you expecting congratulations on achieving overunity perhaps?
> 
> Just come out and admit it. Your standards of proof are demonstratably horrible, so you don't have to worry about anyone believing it or you.
> 
> I hadn't really thought of it as a cult, just a bunch of idiots, not really sure where the line is there.


Idiots... Oh really

You must REALLY feel like one! Now that you realize that Midaz has been Spoon Feeding" you all this time! HAHAHAHAHA.

And you thought you where teaching ME something new!!! NOPE!

There's always that one dude or crowd, Sucker!

Meditate on that, peace!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ok admin, time for the troll to go.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Don't bother with science or reason or logic, he is just a proselytizer. Try to talk about how it works and he shows you pictures of his family. He is a "witness" yet this stuff is easily quantifiable. constant appeal to "authority", kinship with OU, a hige mishmash of misinformation, He's screwed.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Think about this!

A guy come to the forum

With a 20kg/45lbs handmade motor!

It has 8 brushes on it with 2 commutators!

And you, Pompous fools!!! think that that man does not know what he's doing!?

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Midaz

Underground rules! Open up a catalog and buy what YOU think is the best! Or follow the breadcrumbs!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

lol, nice sermon. Tell us how we will be left behind in darkness now, I love that part! ooh, buy something, a collection plate, nice!


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> *Sampojo, this is why you have to "Spoon Feed" the builders on main stream forms... They cry like babies if you don't! *


There's some spoon feeding going here, that's for sure.

Have fun with your magical OU crap. And thank God for ignore lists.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Think about this!
> 
> A guy come to the forum
> 
> ...


We know its total BULL shit. Oh great. He's thinking. Move aside he's the king of BS. 

Its time for the troll to go.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I'm enjoying the cultist rage though. He HAS to be right, or he and his kin are complete morons for wasting so much time and effort!

Rage on midas! Anger is the first phase in greiving!


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I'm done with trying to help, or responding to his posts. That's the best way to deal with an immature attention-seeking troll. But I'll be watching for the video I hope he makes when his wife gets on his crotch rocket and connects the motor to the battery (he sure can't afford a controller). Good thing he is getting her a helmet! 

Either she will go careening out of control into traffic, or fall off while the bike lurches down the road, or, if she hangs on, the battery will die when she's miles away, and Midaztouch will have a long walk to retrieve it. However, if his contraption does achieve OU, she may never be seen again!


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

"THE COMPLICATED FUTILITY OF IGNORANCE."

--Kurt Vonnegut, Hocus Pocus


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Guys I think you are over looking the Fun Factor here of the Village Idiot.

Plus the fact that a Fools and their Money will soon part ways. It is Fun watching a Fool loose money and the suffering that comes with it. No better teacher than loosing money.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

samwichse said:


> "THE COMPLICATED FUTILITY OF IGNORANCE."


You can fix Ignorance by education. You cannot fix Stupid.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Guys I think you are over looking the Fun Factor here of the Village Idiot.
> 
> Plus the fact that a Fools and their Money will soon part ways. It is Fun watching a Fool loose money and the suffering that comes with it. No better teacher than loosing money.


I think the word you are looking for is "Schadenfreude.."


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Relax guys,
Midas has moved on over to ES it seems.
Anyone want to guess how long before he is "outed" over there ?
They don't have an "OU" forum,....but they do have a "Toxic Discussion" forum that may be well suited to him.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Oh fun, I should at least go pull the pin


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> Oh fun, I should at least go pull the pin


The thing that you can't understand is. .. No one cares what any of us do. They will just continue on with their lives.

This is all self vanity. Everything that I've done under the sun has already been done before. 
That's why is not important to me.

Everything that you do, bring attention to my build. Almost 2500 views in 2 days. I didn't ask for it, nor did I need it. I don't care to be famous or wealth. My goal in life is to fear God first and second, to make my family happy. The rest is vanity, like making an electric motorcycle. It not a need! I live downtown and I have 2 family bikes. The family bikes are more of a "need" than an electric motorcycle.

Do your best 
Midaz


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

so you are a crybaby, scammer, two faced, nutcase attention whore, and 3000 people know it. Nice work there.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> so you are a crybaby, scammer, two faced, nutcase attention whore, and 3000 people know it. Nice work there.


Hobby thinking & learning

A 1000 views are yours! HAHAHAHAHA!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by samwichse View Post
> "THE COMPLICATED FUTILITY OF IGNORANCE."
> You can fix Ignorance by education. You cannot fix Stupid.


I agree with the above quote!
Are you a Court jester? Your really good at it!
Is this the only thing you do to make a living? 
Your funny and have a future in it!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Found the perfect vehicle for that awesome motor you have been going on about!


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> Found the perfect vehicle for that awesome motor you have been going on about!
> 
> 
> Yes!!! Those are hot! I had one as a child. I don't know if you know it but they have already built electic one's for adults..
> ...


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

nothing believable comes from you. Certainly are %100 fraud in any event.

edit, tell you what, retract your overunity claims if so. Or are you a comedian who believes/scams on overunity?

edit2: holy crap, you have been hacking at overunity for over 2 years!!! It is no joke to you, and besides, aren't comedians supposed to be funny? Not angry moody lying little bitches?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

You can be assured that most if not all the folks here have seen some cool gas and electric Big Wheels for ADULTS. 

This is our playground. Our turf.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Someone we know was playing nasty with me in his build thread so I was doing some investigation trying to determine the real source for his misconceptions. He keeps "quoting" Tesla and then Faraday. Some examples are shown below where I requested sources from him never to be answered. After those is a copy of a post of his from the energeticforum. I think it explains the real source: He just makes this stuff up in his head. 



major said:


> And, again, please answer this question. Why do you attribute that design to Tesla?





major said:


> Please supply the Tesla documents or the source you use for this and where you obtained your wiring scheme.





major said:


> Please show me where Tesla patented a 3 pole, 2 commutator motor.





major said:


> And if you do not have a document from Mr. Tesla, do not put words in his mouth. So the following statement is a complete fabrication, correct?





> N. Tesla's mother, Duka, was a talented inspiring inventor. Who was schooled in a Church. When she was alive, the most prevalent scientist alive was M. Faraday, his work was all that those people knew at that time. She taught her son, N. Tesla to be a righteous man and the basic principles of Faraday's work. (now you know why he didn't like those cheap ladies those rich guys brought around and ripped up his contract. He was a moral man. Just like his God fearing parents taught him to be!)
> 
> We all know that the simplest and easiest design of an electric motor, would be a three pole. So, it's more than safe to assume that Tesla's first asymmetric motor was a three pole ALL North design just like his and his mom's hero, M. Faraday was teaching everyone to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

major said:


> Someone we know was playing nasty with me in his build thread so I was doing some investigation trying to determine the real source for his misconceptions. He keeps "quoting" Tesla and then Faraday. Some examples are shown below where I requested sources from him never to be answered. After those is a copy of a post of his from the energeticforum. I think it explains the real source: He just makes this stuff up in his head.


I suspect the topic of this thread pretty well assures that. This thread should probably be moved to the Chit Chat section, since what is not utter rubbish seems to fall between opinion and entertainment.

That, of course, is my opinion...


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I suspect the topic of this thread pretty well assures that. This thread should probably be moved to the Chit Chat section, since what is not utter rubbish seems to fall between opinion and entertainment.


I do often attempt to use a technical explanation to dissuade these people, but it rarely works. In the technical section or chit chat, I'm glad we have our special place and pleased that the admin/mods port these crazies over here.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

major said:


> I do often attempt to use a technical explanation to dissuade these people, but it rarely works. In the technical section or chit chat, I'm glad we have our special place and pleased that the admin/mods port these crazies over here.


To be explicit, I was not including you in the "utter rubbish" Major! 

Sadly, posting anything resembling reason in this topic appears to be exactly as effective as peeing into gale force winds. It might make you feel better, but some of the stench is bound to follow you all day...



All of that said, I am excited to announce a new perpetual motion machine that I am offering freely to the world. It is simplicity itself. It involves fresh water, a balloon, monofilament line equal in density to water, and a spring-tensioned retractor wheel / generator combination to generate electricity while being extended and provide a minute retraction force to re-wind.

It works like this. Emplace the retractor wheel on the floor of the Marianas Trench, with the other end of the monofilament line secured around the tied end of the balloon filled with fresh water. When liquid, the retractor should have just enough tension to pull the balloon down (fresh water is less dense than salt water). As the balloon descends, it chills eventually freezing thus increasing its volume (water is one of the very few substances in the universe which expands when freezing instead of contracting) and causing it to again ascend, where it melts. Each time it rises it generates electricity.

Please don't attempt to suggest this is not perpetual motion - Maxwell's Demon has assured me no laws have been broken!


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Perpetual melt-tion machine?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

there is actually (I believe) a "thermal glider" which operates on the temperature differential, big wax tube for expansion/contraction. They very slowly crawl the oceans. Not overunity though, more like a glorified stirling engine, plus they still need a battery to do anything useful. As it cools, it becomes less dense overall.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

DanGT86 said:


> Perpetual melt-tion machine?


May I trademark that?


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Phantom, your machine is a primitive and very inefficient heat engine.

Real heat engines using temperature gradients between deep and shallow ocean have already been built. And even more useful, deep lakewater is used in Toronto to provide cooling to reduce air conditioning load in the big towers downtown.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

anyway back to midass, love how he hides be hind his family when pressed, and alternates between rage and condesention, never once answering a direct question. I leave my family out of this mess, because it is irrelevant and just emotional manipulation, has no bearing on any of the technical merits. So that is another good indicator of a scammer and possibly a narcissistic sociopath.

It also opens the door for comments like "I wonder if he ever lets them out of the basement", just as an example.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Moltenmetal said:


> Phantom, your machine is a primitive and very inefficient heat engine.
> 
> Real heat engines using temperature gradients between deep and shallow ocean have already been built. And even more useful, deep lakewater is used in Toronto to provide cooling to reduce air conditioning load in the big towers downtown.


Clearly you didn't read my post thoroughly. I have 100% faith that this one is a truly unique perpetual motion machine that will work (with proper funding), and nothing you can say to me can sway me....

</sarcasm>

... so stop bothering me with the facts! 

I think I'll apply for a government grant. $50 million ought to be enough to get this rolling!


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

Phantom, you can trademark the name but your slogan has to be "even a ballon full of water can be full of hot air!"


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

I know better than to read your posts thoroughly, Phantom. You're right- dumber ideas by far have been funded, like for instance electrochemically reducing CO2 and water back to fuel and oxygen. The granting body was your government, and the recipient was the US Navy. It seems to me you supported that particular dumb-ass idea without any hint of sarcasm...so perhaps this one is your in-kind contribution? At least in that one, nobody is trying to deny thermodynamics or the law if conservation of energy- they already know they're losing big time before they've even started climbing back out of the deep Gibbs energy hole they're in...


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> I do often attempt to use a technical explanation to dissuade these people, but it rarely works. In the technical section or chit chat, I'm glad we have our special place and pleased that the admin/mods port these crazies over here.


Major,

First of all, you posted a link.
Today was the most viewers EVER at the link!

Just like I thought, you have a large following. I see you as a Bishop in the game.

...................................................

Let's talk about Faraday's homopolar generator/Unipolar generator
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
Tesla's interest in it
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-381,968-electro-magnetic-motor

*The A1Mo-Gen is what you get, when you combine the TWO with 2 commutators.
Read the patents. That's how it works. This ain't MY invention. It's a copy of thier work.
*Remember, the A1Mo-Gen coils are all NORTH per right hand rule* 

Why change perfection!?


Check how fast it spins at 36v! *
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_RkMJCVC8
@72v!! everyone JUMPED BACK because the motor flipped over! Pure torque @ 23turns of 18awg x 4 inputs...under 40amps!!! All inputs coils' bisectors are 5° past the magnets' bisectors.

Major, I *BET* you haven't seen THAT under 40amps & 72v, from a 20kg motor! I know N.Tesla knew because I've seen it.


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

*It's a shame that Telsa and Faraday have to be discussed on the back pages!
It just Perpetuates the cycle of T. Edison's thinking.*


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Well, Its pretty easy to make an unsecured motor flip wildly with 72 volts applied. Why don't you go ask Jack what he thinks of your motor. He's a motor kinda guy. He will respond. 

http://evtv.me/2015/03/gasping-oxygen-well-dragon/


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

It is really rediculous, I have a $200 induction motor, makes 50hp, will readily trounce the a1slo-gen in performance and efficiency (and cost), and unlike the slo-gen, it actually was invented by Tesla.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> Well, Its pretty easy to make an unsecured motor flip wildly with 72 volts applied. Why don't you go ask Jack what he thinks of your motor. He's a motor kinda guy. He will respond.
> 
> http://evtv.me/2015/03/gasping-oxygen-well-dragon/


Not a 20kg motor under 40amps! You have to show me that. I need to see it! Don't show me one with an aluminum housing. You will need the RPMs for enough centrifugal force and torque to make that happen with a 45lbs motor!


Ps. I like Jack too


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> It is really rediculous, I have a $200 induction motor, makes 50hp, will readily trounce the a1slo-gen in performance and efficiency (and cost), and unlike the slo-gen, it actually was invented by Tesla.


Hobby Learning

Your hp is your IQ. I'm not impressed with your numbers.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Lol, that is so far off the mark it is laughable. But alas you don't have any numbers, and yet you are impressed with yourself, to no end. Shouldn't you be going into another rage about now? I mean you have failed so miserably at life that overunity scams are your only resort. I'd be pretty upset with myself and probably try to deflect a bit too, especially if I was a narcissist.

But it is time you took a good look at your 45 year old, can't even get a drivers license or an honest living, only learning cuz you have to, self. putting around on a 50cc scooter telling yourself you have achieved overunity is a really patheitic way to midlife crisis.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

12 volts. 9" GE. The video you listed showed a weenie motor wobbling a bit at 32 volts. Not much grunt there. This is just 12 volts. Unsecured. Can't imagine it with 72 unsecured.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Here is one showing a little starter/generator. With pretty much a weak field the motor spins rather fast but with little torque. But with the field powered strong it will spin slow but has a crap load of torque. This test was with 12 volts as well. I connected this motor to my Ghia and ran 72 volts and got the Ghia to run up to 62 mph but the motor did not have any cooling so it got real hot as expected. Being small these motors get hot at higher than normal voltages and hot pretty quick. We had been working with Kelly Controls with a special controller for these motors. In the end it was not really needed but if we wanted the regenerative function we needed to have a special SepEx controller or a manual contactor speed switch which we did not have. But if you want a strong little motor that will do well in a small light weight vehicle these can do the job. As a generator they can produce 36 volts and up to 400 amps under load. This test in this video you see I don't have it connected to the diesel engine. I did the test without a mechanical load but when I connected the electrical load to the field the motor slowed real fast. Just like when the motor is generating under a charging load while being driven with the diesel. 

This video is only to show the power when good power is applied to the field vs a weak field with little magnetic field produced. 

Series motors or SepEx motors will provide a rather strong field being an electromagnet. More in the more torque you can produce to a point. In this case the power to run the motor is 12 volts and the power to the field is 12 volts. So in a car one could use a controller to provide full field power at the start and as you go faster you reduce the power to the field and the motor goes faster. Not an issue because you don't need full torque at speed. Only to get to speed. To slow you then release the throttle and increase the power back to the field and you slow down and pump power back into the battery. But only in regen mode. 

I killed my controller because the cheap kelly controller could not handle even 50% of the current the motor could provide. Poof. 

Without regen a regular controller will work. As you can see here. 






There is no free lunch. 






Next test is to run the diesel and put the generator under a charge load and log the voltage and amperage. Under a no load situation and at the low rpm I was getting I could only produce like 26 volts but that was under no charge load. I will need to match the battery pack to the voltage so I can put it under a proper charge load and be able to check amperage and voltage.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> 12 volts. 9" GE. The video you listed showed a weenie motor wobbling a bit at 32 volts. Not much grunt there. This is just 12 volts. Unsecured. Can't imagine it with 72 unsecured.


*Come on Pete!!! It's on a round surface! Lol *

That's not fair! My motor has a flat base!!!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Well I did say an unsecured motor. With a flat base it can hold it back but your mention it sounded like it bounced like a rabbid dog. Well, you seem to put quite a bit of flair into reality. So in reality my motor floundered better than yours. Yup, on a round surface. Motors are round. So are most adaptor ends. So yes. A round surface. My motor is producing a crap load of torque compared to yours. Yes it larger but I was expecting a rabid dog by how you stated your comment. Not really reality.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> Series motors or SepEx motors will provide a rather strong field being an electromagnet. More in the more torque you can produce to a point. In this case the power to run the motor is 12 volts and the power to the field is 12 volts. So in a car one could use a controller to provide full field power at the start and as you go faster you reduce the power to the field and the motor goes faster. Not an issue because you don't need full torque at speed. Only to get to speed. To slow you then release the throttle and increase the power back to the field and you slow down and pump power back into the battery. But only in regen mode.
> 
> I killed my controller because the cheap kelly controller could not handle even 50% of the current the motor could provide. Poof.
> 
> ...


Pete,

What was that knocking noise? Is it fixed?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

I don't really make a habit of running motors unsecured. Its not a healthy practice. Not terrible at 1 2volts but still the torque can break hands and arms if not careful. So I'd rather play with 12 volts and reasonably secured.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> Well I did say an unsecured motor. With a flat base it can hold it back but your mention it sounded like it bounced like a rabbid dog. Well, you seem to put quite a bit of flair into reality. So in reality my motor floundered better than yours. Yup, on a round surface. Motors are round. So are most adaptor ends. So yes. A round surface. My motor is producing a crap load of torque compared to yours. Yes it larger but I was expecting a rabid dog by how you stated your comment. Not really reality.


The reason why you have all that torque is... 400Apms! 

My motor wires will melt @ 400amps. I used 18awg! I would love to get this motor wire under 16awg.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Pete,
> 
> What was that knocking noise? Is it fixed?


Yes, the knocking noise was fixed. It was the pressure plate hitting a bump within the transmission. The adaptor plate was designed for newer transmission cases. The older VW cases require you to grind out a few spots that are low. I did not get one spot down enough. But, yes it was fixed. Its a pain if you use the older VW transaxle but if its all you have then you have to do that. Actually if you run a 6 volt sized flywheel you won't have the problem. But I upgraded to a 12volt sized flywheel, 200mm vs 180mm. It also changes the depth of the pressure plate so even cutting down the flywheel outside edges does not eliminate that issue. it was fun doing those tests. I popped my special Kelly Controller doing a test of regenerative braking not long after that video. It worked real well up to 25% regen. Since it was working good I bumped it up to only 50% and the kelly just quit. Never again did it live. I have it still and it holds my office door open real well. Yes, I actually do use it for a door stop.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> Lol, that is so far off the mark it is laughable. But alas you don't have any numbers, and yet you are impressed with yourself, to no end. Shouldn't you be going into another rage about now? I mean you have failed so miserably at life that overunity scams are your only resort. I'd be pretty upset with myself and probably try to deflect a bit too, especially if I was a narcissist.
> 
> But it is time you took a good look at your 45 year old, can't even get a drivers license or an honest living, only learning cuz you have to, self. putting around on a 50cc scooter telling yourself you have achieved overunity is a really patheitic way to midlife crisis.


Hobby learning and thinking

I already had my midlife crisis. Then I look at yours and it all went away!

..............
You have to come up with better jokes! Personal ones are not funny and they always turn everyone off. You have to be able to laugh at yourself first.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> The reason why you have all that torque is... 400Apms!
> 
> My motor wires will melt @ 400amps. I used 18awg! I would love to get this motor wire under 16awg.


It can go to 400 amps but not even close in that test. Next test I will connect my current meter and show it. The field test is just voltage applied at what ever the current it can draw. If I drive the motor with the engine the motor can do up to 400 amps.

These motors were designed to start jet engines then run as a generator as the plane flies. At turbine speeds these can produce up to 400 amps. At 2000 rpm there is no chance. These motors can run all day at 8000 rpms. They can handle 12000 rpm because of how they were designed and built. 

Fun little motors.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> Yes, the knocking noise was fixed. It was the pressure plate hitting a bump within the transmission. The adaptor plate was designed for newer transmission cases. The older VW cases require you to grind out a few spots that are low. I did not get one spot down enough. But, yes it was fixed. Its a pain if you use the older VW transaxle but if its all you have then you have to do that. Actually if you run a 6 volt sized flywheel you won't have the problem. But I upgraded to a 12volt sized flywheel, 200mm vs 180mm. It also changes the depth of the pressure plate so even cutting down the flywheel outside edges does not eliminate that issue. it was fun doing those tests. I popped my special Kelly Controller doing a test of regenerative braking not long after that video. It worked real well up to 25% regen. Since it was working good I bumped it up to only 50% and the kelly just quit. Never again did it live. I have it still and it holds my office door open real well. Yes, I actually do use it for a door stop.
> C


I've alway want an old style convertible bug! A white one with light cream leather interior with cherry wood grain finishes. Classic & Classy


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> It can go to 400 amps but not even close in that test. Next test I will connect my current meter and show it. The field test is just voltage applied at what ever the current it can draw. If I drive the motor with the engine the motor can do up to 400 amps.
> 
> These motors were designed to start jet engines then run as a generator as the plane flies. At turbine speeds these can produce up to 400 amps. At 2000 rpm there is no chance. These motors can run all day at 8000 rpms. They can handle 12000 rpm because of how they were designed and built.
> 
> Fun little motors.


At 12000 RPMs, what kind of voltage are you talking about


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

24 or 36 volts were used for the planes. But it was the Jet turbine that actually got the motors up to those levels of rpm in generator mode. The motor only needed to spin up fast enough for ignition for the jet turbine. Usually the jet turbines could ignite in the 4k range. That is slow for a turbine but the early jets were not able to do the rpm we get from modern turbine jets.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> I've alway want an old style convertible bug! A white one with light cream leather interior with cherry wood grain finishes. Classic & Classy


VW's are the only way. Personal preference but damn good little vehicles. 

Before I took it apart and had custom battery boxes built by a friend for the beastie. Doing some work right now and hope to have it back up and running on a full 192 volt pack here in a couple months. In the video I believe it was only 120 volts and I set the controller to limit the current. Just to check a few things. The front brakes squeal and I have yet to take them apart to check why. They are new custom disc brakes. 






This is the Last Run of the Black 66 Bug before I sold it to a local guy who put it back to gas. 

I never intended to keep the Black Bug. 







I try to keep busy. Mucking with an AC setup on the bench in the Garage.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> VW's are the only way. Personal preference but damn good little vehicles.
> 
> Before I took it apart and had custom battery boxes built by a friend for the beastie. Doing some work right now and hope to have it back up and running on a full 192 volt pack here in a couple months. In the video I believe it was only 120 volts and I set the controller to limit the current. Just to check a few things. The front brakes squeal and I have yet to take them apart to check why. They are new custom disc brakes.
> 
> ...



I see that you're very passionate about your projects. I hope that I will be able to achieve that level of passion also. Do you have plans for a new project? Have you ever thought about teaching at the community center? Inner-city youth would get a great kick out of your projects.

What impressed me the most was your budget... and that black buggy still got down the road quickly!


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Pete, so that's what you look like, eh? Somehow I had a much different image in my mind. Just like you may have thought I looked different from your original conception.

I don't know why you have continued this conversation with MidazTouch, in this thread for crazy OU folk, but it seems like he may be mellowing just a bit. I admire his tenacity and enthusiasm, but not his cheap shots and generally snippy attitude. 

I know I was very excited when I wound my first three phase low voltage motor (from a 24 stator single phase) and it actually ran! I never expected OU, of course, but I wanted to make a three phase motor that would run on a 12V bus (which it did), and then overclock it maybe 6x to 360 Hz and 72 volts. I still have it and another one with 36 slots, and they are wound with maximum pole count of 8 and 12. That was 10 years ago and I didn't have a videocam, but maybe I'll set it up again and show them running. I used a 240V 2 HP VFD on single phase, and two 120 to 12 volt transformers for the output to the motor. I think I ran it up to 240 Hz and about 2400 RPM.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> Pete, so that's what you look like, eh? Somehow I had a much different image in my mind. Just like you may have thought I looked different from your original conception.
> 
> I don't know why you have continued this conversation with MidazTouch, in this thread for crazy OU folk, but it seems like he may be mellowing just a bit. I admire his tenacity and enthusiasm, but not his cheap shots and generally snippy attitude.
> 
> I know I was very excited when I wound my first three phase low voltage motor (from a 24 stator single phase) and it actually ran! I never expected OU, of course, but I wanted to make a three phase motor that would run on a 12V bus (which it did), and then overclock it maybe 6x to 360 Hz and 72 volts. I still have it and another one with 36 slots, and they are wound with maximum pole count of 8 and 12. That was 10 years ago and I didn't have a videocam, but maybe I'll set it up again and show them running. I used a 240V 2 HP VFD on single phase, and two 120 to 12 volt transformers for the output to the motor. I think I ran it up to 240 Hz and about 2400 RPM.


I'm always cool. I just don't take any _hit!

So, you really do like unconventional motors. I knew there was a reason why you were over here. 

I look forward to you vid!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

DanGT86 said:


> Phantom, you can trademark the name but your slogan has to be "even a ballon full of water can be full of hot air!"


LOL - nice!


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> I do often attempt to use a technical explanation to dissuade these people, but it rarely works. In the technical section or chit chat, I'm glad we have our special place and pleased that the admin/mods port these crazies over here.


Major,

First of all, you posted a link.
Today was the most viewers EVER at the link!

Just like I thought, you have a large following. I see you as a Bishop in the game.

...................................................

Let's talk about Faraday's homopolar generator/Unipolar generator
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
Tesla's interest in it
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-381,968-electro-magnetic-motor

*The A1Mo-Gen is what you get, when you combine the TWO with 2 commutators.
Read the patents. That's how it works. This ain't MY invention. It's a copy of thier work.
*Remember, the A1Mo-Gen coils are all NORTH per right hand rule* 

Why change perfection!?


Check how fast it spins at 36v! *
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_RkMJCVC8
@72v!! everyone JUMPED BACK because the motor flipped over! Pure torque @ 23turns of 18awg x 4 inputs...under 40amps!!! All inputs coils' bisectors are 5° past the magnets' bisectors.

Major, I *BET* you haven't seen THAT under 40amps & 72v, from a 20kg motor! I know N.Tesla knew because I've seen it.


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

*It's a shame that Telsa and Faraday have to be discussed on the back pages!
It just Perpetuates the cycle of T. Edison's thinking.*


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Moltenmetal said:


> I know better than to read your posts thoroughly, Phantom. You're right- dumber ideas by far have been funded, like for instance electrochemically reducing CO2 and water back to fuel and oxygen. The granting body was your government, and the recipient was the US Navy. It seems to me you supported that particular dumb-ass idea without any hint of sarcasm...so perhaps this one is your in-kind contribution? At least in that one, nobody is trying to deny thermodynamics or the law if conservation of energy- they already know they're losing big time before they've even started climbing back out of the deep Gibbs energy hole they're in...


You are confused. On the one hand, you've figured out that the Navy plan was never about creating something from nothing. On the other hand, you have forgotten the fundamental rule of Engineering: 

If it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

The Navy plan makes economic sense when the only real cost to create fuel is energy. Creating that capability now as a hedge against rising fuel prices alone more than justifies the small investment already made. As fuel prices resume their upwards march, there is a price point where generating their own fuel makes economic sense to do ALL the time - and when we hit it, all they have to do is start using the equipment instead of writing checks to Allah Akbahr countries.

In addition, however, if (god forbid) we some day enter into another global war and fuel supplies are not reliable, it makes military sense all the time. And, since we cannot predict when we might enter such a war our military rightly feels that equipping their nuclear vessels with this off-the-shelf capability is cheap contingency planning - a built-in guarantee that their fuel supply cannot be cut off for an entire strike group. There is no other similar military capability on the planet, and as such this accomplishment is revolutionary. Since no other military currently has this capability, in the event fuel is no longer readily available by other means it would leave us having the only useable Navy in the world. We win.

Now, I get that you are a liberal and therefore are by default both clueless about and disdainful of all things military, so I won't call you an idiot for not immediately recognizing either of the above obvious truths. Let us say simply that your ignorance is the unfortunate result of indoctrination.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

politics aside for a moment, I do see how a "solar?" powered CO2 to fuel converter, running on various islands, could be of interest to a navy.

I don't see it as being particularly efficient for general purpose transportation though. But I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, again acknowledging the inefficiency of the conversion, if the only power available is electric/solar/? at that location, and you have planes and ships to keep fueled across a wide geographic area.


People may be fighting over control of the Sahara someday.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> ...................................................
> 
> Let's talk about Faraday's homopolar generator/Unipolar generator
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
> ...


*

You felt the need to repost #1123. Looking for a reply from me? Need your Bishop? I'll bet those distinguished scientists whose names you drop like pins in a hat are the ones ashamed of how their work is convoluted into such garbage by the cults of over unity nut-jobs. Maybe the next time you're on the garden bench expanding the electrons and magnetic fields to heaven, channel Tesla and ask him. Also take some notes so you can enlighten the readers as to how your machine relates specifically to the cited patent and wiki page. I see little if any similarity.*


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> I see that you're very passionate about your projects. I hope that I will be able to achieve that level of passion also. Do you have plans for a new project? Have you ever thought about teaching at the community center? Inner-city youth would get a great kick out of your projects.
> 
> What impressed me the most was your budget... and that black buggy still got down the road quickly!


You have no idea how passionate I am about this. I have a few ideas for another project. I have a 67 VW Bus that is going to be converted to AC drive. Just got my adaptor plate but before I put it on the Bus Im going to use the motor with the flywheel and pressure plate attached to give it a little load to move for my bench testing of my AC inverter. The other induction motor I have has nothing attached and it just jumps to speed even with throttle control. Having a hard time getting something setup that will work but I think I have that issue resolved to some degree. 

I have already contacted the local Jr College about doing electric conversions but they think its a liability because of the batteries. Its bull shit but what can you do. I was considering after I get my shop built on the property doing a work shop but decided against that due to liability issues as well. I would do a work shop if I rent a place in town. Been looking at that as well. 

I just need a bit more capitol to do a good build but these are my vehicles. I'd do a workshop on someone else's vehicle. 

Work shops are a bit of work to pull off but doable.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> You have no idea how passionate I am about this. I have a few ideas for another project. I have a 67 VW Bus that is going to be converted to AC drive. Just got my adaptor plate but before I put it on the Bus Im going to use the motor with the flywheel and pressure plate attached to give it a little load to move for my bench testing of my AC inverter. The other induction motor I have has nothing attached and it just jumps to speed even with throttle control. Having a hard time getting something setup that will work but I think I have that issue resolved to some degree.
> 
> I have already contacted the local Jr College about doing electric conversions but they think its a liability because of the batteries. Its bull shit but what can you do. I was considering after I get my shop built on the property doing a work shop but decided against that due to liability issues as well. I would do a work shop if I rent a place in town. Been looking at that as well.
> 
> ...


Now that the Spirit! On the EVWest show they have a guy who did a, I think a samba bus??? The EVWest crew are starting to really get their mojo! Did you watch the last show?

Yes, it seem like battery are off limits here too. They won't even sell or give me used batteries at any of the gas stations. And they have too many laying around ready for the trash truck... Company rules.

The largest Uni. of Technology is in driving range, a day trip with charging. When the bike is finish and I feel comfortable with its road worthiness, I will take it there.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> The largest Uni. of Technology is in driving range, a day trip *with charging*. When the bike is finish and I feel comfortable with its road worthless, I will take it there.


wait, what?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> I have already contacted the local Jr College about doing electric conversions but they think its a liability because of the batteries.


Best to stick with something safe like gasoline, right?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Now that the Spirit! On the EVWest show they have a guy who did a, I think a samba bus??? The EVWest crew are starting to really get their mojo! Did you watch the last show?
> 
> Yes, it seem like battery are off limits here too. They won't even sell or give me used batteries at any of the gas stations. And they have too many laying around ready for the trash truck... Company rules.
> 
> The largest Uni. of Technology is in driving range, a day trip with charging. When the bike is finish and I feel comfortable with its road worthiness, I will take it there.


Yes, Jehu Garcia. He made a 23 Window Deluxe Bus out of a Double Door Panel. Damn good work. I watch all the videos that people make and post up.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> Yes, Jehu Garcia. He made a 23 Window Deluxe Bus out of a Double Door Panel. Damn good work. I watch all the videos that people make and post up.


Yeah, he did hit a home run!

Have you tried to link up with Jack or the boyz at EVWest. I know Jack lets people come over to get their hand "dirty". Both have too many projects. They need more hands


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> Best to stick with something safe like gasoline, right?


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

midaztouch said:


> Yeah, he did hit a home run!
> 
> Have you tried to link up with Jack or the boyz at EVWest. I know Jack lets people come over to get their hand "dirty". Both have too many projects. They need more hands


Shit dude, Ive been doing electric since 2007. Yes, I have even gone to the first EVCCON and met many good folks there and Im still connected. Jehu is busy but I occasionally get a quick message through. I think he will respond more when I actually have a running Bus. Been saying Im doing this for years. Like I also said. I work slowly. Im in no huge hurry. Also I need to work so I have money and most goes to other requirements of life. Have little to work with but I do manage to spend a rather large amount on this hobby. Now the weather is nice Im back to work on projects. I have no heated garage. I hate working the cold or when its 106 degrees outside in the shade.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> @midazz My guess is that you'll be walking, or if the mrs is riding it, she will push it in the nearest creek when it dies and file for divorce on the grounds of insanity (aka overunity) and take the kids and any scraps of money you have.
> 
> I think it is really telling that you can't even get a drivers license, you must actually sound like timmy to those folks. Apparently you are on the wrong side of survival of the fittest if you cant even read and write.
> 
> You should learn how to sign your name at least: ティミー！


Hobby learning 

You HAVE been hobby thinking today! Good for you.

Since you been a good boy and I'm very proud of you! You can have any color new helmet do you want. I want you sit on that little yellow bus and show off what you deserved!

Say "Kiss Mid-azz" very quickly, many times!... That's what you can do! ばか‼


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

This is the voice I heard that in:
ティミー！


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

midaztouch said:


> Now that the Spirit! On the EVWest show they have a guy who did a, I think a samba bus??? The EVWest crew are starting to really get their mojo! Did you watch the last show?


That is Jehu's Samba. Nice guy. I think he started the Samba before EVWest was in business.



midaztouch said:


> Yes, it seem like battery are off limits here too. They won't even sell or give me used batteries at any of the gas stations. And they have too many laying around ready for the trash truck... Company rules.


They get paid for turning in those old Lead Acid batteries. It is unlikely they would just give them to you when you could just take them to other places and they would give you around $8 for each one.

And Midaz, there is no magic motor that will vastly increase efficiency. We know all the things that need to be done to increase efficiency because we know where all the energy is being wasted. There is no mystery here. If you were to get your PHD in material science and research up some exotic carbon nano/titanium/sapphire room temperature superconductor material to wind the motor with you will only gain a couple of percent efficiency. If you come up with a magic material to replace the iron laminations to eliminate the hysteresis losses you will gain a little bit in some specific situations. What about improved magnets? Without improvements in the previously mentioned areas a stronger magnet usually decreases efficiency due to increased iron losses. The magnets are already good enough. Or maybe frictionless bearings? Nope, bearing losses are so low they take a concerted effort just to measure.

Some of those things can be addressed already just by spending money. A lot of money for very little gain. The easiest is replacing the copper with silver. Hideous amounts of money and you would be hard pressed to even tell it had been done on a drag racer where it would actually make a difference. In your daily driver you would never know.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dougingraham said:


> Midaz, there is no magic motor that will vastly increase efficiency. We know all the things that need to be done to increase efficiency because we know where all the energy is being wasted. There is no mystery here. If you were to get your PHD in material science and research up some exotic carbon nano/titanium/sapphire room temperature superconductor material to wind the motor with you will only gain a couple of percent efficiency. If you come up with a magic material to replace the iron laminations to eliminate the hysteresis losses you will gain a little bit in some specific situations. What about improved magnets? Without improvements in the previously mentioned areas a stronger magnet usually decreases efficiency due to increased iron losses. The magnets are already good enough. Or maybe frictionless bearings? Nope, bearing losses are so low they take a concerted effort just to measure.
> .


I don't believe in Santa, flying reindeers and magic motors

I thought about all that. It's factual and logical thinking for what YOU know


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

what was that about charging earlier, before you got all snippy again.

Why do you need a charger, or a battery? You should be able to kick/bump start your over-unity device, no? Maybe a capacitor to smooth it out a bit.

Sounds pretty lame for an OU device. C'mon, where is that self-runner? You call yourself a salesman?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I have a new product, it is called the AImo-gen, it taps in to the extra-dimensional adiobatic intelligence designed into the universe, with simple magnets and wire to become a self-runner of unlimited energy! (I know because I measured the voltage while standing on it).


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> what was that about charging earlier, before you got all snippy again.
> 
> Why do you need a charger, or a battery? You should be able to kick/bump start your over-unity device, no? Maybe a capacitor to smooth it out a bit.
> 
> Sounds pretty lame for an OU device. C'mon, where is that self-runner? You call yourself a salesman?


 Hobby learnings breath is soo bad... 
That his toothbrush pleaded, "Sir, if you could be so kind. Please stick me up the dog's as_, today. Have some mercy on my soul".


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

holy crap, did a google image search on aimo-gen might be on to something here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=aim...a=X&ei=zSYCVef-LoORyQS2mYGwDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg


----------



## arklan (Dec 10, 2012)

rule 34.....


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

arklan said:


> rule 34.....


 A knife, Never leave home without one. Or is that rule #9


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> holy crap, did a google image search on aimo-gen might be on to something here:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=aim...a=X&ei=zSYCVef-LoORyQS2mYGwDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg


Hobby learning and the rest. Why is hard for you to understand this!?



> #1) brushes interaction with independent coils/circuits
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did I have a miss something!? Because you could not understand it!

Keep it Clean and Green:sun:
Midaz

*3D CAD ware PLEASE!!!!*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you believe there is energy left in the coil, as I have stated before it will likely interact with the pole as it collapses, appearing as an increased rate of change as compared to normal rotation.

And even if it doesn't, it took energy to put it in there, you will never get as much out as you put in. But I have good reason to think a collapsing field looks a lot like relative movement to the magnet, and any offset adds to the rotation.


And in a 3 phase AC inverter the current loops with the coil via the diode. Interacting with the rotor in that case.

Maybe you missed that bit. Not an expert, but I'm pretty sure you haven't discovered over unity.

Edit, there is a magnetic coupling between the coils too, you would have to do a vector analysis/etc, not doing a vector analysis for you though.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> And even if it doesn't, it took energy to put it in there, you will never get as much out as you put in. But I have good reason to think a collapsing field looks a lot like relative movement to the magnet.


*YOU said that only!!! That's what started all the _hit!!

I and Sampojo said the Gen Brushes can be used to send voltage back to the batteries!! We didnt said more out than in.*


You say that!

brushes interaction with independent coils 









Look again and answer the Question... Do the Generator Brushes and Motor brushes share the same commutator segment?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

You didn't say it here (or maybe you did, I didn't read much of it after a while), but you were basically saying that elsewhere, and copying a design that also clearly claimed overunity.

You labeled and marked your creation as an overunity device. When we couldn't talk you off the ledge about BEMF not being evil, then it went to (more) shit.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

midaztouch said:


> *YOU said that only!!! That's what started all the _hit!!
> 
> I and Sampojo said the Gen Brushes can be used to send voltage back to the batteries!! We didnt said more out than in.*
> 
> ...


*Enough BS! Answer my question!*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Was there a question? Why are you angry again?

oh, lol, the question was in the fine print. I already answered that. Not electrically connected brushes, but there is a magnetic coupling in this case.

edit, for anyone going ?!?!?!?, this is about dual commutator, 4 brushes, bla bla bla.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

> Do the Generator Brushes and Motor brushes share the same commutator segment?


Do they ever


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

dude, I dug up that picture and answered this already, you tell me, hint, it is really really obvious.

two letter word...


begins with n..


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Can anyone answer my question? He will not say yes or no


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

with those sized brushes, how would yes be a possible answer?


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

I will make this simple from 1 commutator 



Do these brushes *EVER* share the same commutator segment?

Answer the question pawn!!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

The question is so stupid.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> The question is so stupid.


You started all the damn trouble! Answer the question for everyone!


*Do the two brushes EVER come in contact with any commutator segment at the same time, anytime?

You can't sweep it under the rug. It's infront of your face. Clear as day.

Everyone is waiting for your answer, smart guy!*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> You started all the damn trouble! Answer the question for everyone!


wat? I don't think I'm the one who claimed they could violate the laws of physics with your motor.

Anyway, that IS the trouble, and has always been.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

midaztouch said:


> You started all the damn trouble! Answer the question for everyone!
> 
> 
> *Do the two brushes EVER come in contact with any commutator segment at the same time, anytime?
> ...


*Checkmate*

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I can't believe this "discussion" has been extended another two or three pages. It's no longer about physics - it's just a silly, childish game where nobody can win and somebody just seems to have to have the last word. I'm just eagerly waiting for Midaztouch to put his contraption together and put it to the real world test. But it seems he can't even afford a few batteries, much less some simple test equipment like a voltmeter, ammeter, tachometer, and a spring scale to measure torque. Probably no more than a couple hundred bucks. But he'd rather yap about his incredible invention, and whine about not having CAD software, because talk is cheap, and that's all I've seen so far.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

The whole thing is irrelevant. It does not matter if the brush is isolated or not. I answered this 4 days ago. midaz just refuses to listen to me. 



major said:


> midaztouch said:
> 
> 
> > When you use the second brush as an generator output, it charges a battery supply/caps bank.
> ...


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> I can't believe this "discussion" has been extended another two or three pages. It's no longer about physics - it's just a silly, childish game where nobody can win and somebody just seems to have to have the last word. I'm just eagerly waiting for Midaztouch to put his contraption together and put it to the real world test. But it seems he can't even afford a few batteries, much less some simple test equipment like a voltmeter, ammeter, tachometer, and a spring scale to measure torque. Probably no more than a couple hundred bucks. But he'd rather yap about his incredible invention, and whine about not having CAD software, because talk is cheap, and that's all I've seen so far.


Another Genius!?

1.)Is the motoring brush(red) separate from the generator brush(blue)?

2.) Do they share the same commutator segment EVER?

Contraption, yeah right! Pay for the test equipment Or be quite!


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> The whole thing is irrelevant. It does not matter if the brush is isolated or not. I answered this 4 days ago. midaz just refuses to listen to me.


Your Majesty

Would you like to answer the questions, that the pawns refused to answer, first?


Then you can go ahead and explain how the generator brushes work in the A1Mo-Gen.

Thank you Queen

Take your time. We will wait


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> Your Majesty
> 
> Would you like to answer the questions, that the pawns refused to answer?
> 
> ...


I answered your question. I suggest you figure it out. If you can't, build the thing and test it. I'm not playing games with you. I offered knowledge to you a number of times. You choose to laugh at it or ignore it. You'd be wise to study it.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> I answered your question. I suggest you figure it out. If you can't, build the thing and test it. I'm not playing games with you. I offered knowledge to you a number of times. You choose to laugh at it or ignore it. You'd be wise to study it.


No you didn't! Don't lie. It's not becoming of a Queen.

I will make this simple.

Do the motor and generator brushes EVER share the same commutator segment at anytime during rotation?

Answer the one simple question, Your Majesty


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

I gave you the answer.


major said:


> It does not matter if the brush is isolated or not.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Can you repeat the question? All I heard was ティミー！


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

major said:


> I gave you the answer.


It makes all the differance!!!


Are motor and gen brushes isolated? Yes or no


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Your picture shows a coil connecting them... 

ティミー！


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

Why is hard for you to understand this!?



> #1) brushes interaction with independent coils/circuits
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Major, Are the MOTOR and GEN brushes isolated?*

Keep it Clean and Green:sun:
Midaz

*3D CAD software PLEASE!!!!*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

If it isn't obvious to you, if you need to be once again reassured of this, yet can claim overunity, then ティミー！


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

I give up over here!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> I give up over here!



Why are you not confident that they are independant?!? (aside from magnetic coupling)?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Have you actually taken apart the little motor and rewind it for dual coms? If you did then you know the answer. How the hell are we to know if they are wound separately. If your just showing a little motor with nothing done to the motor then the answer to the question is NO. If you actually did take it apart and rewind separately then there is no question for us to answer. 

The little slot car motors are not wound separately. It has to be able to self start.


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

onegreenev said:


> Have you actually taken apart the little motor and rewind it for dual coms? If you did then you know the answer. How the hell are we to know if they are wound separately. If your just showing a little motor with nothing done to the motor then the answer to the question is NO. If you actually did take it apart and rewind separately then there is no question for us to answer.
> 
> The little slot car motors are not wound separately. It has to be able to self start.


I will be kind to Pete because i like him.


Pete give me a 20 mins I have to make a quick vid for YouTube


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

I made a vid, it stated how the pair brushes work and it poked fun at Hobby Learning and Queen. I watched it, then to the store.

I decided to delete it because it should be on the main page.

I made another vid that is serious. Will post it later tonight.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I think you have achieved overunity in answering a yes or no question here.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

midaztouch said:


> I made a vid, it stated how the pair brushes work and it poked fun at Hobby Learning and Queen. I watched it, then to the store.
> 
> I decided to delete it because it should be on the main page.
> 
> I made another vid that is serious. Will post it later tonight.



If you stick any overunity crap in the Wiki I will ban you


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> I think you have achieved overunity in answering a yes or no question here.


Hobby learning, 


Like I told you before No!

Efficiency!

And why do you keep saying overunity, over and over!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

It is more important that you support or retract your public overunity claims about the shitty ass a1mo-gen first, really it is. If we don't agree on the laws of physics, how energy works, how magnets work, how conductors work, there is no basis for further discussion.

on 02-10-2015, 09:21 PM midaztouch wrote (on www dot energeticforum dot com/renewable-energy/19956-a1mo-gen-teslas-gift-electromagnetic-reactor-2.html)
"The A1Mo-Gen is what we all have been waiting for. I tried to explain it in the past but the words didn't come out correctly. The A1Mo-Gen has 4 channels, for now.(6 channels are CLEAR OverUnity ) The channels have a negative and positive that are parallel from each other . The two south stator channels are for motoring. The north channels can be used for motoring or generator or combination of."

"*Adding extra brush sets to all asymmetric unipolar motors, 5pole and over, seems possible. When this is done, we should have a self runner and Over Unity."

plus plenty of other examples.

And I'm saving this CLEAR deception directed towards Duncan:


midaztouch said:


> And where did you see I wrote my motor is overunity and crap


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> It is more important that you support or retract your public overunity claims about the shitty ass a1mo-gen first, really it is. If we don't agree on the laws of physics, how energy works, how magnets work, how conductors work, there is no basis for further discussion.



Hobby thinking and Learing 

Check you mail I sent you the vid personally


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> It is more important that you support or retract your public overunity claims about the shitty ass a1mo-gen first, really it is. If we don't agree on the laws of physics, how energy works, how magnets work, how conductors work, there is no basis for further discussion.
> 
> on 02-10-2015, 09:21 PM midaztouch wrote (on www dot energeticforum dot com/renewable-energy/19956-a1mo-gen-teslas-gift-electromagnetic-reactor-2.html)
> "The A1Mo-Gen is what we all have been waiting for. I tried to explain it in the past but the words didn't come out correctly. The A1Mo-Gen has 4 channels, for now.(6 channels are CLEAR OverUnity ) The channels have a negative and positive that are parallel from each other . The two south stator channels are for motoring. The north channels can be used for motoring or generator or combination of."
> ...


You took a hypothetical conversation, from another forum and brought it to DIY. 
After both admin told you to NOT do that!.... Many times!

I don't have one post here from that forum!
But you have many!

You the kid that cries WOLF!
That's why I call you hobby learning and thinking!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

midaztouch said:


> You took this from another forum and brought it to DIY.
> After both admin told you to NOT do that!


You are the only one who took anything from one forum (an overunity forum) and brought it here. Plus you are leaking overunity on your main thread. Now you put words in the admins mouth. Why are you not banned yet?

ティミー！


----------



## midaztouch (Mar 28, 2011)

dcb said:


> You are the only one who took anything from one forum (an overunity forum) and brought it here. Plus you are leaking overunity on your main thread. Now you put words in the admins mouth. Why are you not banned yet?
> 
> ティミー！


Go to my profile and check all of my post, pawn.

It's all you! Your post are easy to check!

There are so many you can't delete them fast enough! The admin told you stop trolling for OU comments!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

You named this thing, a1mo-gen, it was clear you think it can do overunity with it, it is public info. You are promoting it as such. It is clearly an "overunity" device, we have been over this.

I think you are confused about which thread is which here.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

saw your last vid, you used the term "regenerative acceleration" (also saw the tuna can vid, so not sure why you were hung up on isolation)

that is AKA perpetual motion, aka overunity.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/15/perpetual-motion-regenerative-acceleration-returns-as-regenx-i/

You also discuss using the isolation as a generator for this purpose. But everyone agrees (everyone who isn't into imagining they can defeat the laws of physics with a wire) that it is a lose-lose proposition. I've explained it before, and you went off the rails on BEMF, and refused to answer simple questions.

"the future of electric motors" you say... A controller that is more convoluted than an AC controller, and 8 brushes and 2 commutators, and fixed timing, because "regenerative acceleration"...

Folks get really enamored with their inventions...


look at a motor control schematic sometime.


----------



## arklan (Dec 10, 2012)

dcb said:


> holy crap, did a google image search on aimo-gen might be on to something here:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=aim...a=X&ei=zSYCVef-LoORyQS2mYGwDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg





arklan said:


> rule 34.....





onegreenev said:


> A knife, Never leave home without one. Or is that rule #9


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

I have seen this a number of times where a fellow is building his own motor, gets some decent looking hardware together and then enters into an altered mental state of what I think is delusion of grandeur. He then believes his creation is capable of incredible performance beyond what the world has ever seen and yes, over-unity. Once the individual has reached this level, there is no saving him. He is destined to fail, but he will invariably blame others often adopting theories of conspiracy. 

Another example of this can be found here: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42238&highlight=Alaska+star Mr. AlaskaStar apparently started out with a simple EV conversion of a Geo Storm. He then decided to make his own motor. Soon after he had some pretty motor parts fabricated he was boasting of 400 mile range on a few old lead-acid batteries. And yes, his motor was capable of higher output than it needed for input according to him. He even won some civic group award for innovation with a $10k check. Guess what? His lawyers and investors forced him to shut down and delete his record. I wonder if he gave back the money 

Just an observation. Carry on.


----------



## Orca (Mar 13, 2015)

Major, 

Suppression of Technology for greed, power, envy, jealousy or just plain pettiness is as old as time. 

You are swimming in the Bermuda Triangle


Old Orca Whale


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Orca said:


> Major,
> 
> Suppression of Technology for greed, power, envy, jealousy or just plain pettiness is as old as time.
> 
> ...


Why do you address these comments to me? The only things I have attempted to suppress here are fraud, stupidity and ignorance. Oh yes, I guess I am petty about the laws of physics and application of scientific principles.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Orca said:


> Major,
> 
> Suppression of Technology for greed, power, envy, jealousy or just plain pettiness is as old as time.
> 
> ...


Suppression of Technology for greed, power, envy, jealousy or just plain pettiness is as old as time.

That used to be true back in the middle ages
Nowadays?
Just how would you suppress technology?

You do know how the patent system works?
You have to publish details of your idea - so everybody can see it
(anything not published is not protected)
After 20 years anybody can use your idea

So how do you suppress technology?

Note that if it is a really good idea even if you have a patent that does not stop somebody in another country from using it

When the USA rebelled from Britain it decided not to obey anybody else's patents for about 200 years

About the only way to suppress technology would be to shoot the inventor and all his pals
And that would only work if he couldn't get to the internet first

If there was a great idea out there somebody would run with it
Any of these "over unity" ideas (if they worked) would be worth trillions

Ideas that are just a little bit better can be suppressed - for 20 years
because it's not worth the hassle - 
but something BIG - you can buy a lot of lawyers and judges (and some countries) for $1Trillion


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Orca said:


> You are swimming in the Bermuda Triangle


FYI, the bermuda triangle is a load of crap. Not even a statistical anomoly, and stats that include vessels that were later found (i.e. bad data).

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/places/BermudaTriangle.htm
"According to Lloyd's Records, 428 vessels have been reported missing throughout the world since 1955, and it may interest you to know that our intelligence service can find no evidence to support the claim that the Bermuda Triangle has more losses than elsewhere. This finding is upheld by the United States Coastguard whose computer based records of casualties in the Atlantic go back to 1958."


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> enters into an altered mental state of what I think is delusion of grandeur.


Those who enter here: is as old as time as well. Don't kid yourself Orca.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Orca said:


> Suppression of Technology for greed, power, envy, jealousy or just plain pettiness is as old as time.


Are you really that stupid? 

There are dozens of scientific organizations, companies, and even governments offering huge cash rewards of multiple millions of dollars to the first person to present a working prototype. Has been for decades, and yet no one has offered anything.

What makes you think for one minute there is any conspiracy to suppress technology. Billions are being poured into research and development for revolutionary energy technology. Even those greedy oil companies are pouring billions into battery development.

If you or anyone else really had something companies from all over the world would be beating down your door to be the first to license it and bring it to market. In the process would make make you the richest person on the face of earth.

Pull your head out.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Worth watching (EEVBlog):


----------



## debeerd (Apr 18, 2011)

I have not yet read through the entire thread yet but here is my 2c:
The turbine idea in the front of the car is a good plan to generate some power while the car is moving.

Second about the alternator part:
One could fit alternators to the axle or axles (1 alternator or 4 alternators)
Then with a controller let them turn free while driving, and only when you let go of the accelerator or apply the brakes make them charge.

I'm busy planning a build so have lots to read about what to get etc etc
I want to do the electric conversion, but also add solar panel charging and also maybe alternator brake regeneration power capturing.
This way you would minimally have to plug it in anywhere to charge, correct me if I'm wrong with my thinking.
Not sure if there are companies out there that offer anything that will do all of this ?


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

A turbine on the front of the car will add aerodynamic drag and will waste more power than it can produce. But perhaps a retractible turbine could harvest some wind energy when parked, or when used to assist braking.

Alternators, especially those designed for ICE cars to keep the battery charged, are very inefficient, probably 50-70%. Much better to use an induction motor, synchronous motor, BLDC, or PMDC motor as the power for the vehicle as well as a generator. 

Solar panels produce something like 100 watts per square meter, and the surface area of a small car is perhaps 10 square meters, so you could get 1000 watts. Under ideal conditions, a small car needs about 5 HP or 3800 watts at 50 MPH on flat roads. But unless the panels are designed to minimize aerodynamic drag, they may be more of a liability than an asset. If you can leave the car parked in an area with high insolation for 8 hours, you might get 8 kWh of energy, so if you average 240 W-h/mile, a solar panel might give you 30 miles of range. 

It may be better to carry a "tent" made of flexible solar panels and erect it over your car when parked. But then somebody might steal it...


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi debeerd
Welcome back
I think you have mistaken the reason for this thread
This is where all of the tinfoil hat ideas go - you are welcome to read it but it's full of misinformation and lies

You can recapture some of the energy that would be lost when braking and an AC system will do this BUT it will only give a small increase in range
And solar panels on the car are effectively useless - like emptying a bathtub with a teaspoon


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I'm not so sure about the solar panels, but I made an error in my estimation of 300 watts/sqm. The efficiency is more like 15% and insolation has a maximum of 1000 w/sqm so it's more like 100 w/sqm. Still, a car with 10 square meters of surface area could provide 1000 watts for 8 hours or 8 kWh and as much as 32 miles of range. However, unless the panels can be positioned for maximum power, or maybe in the tropics with an optimal angle to the sun, you might get only half that.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Paul
It's the area square on to the sun you need - more like 4m2 than 10m2
And here we get 4 hours sun - not 8

So more like 1.5Kwhrs - actually probably less than 1/2 of that
So about 0.5Kwhrs - or about 1.5 miles
Then you have the loss of range due to the extra weight
Teaspoon!


----------



## psron (Jun 19, 2012)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



Mastiff said:


> To answer your question:
> 
> /snip/
> You can never get more energy out of a system than you put in.



Probably been addressed before... but I just love it when people quote this wrong... because every day, every hour... there are thousands of alternative energy systems putting more energy out than YOU put in to it.

Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Wind turbines... energy that was put into its manufacture is usually replaced in short order.... then after that, it is "free energy"... energy transformed from one kind to another... which "we" did not put into it.

Before we knew how to harness solar for electricity, it was considered far-fetched...
We are just now learning about "dark energy" or "dark matter"... who knows where this can lead to.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Ultimately all energy on earth comes from solar power, which is a fusion reaction common to all stars. We just find ways to use that radiant energy directly, or extract it from its storage (and physical effects) in fossil fuels, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and wind. You have mentioned these. Nuclear energy from fission occurs when heavy elements (also produced by fusion in stars) emit energy which is turned into heat and steam to drive turbines and generators. 

We must build and maintain equipment to convert these forms of energy to power we can use, and the cost of doing so can be a significant portion of the total energy extracted in usable form. For quite some time, solar cells took a lot more energy to build than the total energy that could be obtained during their lifetime. 

There may be other forms of energy in the environment which might be tapped, but so far the levels are too low and the cost of conversion too high to be practical. Electromagnetic fields and cosmic rays are ever-present, but are not easily captured. Most over-unity claimants refer to "zero-point energy" or systems that may work on a quantum mechanical scale or a cosmic scale, but without means of practical terrestrial implementation. The "demonstrations" that are shown on YouTube or Free Energy sits invariably involve miscalculation, measurement error, and deception to "prove" their validity.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: alternator as a range extender attachment?*



psron said:


> Probably been addressed before... but I just love it when people quote this wrong... because every day, every hour... there are thousands of alternative energy systems putting more energy out than YOU put in to it.
> 
> Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Wind turbines... energy that was put into its manufacture is usually replaced in short order.... then after that, it is "free energy"... energy transformed from one kind to another... which "we" did not put into it.


You are really fooling yourself and putting on Blinders. 

Solar EROI is pathetic over the 25 year life expectancy. In a Residential application 3 to 4, commercial 5 to 7. Germany th eking of solar is 3. 

To use an analogy which car do you choose to drive? One with 5 mpg, 10 mpg, 50 mpg, or 100+ mpg?

Well if you choose solar as your preferred source of electricity you chose to drive the 5 mpg car. Conventional source of Coal, NG, and Nuclear EROI range EROI from 30 on the low end, to 100 on the high end. The 100 EROI has around 10,000 to 1 million years of cheap fuel around not even being used and emission free. 

All that money and resources being spent on solar could be much better utilized using that energy later more efficiently. 

From an economic POV solar is not feasible as the EROI has to be up around 7 yo 8 to even be considered feasible. Wind is fair with EROI of 8 to 12 depending on who you ask but is still poor. Hydro is King of renewable with EROI of 30 to 50, but in the USA hydro was all built out during WW-II era and no more hydro to tap here. 

Question is do we really want to waste our resources all that money for something that is not economical and a heavy polluter?


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

*Why are cars stupid (still)*

Hello like minded peers,

Cars are stupid. They have this monstrously over designed generator, and it's doing EVERYTHING! 
Why doesn't the generator generate electricity to more efficient motors?
The only reason to have the generator have anything to do with direct propulsion of the vehicle would be a wind cooled system that needed to pause the motors for cooling. That would be antiquated though...


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

In the real world cars have a small "generator" which is used to feed the lights/fans/ancillaries
Yes a car alternator is not very efficient - but its only a tiny proportion of the cars power needs - propulsion does take a lot of power!


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

well, this gets my vote for weirdest first post ever...


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Sounds like he saying hybrid cars should be series, not parallel.


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Well met,

There is a problem with inefficient design. As Duncan said, the current universally accepted method of harvesting energy off the generator is grossly wanting.
It is not like this is some alien technology outside of the scope of human reason. You know what harvest power off spinning?
Just about every method of harvesting energy...
Admittedly, the concept of regenerative braking is beyond my current understanding. However, the spinning thing; I can understand that.
I think that cars are stupid because we want to honor the inventor, and never ever change them to be more efficient. 

I was just wondering why there aren't energy harvesters on every spinning part in these vehicles.

Thank you for your time evaluating this communication.


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

You have missed what is the utmost in stupidity about cars, that 70% of the time they are used to transport one 200 lb person, and to do so, they must use the energy to transport 3500 lbs of car, or in some SUV cases of 4,500 lbs of car. That needs to change and is possible with 1970's technology.
Today the most vaunted 'green' car, the Model S, is 4,500 lbs. Shameful.


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

I was thinking that with two bicycles, a solar shell, camp generator, forklift motor, and 4 wind generators, I could make a car that puts the Tesla Roadster to shame. Sure it can use gas for the long haul, but I'm thinking 30 miles to the ounce. See, I have this organism in mind that uses machines focused on a specific task rather than have a centralized engine do everything. The design has been really bugging me for about a week now.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

_I was just wondering why there aren't energy harvesters on every spinning part in these vehicles._

I thought it would be something like this.
Everything that is "spinning" is being spun - we are using energy from the petrol (or in an EV the battery) to spin that part
If you "harvest" any energy from that part you need to put more energy into making it spin!

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!

Every time you convert energy - rotational to electric - electric to rotational - heat to rotational

The gods of thermodynamics take a cut - sometimes it's a huge one
Heat to rotational (Internal combustion engine) - is less than 30% - the gods take 70%
Sometimes its smaller - electricity to rotational - 90+% the gods take less than 10%

But every conversion they take a cut

The only "exception" is regenerative braking
That is when you want to brake your normal disc brakes convert your car's energy of motion into heat
Regenerative braking converts the energy of motion into electrical power
(And yes the gods take their cut)

You need to learn some basic engineering - engineers have spent thousands of man years improving things - it's possible that we have all missed some basic simple things - but not very likely!


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Well let's see my car has

Navigation with touch screen and voice commands
600 watt stereo
electric seats, windows, and doors
Self Diagnostics
Heated seats
Heads up Display
Rear and side view cameras
Electric Rear Windshield De-Icer
Air Conditioning that can make a meat locker inside the car
Can Cruise all day long with Cruise Control @ 190 Kmh
5.9 Liters/100 KM diesel. 
900 to 1000 Km range
Bluetooth interface for all my toys. 

Pretty smart if you ask me and takes a fair size alternator to do it. My EV is pretty stupid and cannot do any of that. Only has a horn, volt meter, and F/R switch, and lights.


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

My office, and backpack do all of that fancy stuff with just a few cell phone batteries. The convoluted contraption you cite here is stupid for all of its cool tricks, and only getting 30mpg.
That's my point: we have the tools, we have the equipment, and normative consensus continues to chant "if it's not broke". I think using a cotton gin, horse and plow, and washboard is stupid, but apparently cars MUST follow a traditional design.


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

Further discussion when I get to a keyboard and mouse.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Much of the "standard" design of vehicles is for safety, protection from the elements (rain, heat, cold), and capacity for transporting multiple people and other cargo. A bicycle is about the most efficient means of transport for a single person, especially if human-powered, but with an electric motor it might get better than 10 miles/kWh, and with a small ICE, perhaps 200 MPG. All vehicles are subject to the laws of physics and it takes a certain amount of power depending on mass, speed, acceleration (slope), and wind and rolling resistance. 

A typical car requires 20-30 HP (15-22 kW) just for cruising at highway speeds, resulting in the typical 200-300 W-h/mile of the most efficient small EVs. For an ICE vehicle, the generator is typically about 1 HP (750 watts, 12V 60A) and may be only 50% efficient, so it takes 2 HP (less than 10%) to spin it when charging at maximum, but mostly it is just spinning under minimal load and the equivalent of maybe 1/10 HP. A 90% efficient generator/alternator is possible, but would cost at least twice as much, and really provide only a tiny improvement in fuel economy.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Remember folks, pot is legal for recreational use in Colorado... Just sayin'.


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*



PStechPaul said:


> Much of the "standard" design of vehicles is for safety, protection from the elements (rain, heat, cold), and capacity for transporting multiple people and other cargo. A bicycle is about the most efficient means of transport for a single person, especially if human-powered, but with an electric motor it might get better than 10 miles/kWh, and with a small ICE, perhaps 200 MPG. All vehicles are subject to the laws of physics and it takes a certain amount of power depending on mass, speed, acceleration (slope), and wind and rolling resistance.
> 
> A typical car requires 20-30 HP (15-22 kW) just for cruising at highway speeds, resulting in the typical 200-300 W-h/mile of the most efficient small EVs. For an ICE vehicle, the generator is typically about 1 HP (750 watts, 12V 60A) and may be only 50% efficient, so it takes 2 HP (less than 10%) to spin it when charging at maximum, but mostly it is just spinning under minimal load and the equivalent of maybe 1/10 HP. A 90% efficient generator/alternator is possible, but would cost at least twice as much, and really provide only a tiny improvement in fuel economy.


Well met Paul,
Your brief breakdown of energy conversion is informative. Don't you think that energy conversion from a ICE (internal combustion engine) would be efficient with the proper fuel controls? I am under the impression that we have been developing this technology since the 70's and every vehicle is capable of becoming a hugely fuel efficient machine with the proper conversion. 

Let me see if I'm reading your explanation right: You're saying that it takes the power of 15-30 gaming rigs to move a typical vehicle?

Yes, tesseract. Marijuana is supposedly legal in CO.

Sunking, I cannot support a 600w speakers system on cellphone batteries.

greetings Duncan, I take from your post that you are confirming that there are entirely better ways of using the energy that goes into automobiles?

Thank you mostly for your constructive replies.

Best ^_^..


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Hi Goddol
_greetings Duncan, I take from your post that you are confirming that there are entirely better ways of using the energy that goes into automobiles?_

NO NO NO
Try reading it carefully!

_Don't you think that energy conversion from a ICE (internal combustion engine) would be efficient with the proper fuel controls? I am under the impression that we have been developing this technology since the 70's and every vehicle is capable of becoming a hugely fuel efficient machine with the proper conversion. _


NO NO NO

The maximum possible efficiency for a heat engine is set by a simple equation

Temperature In (the temp that the heat goes into the engine) minus
Temperature Out (must be above ambient so that the heat will flow) 

Divided by the Temperature In
(All in degrees Absolute (Kelvin))
This limit is set by the laws of thermodynamics - just as well documented and tested as the laws of motion (just a bit more complicated)

With modern materials (which limit the temperatures) you get up to about 40% efficiency - at full load - at lower loads this drops quite a bit

Another limitation is the air - if your fuel/air mix burns at too high a temperature some of the nitrogen "burns" and you get NOx which is a nasty gas and is limited by pollution laws

Modern IC engines are approaching 95% of this theoretical maximum - and that has taken thousands of man years of work

So
NO you CAN NOT substantially improve the efficiency "_with the proper fuel controls_"

There is a lot that can be done to improve the fuel used per mile by making the vehicles
Smaller
Lighter
Slower

But the market does not seem to want those 

You need to learn some engineering before ranting on about how thousands of very intelligent people have worked for hundreds of years but you can see where they have all gone wrong


----------



## Goddoll (Jun 15, 2015)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Alright Duncan,

The problem is with the market, but not a buyers market. The sellers don't want to intentionally gimp options in fuel futures. It would be ironic to make a vehicle widely available that would obsolete the current fuel market infrastructure. You're trying to tell me there is NO better way to build these machines with some mighty dandy altruistic rose colored glasses. Are you going to tell me that Nikola Tesla is a urban legend, and his inventions are just a conspiracy theory designed to make a separate camp for people who are pro-Edison? That would take some amazing political gymnastics, and I would be very interested in meeting someone who put that one together.

Anyway, I was trying to find more of an answer for a spinning harvesting concept, rather than heat. I envision a car where the engine itself is disconnected from the drive shaft, and a motor is placed in between. The engine then generates electricity to the motor. The conversion is augmented by spinning harvesters on each wheel. One could also imagine a solar shell, and aerodynamic wind generator; though I think that the recycled energy from just the spinning tires/engine would improve efficiency. 

Thank you for your time reading this reply.

Cheers ^_^,,


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Yup, this needs to be moved to the free energy thread.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

*Re: Why are people stupid (still)*

I agree. That "special" place for "special" people. It seems that the thread is actually as I have renamed it:

_Why are people stupid (still)  _


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*



Goddoll said:


> Anyway, I was trying to find more of an answer for a spinning harvesting concept, rather than heat. I envision a car where the engine itself is disconnected from the drive shaft, and a motor is placed in between. The engine then generates electricity to the motor. The conversion is augmented by spinning harvesters on each wheel. One could also imagine a solar shell, and aerodynamic wind generator; though I think that the recycled energy from just the spinning tires/engine would improve efficiency.


This cannot work except for when you are intentionally slowing the vehicle. And this already exists in all the OEM EV's, most all of the Hybrid cars, and almost all AC drive system DIY EV's. Why doesn't it work the rest of the time? Because the energy going into the motor is moving the vehicle. If you harvest it then you have to put more energy into the motor to overcome that which you have harvested. And it is worse than this. If you do a really good job you only lose about 10% of what you harvest as heat in the electronics. You can take advantage of a wind generator only if you are standing still and face it into the wind. If the vehicle is moving the wind is being generated by the motion of the vehicle through the air. If you try to harvest that you place an increased drain on the motor that will always be greater than what you get out of the generator.

One area where it is believed you might harvest some energy is in the suspension. If the dampeners (shocks and struts) were linear generators you could generate electricity from the damping of the imperfections in the road as you travel over them. There isn't going to be much there because if there was the shocks and struts would need heat sinks to get rid of it. But even a few hundred watts recovered might make it worth doing.

The only conspiracy today is thinking people will buy ultra efficient vehicles. They need to get smaller, lighter and more aerodynamic. People don't like smaller. Lighter costs more in direct materials cost for the lighter materials or engineering time to correctly use the materials. More aerodynamic looking cars don't sell because they look funny.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Why are cars stupid (still)*

Hi Everybody
I have moved this thread to our "special place"

Goddoll - you need to learn some engineering or even just do some simple experiments



Goddoll said:


> Alright Duncan,
> 
> You're trying to tell me there is NO better way to build these machines with some mighty dandy altruistic rose colored glasses. Are you going to tell me that Nikola Tesla is a urban legend, and his inventions are just a conspiracy theory designed to make a separate camp for people who are pro-Edison? That would take some amazing political gymnastics, and I would be very interested in meeting someone who put that one together.
> 
> ...


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

It is instructive to think of a heat engine- any engine which converts heat to mechanical energy - as a waterwheel which is extracting some energy from heat as it flows in the only direction it flows spontaneously- from hot to cold. The "higher" the waterfall, i.e. the higher the temperature difference between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir, the larger fraction of the heat energy can be converted to work (mechanical energy).

An impossibly perfect heat engine using a hot reservoir of 1000 C (so hot that most materials have very little practical strength left) and a cold reservoir of 20 C, could achieve about 77% efficiency. But no real engine could ever achieve that Carnot efficiency limit- it is possible under conditions in which everything is in equilibrium, i.e. where no actual energy is withdrawn in the form of work. It is a hard upper limit, arising from the laws of thermodynamics.

Real combined cycle power plants can achieve about 60% efficiency of converting fuel chemical energy (i.e. heat energy) to work, though that calc depends on whether you consider the upper or lower heating value of the fuel to be the ultimate amount of that energy you can use. Combined cycle units, with a fuel-driven turbine shedding waste heat to drive a steam-driven turbine, are necessarily large and complex machines- far too large and too complex for mobile applications smaller than perhaps oceangoing ships.

A turbodiesel can achieve about 45% efficiency at its peak efficiency point- a point where it doesn't constantly run in a car or truck of course, so real fuel efficiency is lower than this. That's amazingly good. However, its emissions aren't all that stellar, even with the best practically available emission controls on it (the ones that would be practical in a vehicle that is- stationary diesels can have their exhausts scrubbed very thoroughly without too much of an energetic penalty, as long as you allow the CO2 to go to the atmosphere).

The difference between regenerative braking and "harvesting energy from spinning parts" is simply this: in the case of regenerative braking, you're converting kinetic energy (1/2 the moving mass of the car times the velocity squared) into electrical energy- with losses in that conversion as with all conversions. It is far better than converting that energy to heat- but the energy wasted by braking amounts to only 10-20% of the energy used to move the vehicle. Enough to be worth conserving, but the rest- the energy used to overcome air frictional resistance and rolling resistance and to operate the car's other systems (lighting, climate controls etc.) eat the other 80-90%. That energy, along with the fraction of the heat that spills over your heat engine waterfall without being extracted- is GONE- it isn't available for harvesting.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Here's a graph showing how much we've managed to improve the efficiency of heat engines versus time. Note that the plot has a logarithmic scale, so efficiency has been growing by orders of magnitude from 0.77% for the first practical steam engine to the 60% efficient combined cycle power plant. Diesels actually appeared sooner than the graph indicates and were quite efficient from the outset, so the graph is an approximation once you get to around 1900 or so. The source for the steam engine efficiencies through to the Parsons turbine are from a figure produced by a former University of Calgary professor- I haven't checked the source reference.

I've put the upper Carnot efficiency limit for an unattainable 1000 C hot reservoir temperature for reference. You can find morons on the internet who try to extrapolate this curve into the future, to efficiencies beyond 100%...but Carnot sets the limit for heat engines of any kind.

Note the big jump, even on a log scale, that Watt managed to make over the Smeaton engine by installing a separate condenser etc. Watt didn't invent the steam engine by any stretch of the imagination, but he certainly improved it greatly in a single leap.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

If you're referring to the poster Goddoll, then I think you're right, Batiste. Except for one thing- the use of the term "current mainstream science". People who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and hence do not understand that conservation of energy is a law, not merely a popular theory, are not scientists. They're either ignorant, or they're frauds.


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

I was thinking the same thing. There is really nothing other than main stream current science. "Alternative" science is not science. 

Granted, not all "science" is done well and some science is motivated by money but that stuff usually becomes pretty obvious when the debunking starts.

Things like conservation of energy are understood very well and hold up to the scientific method with 100% consistent results. Its not a current mainstream Idea for no reason.


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

Saw this on another site and had a good laugh.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

We saw that one too about a month ago- my son got a good laugh out of it!

Nobody ever talks about the pure heat perpetual motion machines any more though. Nobody is offering me a machine which uses the heat in my beer to cook my bacon (without requiring work to pump that heat "uphill")!


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Funny thing, last night I dreamed I was in some sort of shop class and I was with someone in the back who was making some sort of motor. He showed me how to do it, which involved carving a wooden piece to fit inside a hollow plastic mold, and then that was put in a wooden box with a wooden rod sticking out. When I pulled and pushed on the rod, it seemed to exhibit compression and almost ran. I took it apart and saw a wooden piece that had a small burn mark on a high spot, so I took a file and made it smooth, put it back together, and it started and ran nicely. It seemed to keep going faster but then started smoking so I had to stop it. Just a simple friction heat engine!  

The same guy (whose name might have been Klatu from another planet) also gave me what appeared to be a thin flexible plastic device that seemed like a large postcard with a photograph on it. As I looked at the image, which included the sea, I could see some movement of the waves and other details. I thought it was like those pictures that move and change from different angles, but then it changed into a full video! Then the videos became X-rated...


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

.................. TMI Dude .....................


----------



## PZigouras (Jun 5, 2010)

Here's a good one. We can buy a few of these, rip the "batteries" out, and make a nice 144V series string! Then we can charge while we park... for free! Woo-hoo! 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VYC8K77MSc


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

major said:


> To members sampojo and midastouch,
> 
> I don't object to you experimenting or researching with electric machinery. Good for you. But you both appear to be taken by this fellow who calls himself Ufopolitics. sampojo links to him and says this about him:
> 
> ...


Much of this issue over CEMF in DC motors came from a series of videos produced by peter Lindemann entitled "Electric Motor Secrets".
_In the video he references a book
basic electricity_. » by _VAN VALKENBURGH_,. NOOGER & NEVILLE, INC. VOL. 1 -5. this available as a PDF download. 
Re Page 5-53, para below the figure is where the statement is made about effective voltage.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> Much of this issue over CEMF in DC motors came from a series of videos produced by peter Lindemann entitled "Electric Motor Secrets".
> _In the video he references a book
> basic electricity_. » by _VAN VALKENBURGH_,. NOOGER & NEVILLE, INC. VOL. 1 -5. this available as a PDF download.
> Re Page 5-53, para below the figure is where the statement is made about effective voltage.


Perhaps you could be so kind as to include links or pasted quotes. Thank you. Google turned up nothing for me.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

The following link should get you to the PDF download.


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...fbjKAP9Bvyv8WgNp8z3L-Q&bvm=bv.106379543,d.ZWU


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

This is Lindemanns download site

http://electricmotorsecrets.com/


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> The following link should get you to the PDF download.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...fbjKAP9Bvyv8WgNp8z3L-Q&bvm=bv.106379543,d.ZWU


Thanks. The passage on 5-53 confirmed my contention. The author's use of effective voltage to describe the difference between applied voltage Ea and generated voltage Ec is a poor choice of words. Effective voltage in this case is the voltage drop across the motor resistance, as I said. It does not figure into the output power.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

See attached. This extract from another book appears to use a similar description for CEMF.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> This is Lindemanns download site
> 
> http://electricmotorsecrets.com/


This is a quote from your link attributed to Peter Lindermann of November 3, 2015:



> I designed my first "free energy" electric generator in 1980. It operated at about 120% efficiency.


Certainly doesn't motivate me to spend money to read more from him.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

Legitimacy of Lindemann was perceived by others due to the reference made to the basic electricity publication, which appear to be a publication used at one time within the US Navy.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> See attached. This extract from another book appears to use a similar description for CEMF.


I have no argument with that. I still think that _effective_ is a poor choice of words to use for the difference between the applied voltage and the generated voltage (CEMF). This effective voltage is used to calculate the resistive loss in the motor and is used to calculate the motor current. The effective voltage (Ea - Ec) is not used in the COP or efficiency calculation as Ufopolitics did and none of your references show that.

So what exactly is your point?

Thanks,

major


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> Legitimacy of Lindemann was perceived by others due to the reference made to the basic electricity publication, which appear to be a publication used at one time within the US Navy.


WTF So any OU nutjob references a publication used by a branch of the US armed services and he is legitimate? O.K.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

It would seem that book texts would benefit from further clarification, as many seem to written in a similar fashion.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> It would seem that book texts would benefit from further clarification, as many seem to written in a similar fashion.


What is your point?


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

Lindemann was perceived to be legitimate because of the book by some people. I never said that was OK.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> Lindemann was perceived to be legitimate because of the book by some people. I never said that was OK.


Yet you referenced him to support some point you're trying to make. What is that point?


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

Perhaps it is not obvious. In this case some people appeared to hold beliefs that were not derived from their own reasoning. I was just pointing out the source of their beliefs, thats all.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> Perhaps it is not obvious. In this case some people appeared to hold beliefs that were not derived from their own reasoning. I was just pointing out the source of their beliefs, thats all.


Specifically who (Ufopolitics?) and what belief (effective voltage is used to calculate motor efficiency?)? Or maybe that CEMF is the evil witch? None of your references (sources) show that. 

One person who doesn't know what he's talking about preaches a big lie and develops a cult of followers who believe the nonsense. It is the preacher's reasoning, or lack thereof, that is the problem, not the reference material which you present.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

Yes, I saw that ufopolitics was named in connection with the CEMF witch and possibly others. Certainly Lindemann brought attention to the book text however, any number of people could have found that publication themselves, and made the same interpretation. So I still think that a more clarified text would be beneficial.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> Yes, I saw that ufopolitics was named in connection with the CEMF witch and possibly others. Certainly Lindemann brought attention to the book text however, any number of people could have found that publication themselves, and made the same interpretation. So I still think that a more clarified text would be beneficial.


Maybe these people should have studied more than a single book or two and even actually sought an education on the subject before becoming self proclaimed experts and preaching their garbage. Don't blame the books.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

Here is a link to a paper that supports the statement

The _I2R_ term represents heat dissipated in the armature, but the very important term _EoI_ is the electrical power that is converted into mechanical power. The mechanical power of the motor is therefore exactly equal to the product of the cemf multiplied by the armature current

_P_ = _EoI_ (5.5)​


http://www.ni.com/white-paper/14921/en/


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

listener192 said:


> Here is a link to a paper that supports the statement
> 
> The _I2R_ term represents heat dissipated in the armature, but the very important term _EoI_ is the electrical power that is converted into mechanical power. The mechanical power of the motor is therefore exactly equal to the product of the cemf multiplied by the armature current
> 
> ...


Yes, that is what I've said also. The power conversion in the armature from electrical to mechanical is equal to Eg * Ia. Power equals generated voltage (also called CEMF or Ec or Eo) times armature current. Ufopolitics uses armature current times effective voltage for the mechanical power or P = (Ea - Ec) * Ia, which is the power loss in the resistance.


----------



## listener192 (Nov 3, 2015)

It took me a long while to find this, and it was not in any of the standard publications. I even looked at several online training videos, and also I did not see this.

You can see that self training on this subject by reading books is a little "hit and miss".


----------



## Jbrewer106 (May 7, 2015)

If can use a Igbt and turn off the current to the stator on the alternator when aceleration in being aplied . And enable field when breaking that's when mechanical force for conversion will be the most useful. It should be pretty easy to tap into your break petal to signal the Igbt and then connect the output of the alternator to bridge rectifier charge a batteries via a charge the battery when the break is on is applied as a test and monitor the current and voltage. You could use separate 12volt or a up DC to DC converter to your main batteries. But I think the separate 12volt would be a better starting point.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

A "brilliant" one for your amusement:

www.blacklightpower.com

Then check out the Wikipedia page in relation to this "company":

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

Apparently this guy has snaffled over $60 million of investors' money over a period of 25 yrs. Big surprise- he's always less than a year away from the big demonstration of last year's big breakthrough.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Anybody who claims that they've not only discovered a new form of matter never previously discovered, but is using this new form of matter to generate limitless free energy, has a very steep burden of proof indeed!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Another plonker who does not understand what a catalyst does

A catalyst can speed up a reaction it DOES NOT effect the thermodynamics of the reaction

If a reaction requires a certain amount of energy then with a catalyst it will require the same amount of energy

It takes 141Mj/Kg to make hydrogen out of water - having a catalyst merely means that you can use a smaller reaction chamber


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

_A catalyst can also reduce the potential required to pass a given number of electrons, allowing more cells in series to divide up an applied potential, resulting in more gas production per ampere.

_NO NO it can't 
The gods of thermodynamics will strike you dead

It takes energy to split the water - the same amount of energy


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

You don't have a degree in physics if you don't understand simple thermodynamics

It takes energy to split water - it doesn't matter how many long words you use the laws of physics stay the same 

You are simply talking bollocks


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



> A catalyst can also reduce the potential required to pass a given number of electrons, allowing more cells *in series* to divide up an applied potential, resulting in more gas production per ampere.


 A catalyst may reduce the hydrogen generation over-voltage, thereby increasing the efficiency of the conversion of water to H2- that's definitely true. However, a catalyst may not reduce the overvoltage below the level equal to the difference in internal energy (dU) between 2H+ (in water) and H2. Note that you also need the corresponding reaction at the other electrode, the oxidation of OH- to produce O2. The energy fed to the electrolyzer will always be greater than the difference in internal energy between feedstock (water) and products (H2 and O2).

The current state of the art in electrolysis at room temperature is about 60% efficiency, meaning that about 60% of the feed energy is available in product hydrogen. That's pretty amazing actually, considering that the oxygen is not figured into this calculation at all. And no, you can't reach 100%, much less can you exceed it.

Even if you reduced the emissions of a modern IC engine by 90%, you've added a trivial amount of combustion energy. There's nothing left to burn in the exhaust aside from whatever is left behind deliberately to reduce NOx back to N2 and O2. Feeding a mixture of fuel and oxygen in with the combustion air of an air-aspirated engine definitely will, though, mess with the emission controls of the engine.

Whether the "spin state" of hydrogen is ortho or para is irrelevant to how much energy you get out of it again when you combust it, and even if you generate one state exclusively, you will very rapidly have the equilibrium of the two states anyway.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Bob Boyce said:


> You all have fun keeping your thinking confined to tiny little boxes and accomplish absolutely NOTHING in advanced technology.


conspiracy theories? really? 

Wow, and you talk at conferences? 

You sure have accomplished a lot. 

There are so many real world examples of your hydrogen bong saving millions of gallons of gas... 

oh, wait, no that was the folks at DIYElectriccar and elsewhere that did that saving gas thing. 

Who are you again?


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

.???
....whats this Duncan ? Are you bored or confined to house or something ?
Digging out a 6 year old thread for something to argue about ?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

our enlightened friend bailed and deleted his new messages, so it looks out of context now. Duncan was responding to some new idiocy.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Dunno- the rubbish posts are still there in the thread - I can see them. More HHO nonsense.


----------



## bigmotherwhale (Apr 15, 2011)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

At risk of being slated for no good reason.... 

A catalyst can increase the efficiency of electrolysis, and can be an endothermic reaction. 
High pressure high temperature solid oxide electrolysers are very efficient for that reason. 

I found this quite interesting 

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/water-splitter-catalyst-062315.html

"Haotian eventually discovered that nickel-iron oxide is a world-record performing material that can catalyze both the hydrogen and the oxygen reaction," Cui said. "No other catalyst can do this with such great performance."

So using stainless steel as an electrode material seems quite sensible.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Speaking about electrolysis as being exothermic or endothermic is pretty pointless. Yes you can carry out electrolysis at elevated temperature, and the energy input requirement is somewhat reduced, but only somewhat. It is not accurate to call that an endothermic reaction any more than it's accurate to say that if you waste some over voltage as heat, that it is an exothermic reaction. 

You're still sapped with spending energy generating oxygen which you can get for virtually no energy input from the atmosphere. The energy input is minimized in a mixed cell. If you separate the cell so you get the oxygen and hydrogen separate from one another, ie because you want safety in the cell rather than making a devastatingly explosive mixture on purpose, then you suffer an energy input penalty as a result.


----------



## bigmotherwhale (Apr 15, 2011)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

while there all true and valid points, I've read several papers on high temperature fuel cells and they talk specifically about endothermic and exothermic electrolysis and particularly the thermoneutral potential which is ideal in unheated cells.

It is of course possible to operate the cell in the endothermic mode electrical efficiencies above 100% can occur, which would be ideal for generating from waste heat such as exhaust pipes. 

here is a good read: http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/53764/4/Recent advances in high temperature.pdf

Also for on demand applications such as welding or use in engines the low volume of gasses stored makes it quite safe as long as a pressure release is incorporated in the design. I do know there have been some very large explosions cause by people storing HHO on mass, and they were even using refrigeration compressors to put it in bottles(!) needless to say the explosion was catastrophic and annihilated the entire building.

yes the oxygen is a waste, on a car you would be better of piping it in to the cabin to breathe.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



bigmotherwhale said:


> while there all true and valid points, I've read several papers on high temperature fuel cells and they talk specifically about endothermic and exothermic electrolysis and particularly the thermoneutral potential which is ideal in unheated cells.


Yet no one can make it work. It requires re-writing the Laws of Physics. In this case ignore and pretend they do not exist.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

bmw (or was it audi?) is allegedly electrolyzing steam at very high temp and using cogeneration.

but again, on a car you would have to be an idiot to consider electrolysis for more than 3 seconds, yet people blather on about it for years.


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Duncan said:


> It takes 141Mj/Kg to make hydrogen out of water - having a catalyst merely means that you can use a smaller reaction chamber


Hello,
Are you familiar with Andrija Puharic's US patents 4394230 "Method and apparatus for splitting water" and 6419815 "Method for producing orthhydrogen"?

I am thinking that Mr Original, Bob Boyce is. Puharic's electrolysis patent is a work of art. It is possibly the best patent using resonance and high voltages to achieve a very high degree of efficiency. I did hear that Puharic was constantly under several forms of duress because of the patent. When operating as it is designed, it is supposed to produce more energy than the energy required for splitting. Which if true makes text book statements just that. Text book and not real world. There is also something in what Bob Boyce says regarding orthohydrogen as it is my understanding that Ortho is more reactive than Parahydrogen due to the manner with which the electrons rotate about the proton.

On a different tack Stanley Meyer is thought to have used Puharics ideas on resonance to achieve the outstanding results that he advertised. 

However, it is no simple task to get Puharic's patent to operate efficiently. A lot of attention has to be paid to the ceramic forms and the various other proximity values of the other components. Important too is the pulse supply, from memory it is a positive electrostatic field that is used, much like Meyers might have used. This could assist in creating a field environment for longitudinal waves that Bob Boyce says that he uses. Although, I personally do not see the advantage, unless, as longitudinal waves are destructive, Boyce is confusing his electrolysis output as being initiated by Longitudinal waves. 

Cheers


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



bigmotherwhale said:


> I do know there have been some very large explosions cause by people storing HHO on mass, and they were even using refrigeration compressors to put it in bottles(!) needless to say the explosion was catastrophic and annihilated the entire building.


Hello,
I think you might be refering to this calamity http://pesn.com/2010/06/18/9501662_water-fuel-research_Explosion_kills_inventor/

The issue was trying to store HHO and the proximity of carbon. Hydrogen itself can be stored in carbon, such as carbon nano tubes, but not HHO. 

Cheers


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



ourbobby said:


> However, it is no simple task to get Puharic's patent to operate efficiently.


I disagree - it is very simple to make it work - just not in this universe!!


----------



## ourbobby (Nov 28, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



Duncan said:


> I disagree - it is very simple to make it work - just not in this universe!!


I knew there was a reason why I ceased contributing to this forum. The inability of some of the contributors' to test their knowledge.

Adios


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



ourbobby said:


> I knew there was a reason why I ceased contributing to this forum. The inability of some of the contributors' to test their knowledge.
> 
> Adios


don't let the door hit your bum on the way out


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



ourbobby said:


> On a different tack Stanley Meyer is thought to have used Puharics ideas on resonance to achieve the outstanding results that he advertised.


Or, stay with me here, he just made it up, just like you are doing now. I've yet to see an HHO proponent that could keep volts and watts straight. They all seem like they have too many chromosomes or something.

"Water powered", not battery powered? What a tremendous buffoon, with such a following.

slap a couple dimwitted eyewitnesses together and yer off.










So basically bigfoot quality video, and you get several hundreds percent more energy output from the hydrogen than the input :/
http://waterpoweredcar.com/equinox3StanleyMeyer.WMV

HHO, thy name is overunity.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Don't confuse "testing your knowledge" with "accepting unsubstantiated claims". People making extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

High frequencies are often deliberately exploited by scam artists to render measurements of an energy balance more difficult. Many over-unity scams predicated on electrolysis have used pulse-mode electrolysis, with frequencies varying all over the map. There is nothing about high frequencies or pulsed DC that permit you to violate the law of conservation of energy. You hear a lot of rubbish about "resonant frequencies" etc., but they reveal an underlying misunderstanding of the physics and chemistry. If you generate room temperature hydrogen and oxygen from water, you need to input at very least the dU between the products and reagents. Doesn't matter what process you use to get there. That's the beauty of the law of conservation of energy- it is process independent. Catalysts don't change it.

Another harbinger of scams is the misuse of terms with an obscure but factual physical underpinning, like claims about ortho versus para-hydrogen as a perfect example. Others are perfectly happy to make up stuff without a physical underpinning such as the guy claiming he's making "hydrinos". Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

You can patent anything, working or not. All it does is grant you the unrestricted right to produce that particular piece of crap, whether it works or not, for twenty years. When people refer to patents as proof of claims, I first chuckle, then sigh...


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

*Revolutionary electric motor*

Hello, 
My name is Gelan Swift, and I'm best known as a composer and writer, but generally I'm just an inventor. I'm severely autistic but passive which enables me to put fact first in every life situation.

To cut to the chase, I have invented and am building an electric motor that is at least 60% more efficient than any other electric motor currently on the market. It has four moving parts and one static part and is 90% cheaper to build than a conventional motor. Why it is different is that it* "does not" *employ electromagnets. It uses straight line propulsion which is turned into rotary motion by a "completely bonkers" converter that only a weirdo like me could have thought up. The machine is called "Nomanoba"

*I came to this forum because I intend to build a vehicle that is powered by Nomanoba, and I'm guessing you guys know a lot more than me about building cars*. The experimental motor I'm building at the moment is only 30 cm's in diameter and 5 cm's in depth. Because my motors are so thin it is possible to just keep adding units until you have the desired power. By my early calculations I'm looking at around 12 units to power a vehicle that takes two people, which is still quite small at 60 cm's x 30 cm's (2 foot x 1 foot) Please don't think I'm just another youtube scammer or nutjob as I can't even show it off as it would be so obvious to all how it worked (think paper clip simplicity) Plus everything I've ever invented has worked (I have patents) I like to make people happy, it is what drives me, so would be nice to share my invention with all of you,

Thank you for reading,

Happy days, Gelan


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*

Hi
As current electric motors are over 90% efficient how can yours be 60% MORE efficient?

60 + 90 = 150 - and you can't go over 100 in percentage efficiency

Can you explain this??


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*

What do you need from this forum Gelan ?
If you have patents on the basic design/principals then you should be able to discuss some of your ideas and ask for input
But ..do not expect to avoid critical analysis and comment on your ideas.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Duncan said:


> Hi
> As current electric motors are over 90% efficient how can yours be 60% MORE efficient?
> 
> 60 + 90 = 150 - and you can't go over 100 in percentage efficiency
> ...


If a conventional 1 hp electric motor runs for an hour on a 12 volt 1 ah battery, Nomanoba will run at least 60% longer because it uses less amperes.

Sorry, I'm not good at written maths, but I hope this helps.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Karter2 said:


> What do you need from this forum Gelan ? *Because you guys can build cars, I said in my opening post but maybe it didn't notice so I highlighted it...sorry about that *
> If you have patents on the basic design/principals then you should be able to discuss some of your ideas and ask for input
> But ..do not expect to avoid critical analysis and comment on your ideas.


I chose here because you guys can build cars. I have patents yes, but not yet for Nomanoba. I like very much criticism as it makes me think. I have zero aggression, hate so always positively driven by input, however intended.

ps. I was labelled "Retarded" at school, and am very used to being put down and laughed at which is the best motivation,

Thank you.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



nomanoba said:


> If a conventional 1 hp electric motor runs for an hour on a 12 volt 1 ah battery, Nomanoba will run at least 60% longer because it uses less amperes.


.. that is a very unrealistic comparison, and implies that the 1hp motor (750W ) is only using 1 amp or 12W (0.016 hp) which is way off any normal intended operational or efficiency range .
You have to compare efficiencies in the intended operational speed and power range that the motor was designed for
Do you have any actual data for your motor under load ?


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Karter2 said:


> .. that is a very unrealistic comparison, and implies that the 1hp motor (750W ) is only using 1 amp or 12W (0.016 hp) which is way off any normal intended operational or efficiency range .
> You have to compare efficiencies in the intended operational speed and power range that the motor was designed for
> Do you have any actual data for your motor under load ?


Under load is the big unknown ATM, and I am deliberating whether to go high speed and gear down, or low speed direct with more torque. I will build 2 hearts, one being the extreme of the other. I have only done tests with a spring balance, but I am a very accurate guesser and can visualize the eventual power of the machine. It doesn't look like a motor, neither does it work like one, so you have to forget you ever saw an electric motor and start from scratch where I did. Will apply for a provisional in April and then put it on youtube for all to see, it really is awful not being able to show it to anyone.

I'll answer any questions except for the obvious "How does it work" lol


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



nomanoba said:


> If a conventional 1 hp electric motor runs for an hour on a 12 volt 1 ah battery,


Got any more of that stuff you are smoking?

You must be terrible at math and a horrible liar Pinocchio. If you understood math and electrical you would know what you just said is impossible. To run a 1 hp motor fo r1 hour would use 750 to 900 watt hours. That 12 volt 1 AH battery only gas 12 watt hours.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*

Hi nomanoba

It does not matter if it looks like a motor or a jerbil
If you are getting 1Kw of mechanical output then you need to give it more than 1Kw of electrical input

A modern electric motor is more than 90% efficient - which means that when it is given 1Kw of electrical input it delivers 900watts of mechanical output


If you are going to be "60%" more efficient then you need for your motor when given 1Kw of electrical power to deliver 1.5Kw of mechanical power

And (in this universe) that is simply NOT POSSIBLE


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Sunking said:


> Got any more of that stuff you are smoking?
> 
> You must be terrible at math and a horrible liar Pinocchio. If you understood math and electrical you would know what you just said is impossible. To run a 1 hp motor fo r1 hour would use 750 to 900 watt hours. That 12 volt 1 AH battery only gas 12 watt hours.


As I said previously, I am totally passive, so anything hateful or inflammatory said or typed just makes me wonder what your quality of life is...that's it, no reaction. In addition, the energy you used to think and type your sole opinion could have been put into an act of kindness. Spite for any reason, and in your case no reason, just adds scars that we carry for our lives...I carry none.

Coming back to your maths, which are spot on correct. You may only have knowledge of electric motors that have electromagnetics. My motor does not use electromagnets because basically they draw too much current, so comparing what you know with what you don't know is pure conjecture on your part...even if you had good manners you'd still be wrong.

I have a facebook account in this same name. The dozen or so people on there are all close friends in the real life. Why don't you ask them if it's possible for me to tell a lie or get angry? Ironically, I know their answers will make you even angrier.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Duncan said:


> Hi nomanoba
> 
> It does not matter if it looks like a motor or a jerbil
> If you are getting 1Kw of mechanical output then you need to give it more than 1Kw of electrical input
> ...


 Why are you shouting? I may be 70 but my hearing is excellent thank you.

That's your opinion and I'm fine with that, but remember it's a motor that runs off electricity, it is not an electromagnetic device. 

I think I'll leave it here and come back when I have it on youtube.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Sunking said:


> To run a 1 hp motor fo r1 hour would use 750 to 900 watt hours. That 12 volt 1 AH battery only gas 12 watt hours.


Well, strictly speaking , it is possible to run a "1 hp motor" on 12v and 1 amp.
...lots of these 12-24 v , 750 watt DC motors used on RC cars and EBikes, which if run with no load could likely draw under 1amp.
..But as i said ..that is no test of efficiency, nor is it a practical way to run a motor of that capacity.


----------



## EVTechsFL (Jan 10, 2017)

Damn that gravity, lol!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

it could be electrostatic, but that is a dumb way to make a traction motor, stupid high voltages for almost zero torque (the torque = amps rule probably still applies)

edit, here is a pic, looks like a roll of aluminum tape on a cardboard core colored in with sharpie and a bit of magnet wire hung off of it. revolutionary...


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> it could be electrostatic, but that is a dumb way to make a traction motor, stupid high voltages for almost zero torque (the torque = amps rule probably still applies)


Yes I agree, that would be dumb, but at least you have some belief that there are alternatives to the accepted electromagnetic norm. Just to add that the machine I originally designed would take 40 years to strip back to something that would be cost effective and easily built. My workshop is my kitchen and my tools are, a hacksaw, two files, a bench drill and an AVO meter. 

I've decided to put it on youtube before a patent is applied for as I can show it in a box, but as the box has strange dimensions (10 inches x 2 inches) it will be obvious to those technically minded that this does not work like a conventional electric motor. I am of an excitable nature so have a compulsion to share my discoveries that they might inspire and excite. An open mind is very good for evolutionary thought.

ps. I have taken advantage of gravity, but in a minor way.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you need a dynomometer and a watt meter to validate anything (and a scale for power density), understand that anything short of that is pure nonsense. If it is just a video of you doing nonsense, then don't bother. No excuses.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> you need a dynomometer and a watt meter to validate anything (and a scale for power density), understand that anything short of that is pure nonsense. If it is just a video of you doing nonsense, then don't bother. No excuses.


I can see your point, but I will be driving something that visually represents what I can't measure through lack of equipment or technical / maths knowledge. 

I can also see that it looks nonsense, but then again when I first started composing orchestral music I was told it would be rubbish because I couldn't read music, and still can't, but after ten years I sold a song, and then got commissions. I'm a pretty crap musician that cannot read music, but I can always find original melodies which of course make me a living, the point being, I don't have to know about maths and specific calculus to build something original. 

My gf took a look at the replies here and said "Why is everyone so disrespectful and angry" I replied "If I built a world peace machine people would still get angry lol"


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Sorry, but you are acting a moron. Nobody thinks you have invented anything worthwhile, and you make every excuse not to even validate your own claims. Rather you talk about your GF and your "disabilities" and your liberal arts (LOL!!!!) skills.

VALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS OR RETRACT THEM, THAT IS WHAT HONEST PEOPLE DO! This is your last chance to not be a passive aggressive twat and actually demonstrate some engineering.

music is subjective, efficiency is not. We are not forgiving of false claims made by patent leaches. We don't pretend that the laws of physics are just a suggestion without extraordinary proof (and I don't mean the "my mom says I'm handsome" kind of proof).


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> Sorry, but you are acting a moron. Nobody thinks you have invented anything worthwhile, and you make every excuse not to even validate your own claims. Rather you talk about your GF and your "disabilities" and your liberal arts (LOL!!!!) skills.
> 
> VALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS OR RETRACT THEM, THAT IS WHAT HONEST PEOPLE DO! This is your last chance to not be a passive aggressive twat and actually demonstrate some engineering.
> 
> music is subjective, efficiency is not. We are not forgiving of false claims made by patent leaches. We don't pretend that the laws of physics are just a suggestion without extraordinary proof (and I don't mean the "my mom says I'm handsome" kind of proof).


Just because I challenge conventional thinking and don't use words like "twat and liar" that doesn't set me apart as none of my friends would do that either. You go on to say that, and I quote: "Nobody thinks you have invented anything worthwhile" So you speak for 6 billion people...wow, that is vastly superior to my claims 

Others aggression makes me smarter so please feel free to up your hate levels towards a person you have never met or know anything about. I'm sure you will get massive support on this forum, but on a world wide scale it will mean very little.

I will be back to give you the URL of the video.

Happy days.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

nomanoba said:


> My gf took a look at the replies here and said "Why is everyone so disrespectful and angry" I replied "If I built a world peace machine people would still get angry lol"


Have your gf read the entire thread and count the times we've heard this same BS. And these are just a sampling. We all have heard it a thousand times from idiots who look at our EV and tell us to put an alternator on the wheel to get unlimited range. Here it is a bit more structured but having in common a lack of scientific method; only impossible claims and zero proof. Score is: us =100%, nutjobs =0%.

I applaud you for maintaining your cool. Most times the weirdo gets hostile and starts insulting us. There are some other forums where you'd be welcome and treated nicer. Look for OU (Over Unity), Free Energy, etc. There was a guy named Don Smith who claimed he had the secrets to nonmagnetic high voltage energy conversion/production. Should be lots of literature and forum activity associated with him. Much also done in the name of N. Tesla. Study his work. Loads and volumes are out there, but no proof.


----------



## WolfTronix (Feb 8, 2016)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



Duncan said:


> Hi
> As current electric motors are over 90% efficient how can yours be 60% MORE efficient?
> 
> 60 + 90 = 150 - and you can't go over 100 in percentage efficiency
> ...


I see this type of math error all the time...

If a motor is already 90% efficient, then 60% more efficient is actually 96% total efficiently, only a 6% increase in total motor efficiently.

People like to word it this way, because it sounds like a HUGE improvement, but in reality it is a small percentage improvement that will asymptotically approach 100%.

For example:
90% efficient motor has 10% losses.
60% more efficient * 10% loses = 6% increase in efficiency
90% efficient motor + 6% increase in efficiency = 96% total efficiency

If you start with a 96% efficient motor:
60% more efficient * 4% loses = 2.4% increase in efficiency
96% efficient motor + 2.4% increase in efficiency = 98.4% total efficiency

So as you can see, you will never get over 100% efficiently. 

I hope that was educational, 
Wolf


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



WolfTronix said:


> People like to word it this way, because it sounds like a HUGE improvement,


If this was directed at Duncan, OP actually clarified that he was referring to a 60% improvement overall:



nomanoba said:


> If a conventional 1 hp electric motor runs for an hour on a 12 volt 1 ah battery, Nomanoba will run at least 60% longer because it uses less amperes.


ya know because a lot of very smart people have been working on efficiency for a LONG time but OP is smarter than all of 'em, because of all of that aggression presumably...

edit: 12 v @ 1ah, 1hp (746 watts) for an hour?!? 12 watts for an hour at best.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

major said:


> Have your gf read the entire thread and count the times we've heard this same BS. And these are just a sampling. We all have heard it a thousand times from idiots who look at our EV and tell us to put an alternator on the wheel to get unlimited range. Here it is a bit more structured but having in common a lack of scientific method; only impossible claims and zero proof. Score is: us =100%, nutjobs =0%.
> 
> I applaud you for maintaining your cool. Most times the weirdo gets hostile and starts insulting us. There are some other forums where you'd be welcome and treated nicer. Look for OU (Over Unity), Free Energy, etc. There was a guy named Don Smith who claimed he had the secrets to nonmagnetic high voltage energy conversion/production. Should be lots of literature and forum activity associated with him. Much also done in the name of N. Tesla. Study his work. Loads and volumes are out there, but no proof.


Thank you for your reasoned answer Major, but there really isn't such a thing as over unity or free energy. Pretty much heard it all on Tesla and how governments put the block on new inventions...what a load of Bollocks. You find these people are usually on the conspiracy theory forums as well, post truths lunch lol. I've gone for a couple of pure science forums, and so far no insults. 

Just one thing I cannot get my head round...Why would anyone get angry about a motor that was cheap and efficient? 

As I said earlier, i will post the video URL here when ready.

regards, Gelan

ps. I actually don't mind the tag weirdo, because it is usually a term born out of frustration that someone isn't smart enough to get what you're about.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

nomanoba said:


> Just one thing I cannot get my head round...Why would anyone get angry about a motor that was cheap and efficient?


Because the anger is all in your head, a character attack on anyone who points out obvious flaws in your reasoning.

Oh and you are full of crap too, that doesn't help anything.


nomanoba said:


> To cut to the chase, I have invented and am building an electric motor that is at least 60% more efficient than any other electric motor currently on the market.





nomanoba said:


> If a conventional 1 hp electric motor runs for an hour on a 12 volt 1 ah battery, Nomanoba will run at least 60% longer because it uses less amperes.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

nomanoba said:


> ... there really isn't such a thing as over unity or free energy. ...


Yet that is what you describe, as dcb points out. Don't you find it odd that someone claims improved motor efficiency but doesn't even know the definition of it? I don't think there is anger directed towards those bringing these fantasies to this board, unless they are using it to sell something or con someone. We just put you on this thread which many of us refer to as the special place. Otherwise it detracts from our serious conversations. Those of us who do choose to engage you attempt to teach and entertain. If you're too thin skinned for that, you can always leave.

Regards,

major


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> Because the anger is all in your head, a character attack on anyone who points out obvious flaws in your reasoning.
> 
> Oh and you are full of crap too, that doesn't help anything.


I had a good long think about what you wrote and realized that I'd never analyzed the term crap, or even thought of its worth in our modern times. A large part of silly name calling I'd blame on nurture...my parents taught and exhibited good manners at all times, hence I'm a polite chap, and I'm sorry if you were provided with some bad examples.

Character attack....no, just you saying I attacked people doesn't make it true. What I do when someone is rude for no reason is to put myself in their shoes and imagine their life and upbringing, then I ask them not to be ill mannered if at all possible, in fact I actually apologize for them, as I am fully aware they have not the will to apologize for themselves.

ps. One person's crap is another persons annoyance


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you can try to divert all you want, you are still full of crap. 60% efficiency improvement over ANY motor currently on the market, HAHAHA!!!

I am amused, imagining you explaining this nonsense to the makeup guy at the theater and plying for agreement. 

Sorry to throw you under the bus makeup guy, I can only imagine being cornered by AutisimMan(TM) while he seems desperate for any kind of validation, so bless you for that.

pretty sure the science guys are having a laugh though.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

major said:


> Yet that is what you describe, as dcb points out. Don't you find it odd that someone claims improved motor efficiency but doesn't even know the definition of it? I don't think there is anger directed towards those bringing these fantasies to this board, unless they are using it to sell something or con someone. We just put you on this thread which many of us refer to as the special place. Otherwise it detracts from our serious conversations. Those of us who do choose to engage you attempt to teach and entertain. If you're too thin skinned for that, you can always leave.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> major


No, I very much like it here...lots of points that I can learn from. If my motor causes too many anger issues I won't be offended if you ask me to leave though.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> you can try to divert all you want, you are still full of crap. 60% efficiency improvement over ANY motor currently on the market, HAHAHA!!!
> 
> I am amused, imagining you explaining this nonsense to the makeup guy at the theater and plying for agreement.
> 
> ...


For starters I don't wear make-up, and secondly I am not comparing my motor to any electro mechanical device...it's just quite good considering its minimal power consumption.

ps. If the word "crap" didn't offend me last time round, why not try another word...you could even make one up and pretend it's really nasty and hope that I burst into tears. Just a suggestion like.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

nomanoba said:


> I am not comparing my motor to any electro mechanical device


ahem...


nomanoba said:


> To cut to the chase, I have invented and am building an electric motor that is at least 60% more efficient than any other electric motor currently on the market.


see? still full of crap. way to be unconventional! You rock! You deserve a sticker!


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> ahem...
> 
> 
> see? still full of crap. way to be unconventional! You rock! You deserve a sticker!


I took a leap of faith and joined a science forum. I'm having the most wonderful dialogue with highly qualified scientists, plus nobody has called me a liar, or said that I'm talking crap. Oh well, you get what you pay for, as it seems lack of intellect goes hand in hand with zero respect levels, and as we all know, those with such problems seldom respect themselves.

Just saying like 

ps. You need to go google "passive" and when you finally understand its meaning, you'll suddenly fall in that being angry at me because I invented an electric motor is in my case an absolute waste of time and energy. You have failed to see that your last post contained no information whatsoever about motors, so it beggars the question...why did you post? Because you don't like me...reason...you haven't got one, or maybe you have but don't have the backbone to say on a forum. I have a book being published in November. "The Anatomy of Hate" You will respect me if you read this book.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

You have obviously got the wrong impression! I think we should take turns saying something positive about you, I'll start.

I really like how you colored in that cardboard circle, very clean! Also there are virtually zero teeth marks on the aluminum tape roll itself! We are very proud of you here Gelan, I thought you should know that. You are special.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I read threads such as this for amusement, and also to learn why some people make extraordinary claims. As the OP says, hurling insults is counterproductive - much better to allow the OP to concentrate on attempts to provide evidence for his claims, and attempt to show why they are fallacious. That can be more rewarding and "fun" than bickering and ridicule. 

The erroneous assertion the OP seems to make is that his motor draws less current, and therefore is more efficient. But of course power is the product of the in-phase vector components of voltage applied and current drawn. For DC, of course, these are always in phase, whereas an inductive or capacitive device on AC can have very high volt-amps (VA) while consuming very little actual power (W). 

If the voltage and/or current have waveforms other than pure DC or sine waves, ordinary measurement devices will give false readings. Also, when approaching the Shangri-La of 100% efficiency, the accuracy of the instrumentation becomes more critical. When testing the efficiency of my simple DC-DC converter, I was getting apparent efficiency of over 95%, and some calculations exceeded 100%. But I found that the digital meters on my cheap lab supply read low by 2 or 3 digits, which represented as much as 5% error at the levels I was reading. So the combined error of the metering resulted in erroneous conclusions. My actual efficiency was more like 85%-90%, which is still pretty good. 

So, it is incumbent upon the OP to provide actual measurement values that support his claim, and also provide calibration data on the instruments, which must be true-RMS and capable of sufficient accuracy for the waveforms observed (which should be shown on an oscilloscope trace). And, as mentioned, it may be possible for a 1 HP (750W) rated motor to draw only 1 amp at 12 volts with no load. But the true input power under load will be reflected by the current draw.


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

dcb said:


> You have obviously got the wrong impression! I think we should take turns saying something positive about you, I'll start.
> 
> I really like how you colored in that cardboard circle, very clean! Also there are virtually zero teeth marks on the aluminum tape roll itself! We are very proud of you here Gelan, I thought you should know that. You are special.


Your statement deems you a vegetarian, so I'll try to seek out a humble pie that doesn't contain meat.

Riddle: What is the difference between facebook and a workshop? If you figure that one out you'll feel an idiot, but hey, it's a free world.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Here is Gelan's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/gelan.swift.3


----------



## nomanoba (Feb 20, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> Here is Gelan's Facebook page:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/gelan.swift.3


Don't forget to ask the people on my friends list (whom I know in the life) whether or not I'm a nut job, or maybe a liar or a bit dim lol. Of course you wont, because you do not have the courage of your convictions and you're hoping and praying that you are right about me...so ask, they wont be offended. 

I've found a better forum now so wont be posting until I have the patent. I know, you'll still hate me even when you discover it's true, but that's hardly my concern. You may think I haven't served a purpose here, but contrary to that belief is the fact that I've diverted all that hate away from your workmates and family for a whole day...boy they're really going to feel it tomorrow when I'm not here to act as your comfort buffer.

Tip: Without aggression I don't have a will to win, yet ironically I usually do! Isn't that beautiful?

Edit: Thought this might help. _Walter Mischels work on self-control indicates that anger, a "hot" emotion led by the amygdala in the limbic system, will provoke more immediate response. Limiting cognitive abilities like working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", decision making, and comprehension._


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

If you wont' allow us to see then what are you doing here? 

If you only want to hear how wonderful you are that you built such a device you won't get it because you have not proven you actually have done it. 

Why do you assume we are angry. We have no anger towards you. You however seem to have some resentment towards others that don't agree with you or believe you. 

Why should we believe you. Just because you say so? Good luck with that. 

You happened across a tough crowd. 


Why are you here? You have nothing to show. You have nothing. Show it working. Then we might be interested. Maybe.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

nomanoba said:


> Don't forget to ask the people on my friends list (whom I know in the life) whether or not I'm a nut job, or maybe a liar or a bit dim lol. Of course you wont, because you do not have the courage of your convictions and you're hoping and praying that you are right about me...so ask, they wont be offended.
> 
> I've found a better forum now so wont be posting until I have the patent. I know, you'll still hate me even when you discover it's true, but that's hardly my concern. You may think I haven't served a purpose here, but contrary to that belief is the fact that I've diverted all that hate away from your workmates and family for a whole day...boy they're really going to feel it tomorrow when I'm not here to act as your comfort buffer.
> 
> ...


I noticed that many of your responses to your posts are you responding to you.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

What have I written that makes you think I am angry, or that I hate you, or even think you're a nutjob? I have merely stated that your claims are extraordinary, and cannot reasonably be substantiated by the test equipment you have. I have invited you to supply simple measurement data that apparently convinces you that you have designed and built a revolutionary motor, but all you do is imagine some sort of conspiracy and collusion among those who have responded to your posts. 

I was going to ask what other forum you found to be more friendly, but I found it:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103304-revolutionary-motor/

and another:

https://speakev.com/threads/revolutionary-electric-motor.32257/

Yes, they seem to be more polite, but they are still skeptical and are asking for more concrete proof. Some of the responses seem to be supportive, but perhaps their sarcasm is lost on you (which is one trait of those on the autism spectrum).


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



nomanoba said:


> Plus everything I've ever invented has worked (I have patents)


Gelan Swift, hmm, cant find any actual patents. Got some patent numbers? Is it possible someone played you and phonied up your patent documentation?


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

What none of you are realising is that the laws of "physics" are fabricated. We don't actually exist. All of what you see, hear, feel etc is all just part of a construct. Physics are just the rules applied to that construct. Therefore there are no boundaries to what can be achieved if first you understand that there are no boundaries. 

Just remember, there is no spoon


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

just realized, after seeing yet another "hybrid" thread... The saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" couldn't be more true. The main problem seems to be some people cling to magical thinking instead of learning that there are really a bazillion compromises at play.


----------



## Joseph Elliott (Apr 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> just realized, after seeing yet another "hybrid" thread... The saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" couldn't be more true. The main problem seems to be some people cling to magical thinking instead of learning that there are really a bazillion compromises at play.


It's true for now, but I have no doubt that with time it will become viable. The only question is how long will it take...


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

We can use captured kinetic energy to power things and we are started off with a system that can and has powered trailer refrigeration units like thermo king below. 

This model 2013 Ford Focus E-Hatch has 6 alternators at 110 Amps high output at 30 Mph and above

6 alternators x 14.5 Volt Output X 110 Amp Alternator = 9570 watts/hr 
road drag on wheel generator too much incline driving through hills and friction wear on the belts, bearings, pulleys ect. has lets say it roughly need times needed watts = aprox 12,000 watts. So really even though getting 9570 real drag equals 12, 000 watts conservatively. and inversely net gain of 9570 watts x 0.75 = 7177 

My car usuaally get 285 watts mile with air on, into the wind, and lights on, stereo full blast, on fairly even flat landscape of eastern Iowa. 

SO 30 Mph = 5280ft/2 / 60 min second = 44ft sec velocity 5280 ft a minute equals exactly 60 MPH . 

Kinetic energy = 1/2Mass X Velocity Squared in this case using old english system Mass X Ft sqared x Seconds squared = Foot Poundals and if you muliply by 0.0422 converts foot poundals to watts = 196 kw 

so 12kw/196kw = 0.061 or Drag on Kinetic energy system = 6.1% @ 30MPH 

7710 watts - (7710 X 0.061) = 7239 watts

30 miles at 285 watts/mile = 8550 watts 

ratio of battery discharge 7239 watts - 8550 watts = -1311 watts an hour 

my ford focus has about 9,800 usable watts from bottom shutoff of 25% left in battery and top shut off when battery is 80% charged. would yeild 7.74 hours before i run out of electrons. 7.74 hours x 30 MPH = 224 miles estimate

I am not getting something for nothing just making it more efficient capturing kinetic energy can be harnessed less work on batteries part. Just like return air. Hot air already heated get re-heated but the Delta T is smaller less work to heat it back up. Same here if we do not capture it as kinetic energy it will just dissipate as heat loss anyways. 

Not Perpetual Motion not over-unity just inefficiencies captured what already been paid for by the electrons in the batteries already. It worked in a Thermo- King REEFER Unit first experiment . Made a hybrid electric kit put it line with the diesel motor and connected the pulleys to 3 phase 20 HP motor and had a 24 kw wheel generator on it maybe 0.00025 drag at most. again the truck engine pulling it did the work we captured the kinetic energy harvested a very small portion. 

And to the non physicist like me Energy is defined as at any moment in time having the ability to do that much work if harnessed. Work = Force X Distance. 

Anyways that is how wheel generation of kinetic energy harvesting works. 

US8723344

the stored kinetic energy is the variable portion is the Velocity Squared makes the difference:

My same car at different speeds and more drag 20,000 watts versus 12,500 watts. 

Kinetic Energy @ 5,200 mass, 20,000 watts drag % avg watt/mile 210

5 mph = 7.3 ft/sec = 5,500 watts = 400.0 % 840 watts/mile
10 mph =14.6 ft/sec = 23,353 watts = 85.6 %
15 mph = 22.0 ft/sec = 53,000 watts = 37.7 %
20 mph = 29.2 ft/sec = 93,418 watts = 21.0 %
25 mph = 36.5 ft/sec = 146,768 watts = 13.6 % 238 watts/mile
30 mph = 44.0 ft/sec = 212,116 watts = 9.4 %
35 mph = 51.3 ft/sec = 288,339 watts = 6.9 % 224 watts/mile
40 mph = 58.6 ft/sec = 376,239 watts = 5.3 % 
45 mph = 66.0 ft/sec = 477,262 watts = 4.1 % 
50 mph = 73.5 ft/sec = 591,894 watts = 3.3 % 
55 mph = 80.7 ft/sec = 713,536 watts = 2.8 % 215 watts mile
60 mph = 88.0 ft/sec = 848,466 watts = 2.3 % 
65 mph = 95.3 ft/sec = 995,073 watts = 2.0 % 
70 mph = 102.6 ft/sec = 1,153,360 watts = 1.7 % 213 watts a mile
75 mph = 110.0 ft/sec = 1,325,730 watts = 1.5 %
80 mph = 117.3 ft/sec = 1,507,530 watts = 1.3 % 
85 mph = 124.7 ft/sec = 1,703,730 watts = 1.1 %
90 mph = 132.0 ft/sec = 1,909,050 watts = 1.0 %
95 mph = 139.3 ft/sec = 2,146,140 watts = 0.9 %
100 mph = 147.0 ft/sec = 2,367,570 watts= 0.8 % rounding error no diff

So look above no bullshit at 20 mph there is already 17x kinetic energy than at 5mph, and at 60 mph there is 154X the energy than at 5 mph. 

Look at it this way the engine output is a constant power factor, and the whole vehicle is a kinetic energy storage device acting almost as a flywheel. 

And over 35 mph it is practical and becomes more efficient as the EV velocity increases. And still is not perpetual motion since an external force is acting on it ie gas, diesel, compressed air, or electrons for our Ford Focus EV. 

Now if you were coasting down a steep hill with no power from battery to the motor that would be a case of internally powered vehicle, and it would stop sooner or later. I mean having the wheel generator in our case powering the motor from downhill it will come to a stop at some point - but external power constant added can capture that and provide some power back to battery to put back in motor. 

hope this helps straighten things up a hair? or if more confused now than ever I apologize in advance. 

iainventor


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*

gotta chime in too. The Amp Hr rating of a 100Amp Battery is like 20 Amps discharge for 5 hours or backwards so a 1 Amp / Hour would be either 1/20 Amp or 1/5 Amp per hour drain. CCA on that small bet would be at best 7-10 Amps 120 watts best. 

Lets say 1.0 hp motor does not have in rush current needed to start from dead stop. 1 hp = 742 watts only have 16% of 742 watts needed to start the motor ??? nfwih IMHO. 

I must be missing something???


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



dcb said:


> If this was directed at Duncan, OP actually clarified that he was referring to a 60% improvement overall:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I gotta chime in too. The Amp Hr rating of a 100Amp Battery is like 20 Amps discharge for 5 hours or backwards so a 1 Amp / Hour would be either 1/20 Amp or 1/5 Amp per hour drain. CCA on that small bet would be at best 7-10 Amps 120 watts best. 

Lets say 1.0 hp motor does not have in rush current needed to start from dead stop. 1 hp = 742 watts only have 16% of 742 watts needed to start the motor ??? nfwih IMHO. 

I must be missing something???


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

iainventor said:


> We can use captured kinetic energy to power things and we are started off with a system that can and has powered trailer refrigeration units like thermo king below.
> 
> Kinetic energy = 1/2Mass X Velocity Squared in this case using old english system Mass X Ft sqared x Seconds squared = Foot Poundals and if you muliply by 0.0422 converts foot poundals to watts = 196 kw
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm more confused then ever.

Can you define the difference between energy and power for me so I understand?


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

iainventor said:


> 6 alternators x 14.5 Volt Output X 110 Amp Alternator = 9570 watts/hr
> 
> 30 miles at 285 watts/mile = 8550 watts


You just lost all credibility. You do not know the difference between power and energy.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: Revolutionary electric motor*



iainventor said:


> gotta chime in too. The Amp Hr rating of a 100Amp Battery is like 20 Amps discharge for 5 hours or backwards so a 1 Amp / Hour would be either 1/20 Amp or 1/5 Amp per hour drain. CCA on that small bet would be at best 7-10 Amps 120 watts best.
> 
> Lets say 1.0 hp motor does not have in rush current needed to start from dead stop. 1 hp = 742 watts only have 16% of 742 watts needed to start the motor ??? nfwih IMHO.
> 
> I must be missing something???


Yep, you do not know anything about batteries. 

No such thing as a 100 amp battery. Batteries are rated in Amp Hours. Consumer grade batteries are specified at the 20 hour discharge rate, which is the manufacture spinning numbers to turn a turd into shinola. Commercial and Industrial batteries are rated in at 4, 6, and 8 hours. 

Anyway you do not know anything about power, energy, or batteries. If you did you would know these formulas and realize how ignorant you are.

Amp Hours = Amp x Hours.
Amps = Amp Hours / Hours
Hours = Amp Hours / Amps

Example a 100 AH battery rated at C/20 is telling you the battery can deliver 5 amps x 20 hours = 100 AH. Simple 5th grade math. 

Watts or Electric Power = Voltage x Amps
Watt Hours or Electric Energy = Watts x Hours
Watt Hours = Battery Voltage x Amp Hours

CCA = Cold Cranking Amps which is a spec for a SLI battery and cannot be cycled. It tells you how many amps a 12 volt battery can deliver at 7.2 volts at 0 degree F for 30 seconds.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

Hi for real in physics work = Force x distance and Force = Mass x Acceleration Acceleration in metric m/sec^2 meters/seconds squared. And with earth's gravity that = 9.81 m/sec^2 

Energy is the total available amount of energy to do work at any point in time. kinetic energy + 1/2 mass of Electric Vehicle and Velocity Squared in my example above the watts is available energy at any given time at any given velocity. in british system it is Lbs X (Feet/sec)^2 then X 0.0421 = Watts Equivalent Available energy may far exceed the work that needs to be done. 

Work is = to the amount energy needed power something at any moment in time like it took a kilowatt for a second to roll a wheel.

Power is the Work done over some period of time like a kilowatt of work per hour to move wheel for an hour.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Ok, now that you've looked that all up, you should try and absorb what it MEANS.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

Sunking, Am I supposed to admire your closed mindedness or your ignorance more? Talk about not knowing the difference between power and energy and work equivalents. 

That would be you and your assumption nothing was said at what discharge rate per time period the 1 Amp/hr time was discharged. Oh yeah I just remember your the idiot for assuming what you did in your reply when it wasn't clear in the post I was replying to.

As to the power capacity of the alternators in my working model energy harvesting system 6 Alternators with voltage output x peak amps = power produced to recharge my battery bank. in this case it is = 6 alternators x 110 Amp output x 14.5 Volts Output = 6 X 110 x 14.5 = 9,570 watts What are you arguing about that for? 

My ev that the working energy harvesting system works on, avgs lets say 285 watts per ?

Energy is the total available amount of energy to do work at any point in time. kinetic energy + 1/2 mass of Electric Vehicle and Velocity Squared in my example above the watts is available energy at any given time at any given velocity. in british system it is Lbs X (Feet/sec)^2 then X 0.0421 = Watts Equivalent Available energy may far exceed the work that needs to be done. 

Work is = to the amount energy needed power something at any moment in time like it took a kilowatt for a second to roll a wheel.

Power is the Work done over some period of time like a kilowatt of work per hour to move wheel for an hour. 

Your thinking that all the kinetic energy is used as work is a wrong assumption be like saying a single tidal generator would or could stop the ocean. 

Anyways we have done it not just talked about it. Look at the news soon. I would show a few links to my money where my mouth is, but such a pain in the rear to get links approved almost commercial compared to diy so they hadn't allowed them in my earlier posts in my introduction.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

samwichse said:


> Ok, now that you've looked that all up, you should try and absorb what it MEANS.


preferably before you rush something to market...

edit, sorry james, this is a fucking joke of a contraption if your claim has anything to do with efficiency.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

I think actually I have. Samwichse what do you think I'm missing ? 

Just capturing a small fraction of energy available, and conservation is still in place the watts per mile are still accumulating over no wheel drag and that portion is the extra watts needed to maintain the same velocity so m1v1= m2v2 only these watts are being powered by external electrons instead of chemical reactions same rules still apply. 

Just like in heavy class 8 hybrid systems the deisel motor propels the truck to get up to speed then the electric motor a much smaller motor maintains the steady velocity takes less because of the stored momentum or kinetic energy. 

In my research I made a connection thought I was crazy too. But do you know the fuel difference on average from a an empty truck system weighing say 34,000 pounds and fully loaded out system weighing 80,000 lbs is on average less than 0.1 mile per gallon . So why so little when hauling 46,000 pounds momentum.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> preferably before you rush something to market...
> 
> edit, sorry james, this is a fucking joke of a contraption if your claim has anything to do with efficiency.


it is efficient compared to idling a big truck system in box stored enough energy and generated enough power to recharge the energy storage over their 10-11 hours driving each day. the mandatory 10 solo driver reset if driver idles for the 10 hours to keep comfortable wastes between 1.0-1.5 gallons hr. So at simple $2.00 gal diesel that could be $20 - $30 a night . And that Rolling thunder system took at most 3 hours a day to charge up and saved the fuel use so it is damn efficient for its use, wouldn't you?


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

I am sorry it appears I've somehow stirred up a hornets nest on being a maverick un upturning so simple of a solution to gain mileage in an EV. 

I am doing range testing as we speak for 3 more days then I will share my results with you all. I also do not claim anything near perpetual motion or over-unity and the patent office issued me a patent on the heart of my kinetic energy harvesting system. look up on google US Patent 8723344.

look up on Google Me2EV Charging System lookup also CBS2iowa.com news article recharging-your-ride shows our ready for sale L-Loop and our being developed K-Loop(tm) Kinetic all of L-Loop plus wheel generator. 

first standard and control runs done 

test 1 mileage of ev on samre course alone 177 watts mile at 35 mph

test 2 mileage of ev with an additional 900 pounds mass 184 watts mile at 35 mph 

test 3 tommorrow same system mass as Test 2 and now batteries drained alternators recharging 16 kw batteries @ 35 mph 7 alternators x 110 Amps Alternators x 14.5 volts = 11.1kw for 2.0 hours ?? watts per mile static charging means got to pull over and take the auxiliary lead acid power and power a level 2 --30 Amp 240vac charger with this auxiliary energy. 

You will have to search for Me2EV L-Loop(TM) Me2 = " Mobile Electricity Everywhere" EV Charging. Now Power and Level 2 Charger built into car a cord pulls out from bumper with R1772 connector and plugs into power port of my 2013 Ford Focus and charges anywhere as long ad there is lead acid power remaining.

the L=Loop(TM) = "Local - Lead Acid to Lithium Ion Power Loop" Just by mixing and creating a hybrid battery chemistry system, we have been able to double the range of the car at highway speeds 60 mph not 35 mph from 55-60 miles depending on wind to close to 120 miles. It works this good without wheel genset already the K-Loop(tm) Kinetic will even get more practically whatever we gain is still light years above what Ford can currently do or have available for sale now. 

I will be back after next test.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

We'll be waiting for your results with bated breath.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

I probably wouldnt be so confident but we have done it before with kinetic energy only powered trailer refrigeration units already. 

but even if I refill batteries first time if I drive 70 miles and can harvest 55 miles and can remotely recharge that and do it over and over again at least 2-3 times wouldnt it be worth it? 

anyways was just looking for advice on a curtis 1236e-64xx which nobody seems to have answered but everyone got to tell me Im wrong about this, well that figures.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

THE COMPLICATED FUTILITY OF IGNORANCE


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> I am sorry it appears I've somehow stirred up a hornets nest on being a maverick un upturning so simple of a solution to gain mileage in an EV.
> 
> I am doing range testing as we speak for 3 more days then I will share my results with you all. I also do not claim anything near perpetual motion or over-unity and the patent office issued me a patent on the heart of my kinetic energy harvesting system. look up on google US Patent 8723344.
> 
> ...


Just saving this gem.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> anyways was just looking for advice on a curtis 1236e-64xx which nobody seems to have answered but everyone got to tell me Im wrong about this, well that figures.


the curtis can do regen, in fact you don't really need any alternators (or lead acid?!?). this will not help a modern EV in the slightest, in fact it WILL hurt it. They are far more efficient at regen than an array of alternators (note the title of this thread).

and you patented this mess? an electric motor connected by wheel to the ground is prior art, as is an internal combustion motor.

And the use case is so convoluted, it is just regenerative braking (which you can do without slowing down in the right conditions). And it is a really shitty implementation at that.

If you know so little about modern electromotive systems, and your only claim is that it is better than nothing, even though it is probably 10 times worse than what a DIY'er could put together in 2017, why are you so excited?




iainventor said:


> but even if I refill batteries first time if I drive 70 miles and can harvest 55 miles and can remotely recharge that and do it over and over again at least 2-3 times wouldnt it be worth it?


You are clearly into overunity land here. The very fact that you use the term "harvesting" makes your background on this subject clear.

http://www.kwqc.com/content/news/Ne...-way-electric-car-users-drive--420165733.html

"Dierickx founded the very first self-charging extender kit. The “ME2”, also known as the Mobile Electricity Everywhere L-Loop; It runs only on lithium and lead batteries."


"The batteries are placed in the front and the back of the car. The loop then creates an electrical current to charge the car. Dierickx says its simple, “in the morning you take this vehicle to work -- charge up at night in your garage-- and the lithium in the car build into the car to start with gets you to where you are going”."

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! THIS WAS FROM APRIL 2017!! 

James, wtf is this? My best guess is that you are only interested in selling something, anything, doesn't matter if your claims are accurate (or even possible), or how crappy the implementation, you are gonna sell it. But let me be clear, you have said nothing but nonsense, and you shouldn't be selling anything at this stage, or at the very least you should expect that you will be called out on it on a forum like this. You should be banned imho.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Hi for real in physics work = Force x distance and Force = Mass x Acceleration Acceleration in metric m/sec^2 meters/seconds squared. And with earth's gravity that = 9.81 m/sec^2
> 
> Energy is the total available amount of energy to do work at any point in time. kinetic energy + 1/2 mass of Electric Vehicle and Velocity Squared in my example above the watts is available energy at any given time at any given velocity. in british system it is Lbs X (Feet/sec)^2 then X 0.0421 = Watts Equivalent Available energy may far exceed the work that needs to be done.
> 
> ...


All that and you still do not know the difference between Power and Energy. That is why none of your numbers are working out. You just do not know what you are doing or saying. I even gave you the math and you still do not get it. Let's try again.

With respect to electricity:

*Power* is expressed as *WATT(s)* and the Watt is the Rate at which Power is being delivered or consumed at any given moment in time. 

Watt = Voltage x Current.

Example a 120 volt light bulb using .83333 amps of current is using or burning 120 volts x .8333 amps = 100 watts of Power at any given moment of time. 

A *Watt Hour* is electric Energy consumed over a period of time, or the amount of work done. 

Watt Hour = Watts x Hour

How much Energy does a 100 watt light bulb use in 10 hours?

100 watts x 10 hours = 1000 watt hours or 1 Kwh

If you had a 12 volt 83.33 AH battery, how many hours can you supply a 100 watt light bulb?

First find the energy capacity of the battery.

12 volts x 83.33 AH = = 1000 Wh or 1 Kwh

1000 wh / 100 watts = *10 Hours.*

_*Now let's say your EV has an energy efficiency of 400 wh/mile @ 60 mph. How much power (watts or horse power) is the motor using from the battery?*_

Lets see if you can figure it out. It is super simple. Since you are a Millennial you will need a cell phone app or calculator. The rest of us can do it in our head.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Just saving this gem.


Major 

Just wondering what this meant in your reply, " Just saving this gem."?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Major
> 
> Just wondering what this meant in your reply, " Just saving this gem."?


There were a few items I thought I might like to come back to later. And often the new guy gets a good dose of reality here and runs away deleting his posts as he goes. When quoted in my reply post, only I can delete.

"Gem" because it is so typical of folks like you who haven't a clue to the science and physics involved with vehicle propulsion. Please stop what you're doing and get educated or hire an engineer who knows what he's doing.

At least you found this thread, our special place, where moderators will relocate threads which promote such nonsense as you write. That way you special folks don't interfere with serious discussions.

I hope you can learn some things here, or at least realize that you do need help.

Good bye,

major


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I'm sure many of us are looking forward to a colossal FAIL or an even bigger attempt at obfuscation and data mangling to give the appearance of success. Try my http://enginuitysystems.com/EVCalculator.htm to check your (so-called) math, "alternative facts", and "fake news", which has recently gained so much favor among the uneducated and gullible.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

DCB I am not sure where the information disconnect is on L-Loop(tm) is and has been demonstrated. I made this connection my 2013 Ford Focus E-Hatch has usable Lithium-Ion power 16,000 or so watts. It is packed with as many lithium bricks as they could possibly pack on it. No room to double my power using Lithium-Ion not enough room and it would cost too much too IMHO.

My battery pack a 300 Volt System cost $22,000 So for experimentation I put 12 flooded group 27 extreme trolling batteries best of both worlds very high cca and very large reserve. they cost just under $1,000 for roughly same power equivalent as the Litium-Ion. And fit into car. Now to take it further have capable pure sine 240 VAC inverter being fed by the lead acid power, then wired inverter into a 240 VAC @30 Amps could fly higher but 6,600 watts maximum absorption rate of EV Battery. 

Now you simply pull over and turn on power loop pull cord out of bumper and our R1772 cord and plug into the EV power port like I was at a stationary charger. So you got part if it right the second news feed got it confused but not in my hands.

So here is how the Me2 works

Step 1 At night plug in the Lithium EV Charger to car 

Step 2 Plug in Separate 240 Volt 12 V Battery Charger

Step 3 Both Fully Charged From Grid Dive to work lets say 50 miles

Step 4 Pull into normal Parking Place Park

Step 5 Get out of car pull charging cord from rear bumper, push the on button to Level 2 Charger

Step 6 Plug it in to EV 1772 Port Starts Charging not tethered to grid.

Step 7 Go to work, voltage shut off will shutdown L-Loop

Step 8 Unplug 1772 cord, retract into bumper

Step 9 Drive home starting Lithium ion charged again get home using Me2 Charger anywhere no need to be tethered to a public charger in Cedar Rapids there are only 8-9 public EV Chargers. This alone solves the 90 % of commuter problems. 

Then the only difference from K-Loop is has features of L-loop but captures kinetic energy harness it to recharge Lead Acid Pack. 

We demoed our product to 300 or so people who never saw this before during demo when L-Loop charged the EV batteries people got it very efficient very economically viable and physically impossible to double the battery size with Lithium Ion.

And truthfully DCB your opinion and comments does not change the fact that we have a working system to substantiate my claims. The real people who opinion means anything to me are the potential end users. And that it works for them they are happy customers too. 

I do not care if closed minded people cant accept simple things that can gain multiple efficiencies so be it, remember the world had the mindset the earth was flat too.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

Hey as they say the proof and truth will come out soon , second series of test will be done at an independent test facility non-biased . Got to get this done putting last modified pieces together and wiring everything. 

Will check back in a day or so. I am man enough to admit if it dont work but will you guys be man enough not scoff if I prove you all wrong?

Probably not I'm guessing but I might be surprised. 

It would help when I come back if a moderator would approve my videos easier to show. than write for me.

will see


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

one last thing I should point out this is all out of my own pocket, time, and resources and not asking for anyone money or time. So back off a hair. I never quit just because experts say it cant be done. I need to always see for myself.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Sunking said:


> ...
> *Power* is expressed as *WATT(s)* and the Watt is the Rate at which Power is being delivered or consumed at any given moment in time.
> ...


Power is the rate at which work is done or the rate at which energy is converted or transferred.

Ref:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour

See sections entitled:

*Confusion of kilowatt hours (energy) and kilowatts (power)*

*Misuse of watts per hour*

Regards, 

major


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

From the (so-called) TV news article about the EV self-charging loop (where the car plugs into itself):



















It's unfortunate that there was apparently no science editor with at least a third grade education to critique the claims made. Clearly "fake news"!

The FLA battery pack with 12 x 12V x 100 A-h batteries have energy storage of 14.4 kW-h which at best could provide 40 miles of range at 300 Wh/mile and 80% DOD. And add about 800 pounds to the vehicle. If they cost $1000, that is about $70/kW-h, but the Peukert effect probably increases that to over $100/kW-h. Lithium is about $300/kW-h, with no Peukert effect, and will likely last 3 times longer. So overall cost is about equal.

Using FLA batteries to charge a lithium pack over a period of 8-10 hours reduces the Peukert effect, so this approach could effectively extend the range to some extent. 40 miles of range at 300 WH/mile is 12 kW-h, and over a ten hour charge time is 1.2 kW or 8.3 amps. The Peukert effect at this current reduces capacity to about 90 A-h, and a conservative DOD of 80% reduces this to 72 A-h or 10.4 kW-h, or 34 miles at 300 W-h/mile. Of course, there is also the efficiency of the charger to be considered, and the higher W-h/mile caused by the extra weight.

So, this idea may have _some_ merit as an inexpensive range extender, but it seems hardly novel or revolutionary, and has dubious practicality. But the kinetic energy device is doomed to failure from the get-go. The automotive alternators shown in the contraption are generally very inefficient, on the order of 60-75%, while a well-designed generator (or the EV motor in regen mode) is more like 80-90% efficient. Plus, it adds no extra weight or friction. like the belts and rubber tires of the contraption. 

Using my calculator, a 1000 kg (2200 lb) vehicle at 100 km/h (62 MPH) has kinetic energy of 107 W-h, or enough to power the vehicle about 1/3 mile. This energy is only "harvested" when braking (decelerating) to a stop or going downhill (actually a change in potential energy due to gravity). Slowing the vehicle from 100 km/h to 50 km/h is a change in kinetic energy of 80 W-h, with only 27 W-h left.

If either of these "inventions" receives a patent, it just reflects the lack of knowledge of the examiners at the USPTO, and the sad state of STEM education in the US today, declining over the last 20-30 years.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

800 lbs of PbAcid batteries plus EVSE, DC to AC inverter, PbAcid charger and supports/cables/etc. Maybe an extra half ton on that EV chassis. You think that might have some effect on the range using the standard battery, or the handling, or braking, or ride quality, or payload capacity, or car manufacturer's warranty?

And for what amounts to having a reserve capacity of about 20, maybe 30% in range. Not a good idea IMO.

And the alternator concept is a joke, right?

Just sad.

major


----------



## Ivansgarage (Sep 3, 2011)

I kind of skipped through this thread, but are we talking drive on lith. batts
and recharge with lead, am I missing some thing? sounds like the dumbest
idea I have ever heard.

Why not just carry lith. the second pack to charge the first pack? wait a minute,
just tie the second pack to the first pack, I'm confused.

Learn something new every day on DIY. LOL

Oh ya, Hi Major long time no see.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Here is a link to the patent. It is really long, so I only scanned through it. Seems like a case of, where you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS! 

https://www.google.com/patents/US8723344

The only advantage of using the lead-acid batteries is that they are several times cheaper (and more readily available) than an equivalent in lithium. Charging the lithium pack from the lead over an 8-10 hour period minimizes the Peukert effect, which limits their use for propulsion when approaching or exceeding 1C discharge.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Energy is the total available amount of energy to do work at any point in time. kinetic energy + 1/2 mass of Electric Vehicle and Velocity Squared in my example above the watts is available energy at any given time at any given velocity. in british system it is Lbs X (Feet/sec)^2 then X 0.0421 = Watts Equivalent Available energy may far exceed the work that needs to be done.
> 
> Work is = to the amount energy needed power something at any moment in time like it took a kilowatt for a second to roll a wheel.
> 
> Power is the Work done over some period of time like a kilowatt of work per hour to move wheel for an hour.


I rest my case. You just proved to the world you do not know anything about electric power and energy. 

You cannot even answer a simple 5th grade math after I did it for you. 



> Now let's say your EV has an energy efficiency of 400 wh/mile @ 60 mph. How much power (watts or horse power) is the motor using from the battery?


The answer is 24 Kw or 32 Hp.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Hey as they say the proof and truth will come out soon , second series of test will be done at an independent test facility non-biased . Got to get this done putting last modified pieces together and wiring everything.
> *
> Will check back in a day or so.* I am man enough to admit if it dont work but will you guys be man enough not scoff if I prove you all wrong?
> ...


Hmmm. Been 3 Days. Think it worked? Who's the man?


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

Hey to all you on here. It has been so hot in my metal shop and over 100 equivalent still wiring all the controls and test stuff. 

When I am done I'm done not doing it for you guys and want to make sure I can wire everything right not rushing through it though to prove something, since i dont even owe you guys proof it si how it is. 

I seen many comments where people are outright assuming things that are not accurate. No matter many want to get in on the bandwagon like sharks circling thinking they are right when you are not. Is that how you guys here at diy try to control out of the box thinking bully the new guy into submission without even researching things out completely. Does it make some of you feel smart to regurgitate things others have told you are scientific laws when at most they are theories. No matter still doesn't change the fact that what I am doing now I have proven over 4 years ago in the refrigerated trucking industry. 

Tell me all you einsteins why a bumble flies then when physics proves it shouldn't because God told it to, and the so called laws of physics are flawed somehow and should be called loos rules at best. Or from what chemistry and science know about water it should boil at 173 F why is it 212 degrees ??? Why becuase their is 39 degrees about the water molecule we do not understand. 

One poster said that lead acid lithium dumbest thing he ever heard of. Well in your genius insight you say why not just add another equal sized lithium power pack? Well i can tell you are talking out your ass more than the others think i am. On my commercially available 2013 Ford Focus there is no room for double the wattage its packed with lithium bricks 90% of all usable space full now, no way your going to be able to use lithium at all. Why the hell would one want to pay $22,000 extra dollars for the additional lithium pack even it could fit on here. The $1,000 lead acid pack is 16,560 Watts 115 AMP HR Each since refilling them all the way 95% Depth of discharge yes i am using 95% of power the battery mfg rates tem 550 cycles 100% depth of discharge. I am feeding this power into a Level 2 240VAC 30AMP EV Charger with 1772 plug in and truly my car get 210 watt/mile 6600 watts x 2 = 13,200 watts 2 hours of charging Lithium Ion divided by 210 watts / mile = roughly 62 miles without using all my auxiliary lead acid power. 

Not that anyone really cares but that last paragraph is an example of assumptions and news erros i have no control of I said in the news that the lead acid plugged in at home take 7-8 hours to fill up, not that it took that long to fill up lithium. 

And as far as the patents go the issued 1 has kept at least 12 other out of the market by examiners citing mine as prior art since 2010. And as everyone is aware on here perpetual motion inventions will never be issued a patent so therefore mine is not perpetual motion. I take that back should be aware don't want to assume here either.

Unless everyone got something revolutionarily important please refrain from putting nonsense comments about this until I'm done with my testing soon. If I am not done with initial testing by next Wed the 2nd of August. I will respond back here. 

iainventor


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Hey to all you on here. It has been so hot in my metal shop and over 100 equivalent still wiring all the controls and test stuff.
> 
> When I am done I'm done not doing it for you guys and want to make sure I can wire everything right not rushing through it though to prove something, since i dont even owe you guys proof it si how it is.
> 
> ...


saved for posterity, bumblebees fly because of invisible sky man 

"since i dont even owe you guys proof "

you need to back up your claims or retract them.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... truly my car get 210 watt/mile 6600 watts x 2 = 13,200 watts 2 hours of charging Lithium Ion divided by 210 watts / mile = roughly 62 miles without using all my auxiliary lead acid power. ...


Got to love those "watts per mile". 

You don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. Why would you expect us to take any of your technical claims seriously? 

Man up and show us what you have.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Everyone knows that Bumbles Bounce.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I expect if he can do
"watts per mile" 
then he can 
"do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs"


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

*"iainventor"*

Actually you are the one who is making the claim and the burden of proof is on YOU. So until you can backup your claims you need to retract them. 

I have built an electric car with Lead Acid Batteries. I drive an Electric Car with Lithium. Lithium is by far the best way to go even if you have an aux pack to haul around. But if you have an aux pack why not just charge both packs and connect the two so you increase your overall capacity. 

A 2013 Electric Focus brand new is only rated for 76 miles electric range. You can for sure buy a good used battery pack from any number of wrecked OEM electric cars and you surely won't be spending $22,000 on the pack. You can buy an new Nissan Leaf Pack as a replacement that is less than $6k. 

If I were to have an Aux Pack small trailer I'd much rather spend the money on a used full sized pack and build it into a trailer and set it up to connect directly so I double my capacity than putting in a tiny Heavy lead acid pack that is difficult to care for and usable capacity very minimal. Over all the cost of building an aux trailer with lead will be much more expensive. The aux pack needs to be higher voltage so it can actually charge the other pack. Just charge them both then connect them together and connect your trailer when you need the extra range. 

That is nothing new and there is no story here. 

Creating your generator junk is just that. A waste of time and money. Just get your aux lithium pack in order and build a low slung trailer for your extra range.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Duncan said:


> I expect if he can do
> "watts per mile"
> then he can
> "do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs"


We all know one horsepower = 745.7 watts. He claims his EV uses 210 watts / mile. So it takes him 3.56 miles to use one horsepower.

Remarkable, wouldn't you say, Duncan?

major


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Major
I just got this mental picture of a trail of dead horses


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> *"iainventor"*
> 
> Actually you are the one who is making the claim and the burden of proof is on YOU. So until you can backup your claims you need to retract them. .


You are kidding right?

This moron does not know the difference between power and energy. He keeps making a fool of himself. Example: My EV gets 210 watts/mile. He has no clue how ignorant that statement is. Or how about there is not enough room in his EV to replace his Pb with LFP batteries. He has no clue LFP batteries take up 1/3 the space and 1/4 the weight for a given capacity. 

The only thing he can prove and has already proven is, he is an idiot.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Tell me all you einsteins why a bumble flies then when physics proves it shouldn't ...


If you think physics proves that a bee should not fly, you have failed in your understanding of physics, and failed to apply any critical thinking. The silly idea that bees disprove the validity of aerodynamics is perpetuated by people who don't understand that any model of physical system has a limited range of valid application, and that the application of any model based on false assumptions about the physical system is invalid. But mostly, it's babble repeated by people who have not made any effort to understand anything about the subject... of aerodynamics, of biomechanics, or of whatever bunk they are trying to sell.

Just do a web search for a phrase such as "a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly" and read any of the dozens (maybe hundreds) of debunkings of this crap.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I have a 60 pound 12V battery that holds more than 4 million Joules of energy! Wow! It does seem absurd that the car has room for 800 pounds of lead-acid batteries but not for an equivalent pack of lithium. The "proven" and patented example of battery powered refrigeration may have some validity, especially for a truck where weight is not as large a factor as on a small car. The multi-alternator contraption seems to be a joke - and it was described in an April article. Ha Ha! Fool!


----------



## zsnemeth (Jan 4, 2012)

I have a theory! As, these guys showing up mostly on school holidays, I think they are physics teachers....


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... If I am not done with initial testing by next Wed the 2nd of August. I will respond back here.
> 
> iainventor


That would be today. Still a few hours left. Wonder if he'll post.
Edit (of 8/3/2017):
A no-show. Figures. Looks like we were right and he wasn't. What's the score? Us = 100. Free energy nutjobs = 0.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Damm !
....i had forgotten this thread and just now caught it again.
....now i am going to have to try hard to forget it again . 
Another 10 mins of my life wasted !


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> That would be today. Still a few hours left. Wonder if he'll post.
> Edit:
> A no-show. Figures. Looks like we were right and he wasn't. What's the score? Us = 100. Free energy nutjobs = O.


Not a no show at all. I'm just behind schedule still but should know and prove once and for all that what I can do can be done and will be done. 

To highlight this this thread was alternators whcih i use, and other stuff. I am not getting something for nothing the battery powered my car.

Simpliest way at 35 MPH my car has almost 742 HP equivlant and the alternators take 16 HP to reach peak output

So in a tug of war forward motion at 35 MPH is 742 pulling opposite way would be the 16 HP equivalent so mcuh overwhelimng forward motion doesnt stand a chance.

Soem of you have made comments that the energy is only what the EV needs I say that is part right the energy needed to propel the EV. But the total available kinetic energy is far above that, so that is why with kinetic energy that there is so much more energy to tap. Now i will say from doing this pulling a Thermo King trailer ran off of kinetic energy no noticle differnce and made 28 Kw of DC power to run refrigerator on trialer. 

https://www.facebook.com/james.dierickx.1/videos/10211383634079097/

Above is a link showing my prototype if you mods here have the open mind to post this even though you all think it goes against what you think you beleive great. 

You sure let everyone bash me without the full story, even in your guidelines for response on here says never assume and let a guy fail if he wants . I haven't asked for any help or support from anyone funding this out of my own pocket because i believe in this so much. 

Yet everyone wants to pounce on me for this, and asked 1 simple question about a 1236 Curtis Controller and no real answer response?

Not make excuses but we had to take my 20 year old son to the ER and he is serious enough that he is at the larger U of Iowa Hospitals some 75 miles one way away. That my focus still has been to finish this up but family comes first a million miles more ahead of responding to your group. 

Also Major I think your a A # 1 AH for your taunting comment even before Tuesday was over. Wiring controls and gauges now be driving the vehicle in the video before today Aug 3, 2017 is over. 

iainventor


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Not a no show at all. I'm just behind schedule still but should know and prove once and for all that what I can do can be done and will be done.
> 
> To highlight this this thread was alternators whcih i use, and other stuff. I am not getting something for nothing the battery powered my car.
> 
> ...


Take care of your family. Come back afterwards and explain to us your 742hp car.

major


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Isn't that horsepower greater than what the Tesla pumps out?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> ...
> Soem of you have made comments that the energy is only what the EV needs I say that is part right the energy needed to propel the EV. But the total available kinetic energy is far above that, so that is why with kinetic energy that there is so much more energy to tap...


Tell me, what is the kinetic energy of a 2000 pound car moving at 30 mph (convert to kwh if you please). Hint, it is way less than the static energy of the battery that got it up to 30mph and kept it there for 40 miles.

edit, here is a calculator, you can figure out how to convert joules to kwh on your own.
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergykenetic/kenetic_energy_equation.php


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Simpliest way at 35 MPH my car has almost 742 HP equivlant and the alternators take 16 HP to reach peak output


One reason that this topic has been dumped in the _Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that..._ thread with all the other nonsense, and a reason for the ridicule directed by some members to the author of statements such as this one, is that it shows an apparent lack of understanding of the difference between power and energy. This isn't a trivial concept, but most adults can wrap their mind around it in a few minutes, and it is roughly an eighth-grade school subject. I suggest a serious review of this concept.

The speed of the vehicle determines the kinetic *energy* contained in the motion; horsepower is a measure of *power*, not energy.

In some cases, an author may clearly understand a concept but may confuse their statements with sloppy terminology. For instance, someone may understand the idea of required energy per unit distance, which can be expressed in watt-hours per mile (Wh/mi), but might be sloppy and write it with units of watts per mile (W/mi). However, in this case, it would be strange to express energy in horsepower-hours or horsepower-seconds, so the use of horsepower (as in "at 35 MPH my car has almost 742 HP equivlant") just looks like a lack of understanding...



iainventor said:


> Energy is the total available amount of energy to do work at any point in time. kinetic energy + 1/2 mass of Electric Vehicle and Velocity Squared in my example above the watts is available energy at any given time at any given velocity. in british system it is Lbs X (Feet/sec)^2 then X 0.0421 = Watts Equivalent Available energy may far exceed the work that needs to be done.


Despite the incoherent language and sloppy notation, this does refer to energy... but then degenerates into references to watts (the base unit of power). I suspect that iainventor calculated energy for a one-tonne (1000 kg) vehicle, used a factor of 2 instead of 1/2, reached a result of 553 kilojoules, and misinterpreted that as 553 kilowatts, which is 742 horsepower. The actual kinetic energy of the motion of a one-tonne mass at 37 mph (60 km/h or 16.7 m/s) is 138 kJ... or 186 horsepower-seconds (gotta love that unit!); that's why it only takes a typical small car with about 100 hp a couple of seconds to reach that speed.​


iainventor said:


> So in a tug of war forward motion at 35 MPH is 742 pulling opposite way would be the 16 HP equivalent so mcuh overwhelimng forward motion doesnt stand a chance.


Now the confusion is between force, power, and energy...

The forward motion represents kinetic *energy* (not anything measured in horsepower).
The drag of the proposed alternator is a specified level of *power* (so HP is actually a correct unit )
To "overwhelm" - or affect - the forward motion would require a *force* (what one applies in a tug of war; measured in pounds or newtons); if the force is due to running the alternator at constant power, the force would be inversely proportional to speed... and it would certainly slow the vehicle down or require the same power to be supplied by the motor (to maintain speed). At 35 mph, generating 16 HP with perfect efficiency would result in 1370 newtons (308) of retarding force, decelerating a one-tonne vehicle at 1.37 m/s2 (or 0.14 G). Of course, the drive motor can just use additional power to apply the increased force... leading to the classic "perpetual motion" idea of pointlessly cycling energy. 



iainventor said:


> Soem of you have made comments that the energy is only what the EV needs I say that is part right the energy needed to propel the EV. But the total available kinetic energy is far above that, so that is why with kinetic energy that there is so much more energy to tap.


If you "tap" the kinetic energy, you have taken it away from the moving mass and don't have the kinetic energy any more; the motion of a mass is a store of energy, not an infinite source of power. That should be obvious; this thread is for people who fail to acknowledge this sort of thing at all. Now we're back to not understanding the difference between energy and power!



iainventor said:


> Now i will say from doing this pulling a Thermo King trailer ran off of kinetic energy no noticle differnce and made 28 Kw of DC power to run refrigerator on trialer.


I hadn't paid much attention to this reefer situation before, but it looks like a previous project involved driving an alternator from a wheel of a commercial refrigerated trailer (or semi-trailer). The power would have then be used to drive a refrigeration unit, rather than driving it with a small diesel engine as in conventional practice. This doesn't save energy - since diesel is just burned in the truck's engine instead of the refrigeration unit's engine - but it would save the hassle of filling the trailer's fuel tank (at least while moving) and reduce maintenance of the refrigeration unit's engine.

Essentially this is like the generators that people used to use on bicycles, which would run against the tire to generate power for a headlight... in the days before LED lamps and good batteries. I don't think anyone who has used one of those things and pedalled against the extra resistance (I did) would claim that it makes free power!

It takes roughly 250 HP to keep a 40-ton rig running at highway speed (60 mph); the additional 38 HP required to overcome the drag of running an alternator putting out 28 kW to operate a refrigeration unit is certainly significant, but with all the variations in trucks and in road conditions, a driver might not notice it. And why on earth would a reefer unit need 28 kW? I looked at some Thermo-King specs, and these things apparently use 12 to 16 horsepower diesel engines.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> https://www.facebook.com/james.dierickx.1/videos/10211383634079097/


That's a pretty shot at a Rube Goldberg machine!  The use of pneumatic tires running on pneumatic tires for the least efficient possible first stage of drive is an especially nice touch. 

But seriously, James, it is unfortunate that your friends (at least your Facebook "Friends") encourage you to waste your time, effort, and money, rather than challenging you to clearly communicate your ideas... and so realize the problems with your plans.


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

He also got laughed off Hackaday yesterday. Same reasons.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Thank you social media for wasting our time and showing us the depth of people's stupidity. In the past, when people did something like this, it was the joke in the neighborhood-maybe the local newspaper(remember those?), if it was a slow news day. Now, it's blasted out all over the world as fodder for every ignorant nut-job to suspend common sense and the laws of physics. God help us, if this is progress.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

piotrsko said:


> He also got laughed off Hackaday yesterday. Same reasons.


Do you have a link (or project name, or username)? I couldn't find a "kinetic energy vehicle" or "KEV", or anything by "iainventor" or "Dierickx". I did find a generator project by "james", but it's a different kind of flaky... and there are 635 users with that name.

I did end up signing up for Hackaday - it should provide some entertainment, and some legitimately interesting ideas.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

His Facebook profile says he studied BS Management - _that_ I can believe!

I don't think we are really "bashing" him as he claims, although he may think so because he is so sure of his "theories" and attempts at proof. But it is understandable when someone clings so tenaciously to a concept based on obvious and provable misconceptions. He would do well to work through a course in basic physics, but perhaps he prefers "alternate facts" and believes so strongly in his idea that it has become almost like a religion (or political stance) that is based on faith rather than evidence.

Anyway, I hope his son is doing OK, and I look forward to more posts. Perhaps for entertainment, but hopefully to see a realization of his errors and a genuine educational enlightenment. The auxiliary lead-acid range extender has some merit, at least, although very marginal at best.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> Tell me, what is the kinetic energy of a 2000 pound car moving at 30 mph (convert to kwh if you please). Hint, it is way less than the static energy of the battery that got it up to 30mph and kept it there for 40 miles.
> 
> edit, here is a calculator, you can figure out how to convert joules to kwh on your own.
> http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergykenetic/kenetic_energy_equation.php


DBC 

I am not going to make it more difficult than it is by doing 40 miles when the commonality is 35 mph so 35 miles and hour are equivalent since everthing can be easly calculated in seconds, minutes, and hourand use sixty minutes to calculate everthing compared 68 mins 57 seconds.

I also do not use online calculators solve it by doing the math myself in case there could be a programming error.

HERE IS MY ANSWER plus my EV Values too.

mass = 2,000 lbs 
1/2 mass x velocity squared = kinetic energy in vehicle system

1000 Lbs x (44ft/sec)^2 = poundal old school so its 1/2 mass pounds x (ft squared / sec squared ) = in this case 1000 pounds x 44 ft/sec x 44 ft/sec = 1,936,000 poundals -seconds 

which when converted to watt seconds with common conversion of 0.0421 to convert poundals to watt seconds = in this case 85,505 watts/sec so power 85.5 Kw/hrs But as you should know a watt-second = Joule - second of Energy in Joules is 85,505 Joule/sec x 3600 seconds in an hour for in this hypothetical example = 307,818,000 Joules or 307 MJ/hr and 85,505 watts /746 watt/hp = equivalent 114 HP forward motion 

however my magnitude with my EV is 2.6 times more kinetic energy stored 
My Ford Focus EV has a curb weight of 3,900 lbs + trailer 400 lbs + batteries and inverter/charger Level 2 charger 800 lbs + me 250 lbs = approx 5350 lbs 
mass 5,350 lbs 
velocity 35mph = (35pmh/60/mph) X (5,280 ft/min at 60mph = 1 mile a minute = 5,280 ft / min / 60 seconds = 88ft/sec x (35 mph/60mph) = 51.3 ft/sec @ 35 mph. 

5350 lbs /2 for 1/2 mass = 2,675 lbs and my test is at 35 mph which approx equals 51.3 feet/sec

2,675 pounds x 51.3 ft/sec x 51.3 ft/sec = 7,039,770.75 poundal/sec x 0.0421 watts/sec converversion = 296,374 watts / second 296.0 Kw/hr if constant speed of 35 miles for 1 hour.

Energy again in Joules 296,374 Joule / Sec x 3,600 sec/hr = 1,066 MJ/hr 

HP / sec equivalent = 296,374 watt/sec / 746 watt/hp = 397 hp 

So again in my weakened down system has 7 alternators = each alternator 110 Amp / hr x 14.5 volts when charging = 11,165 watts/ sec 
HP /sec equivalent = 11,165 watts/ sec divided by 746 watt/hp = 14.96 hp 

so true drag is equal to forward motion divided by resistance of the alternator extra power needed to meet resistance to alternator drag x current power consumption per mile + current power consumption for new rate of watt/hrs used from battery 

(15 hp / 397 hp ) = 0.037 or 3.7 % more power in plus power in before = new power consumption 

so my Ford Focus at 35 mph consumes around 185 watt/hrs per mile 

so new power consumption (185 watt/hrs x 0.037 drag) + 185 watt/hrs = 191.98 round to 192 watt/hrs per mile and 7 watt/hrs per mile = my unusable lithium ion in EV is 16 kw/hrs so old mileage is 16,000watt/hrs/185 watt/hrs per mile = 86 miles at 35mph assumption 

new drag accounted for 192 watt /hrs per mile 
16,000watt/hrs/192 watt/hrs per mile = 83 miles at 35mph assumption 

but in hour at 35 mph filled my weakened auxiliary batteries up to 11,165 watt/hrs. 

inversion and power port charger conversion back to DC on EV Approx = 9,400 watt /hrs range = 9,400 watt/hrs / 192 watt/hrs per mile = 49.4 miles range for every 35 miles driven 

this to all is the last time I am detailing this too everyone. My son has health reasons in hospital 145 miles round trip. Or we would prove it all out today but will Lord willing by end of weekend. 

And this version got to stop and charge because of overcharging issues thermal runaway if gets over 80% state of charge. 

But the second KeV will be able to charge and drive it has a 72V DC Lead Acid powered car.

This 2009 ZENN will be my first KeV conversion to dynamically charge while driving. 










I actually think this is so simple that many if not all except me of course blew this off as not even worth trying. No degreed engineer would even try it, sort of like told wright brothers they would never fly scientifically impossible in their day. 

Or telling chuck yeager if he went faster than sound his plane would self destruct all debunked wrong. 

Give me a few more days will share results if well like I expect, then you all still will think i rigged something -- so I have contacted my local sheriff's office they said the would follow me and observe the test to help validate my claims.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Do you have a link (or project name, or username)? I couldn't find a "kinetic energy vehicle" or "KEV", or anything by "iainventor" or "Dierickx". I did find a generator project by "james", but it's a different kind of flaky... and there are 635 users with that name.
> 
> I did end up signing up for Hackaday - it should provide some entertainment, and some legitimately interesting ideas.


So really couldn't find me using a search engine Google no info on me? And what is Hackaday ?

http://www.4Kev.energy

Me2EV Charging Systems


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> Thank you social media for wasting our time and showing us the depth of people's stupidity. In the past, when people did something like this, it was the joke in the neighborhood-maybe the local newspaper(remember those?), if it was a slow news day. Now, it's blasted out all over the world as fodder for every ignorant nut-job to suspend common sense and the laws of physics. God help us, if this is progress.


Thats your opinion that's fine, but I would say laws of physics = at best assumptive rules of physics . Actually CERN collider proved E= Mc^2 wrong tachyon particle faster than light most science is based on theories that cant be proven wrong easily. And any good researcher can skew their data an example playing god in yellowstone made theory fit their research putting fake data in it had people putting wolf paw prints to show wolf population was increasing and it wasn't just an example of the cult of science going overboard. 

And you guys give me crap all the time of not understanding physics but could any of you mathematically prove me wrong? Do you know what Plank's constant is, schrodinger probability, can you tell me why flight supersede the rule of gravity and under condition? Without coming up with bullshit after a many hour Google search.

This is my opinion of so called laws of physics.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> One reason that this topic has been dumped in the _Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that..._ thread with all the other nonsense, and a reason for the ridicule directed by some members to the author of statements such as this one, is that it shows an apparent lack of understanding of the difference between power and energy. This isn't a trivial concept, but most adults can wrap their mind around it in a few minutes, and it is roughly an eighth-grade school subject. I suggest a serious review of this concept.
> 
> The speed of the vehicle determines the kinetic *energy* contained in the motion; horsepower is a measure of *power*, not energy.
> 
> ...


you must be referencing box trucks not Trailer refrigeration units the Diesel is usually around 35 hp , and the 

link uses 28 HP Electric http://thermoking.com/sb/

thats right the truck ones box trucks use an alternator to power truck reefer while running at maybe 14 kw but they cant fly as high as my invention cant get a performing alternator that can get 28 kw.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> dcb said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, what is the kinetic energy of a 2000 pound car moving at 30 mph (convert to kwh if you please). Hint, it is way less than the static energy of the battery that got it up to 30mph and kept it there for 40 miles.
> ...


oh man, so saving this. says he isn't gonna make it difficult, then writes wall of text, confuses mph with miles, thinks a tested program is worse than doing it manually infinite times, i didn't even read it all, just gonna come back to it some day for a good laugh.

edit: 85.5 Kw/hrs 
nope, not even close, try 0.023 kwh.
edit 2: you need to stop at that 85.5kwh figure and back up, that is on you to figure out how you screwed up so bad.
2000 pounds = 907kg
30mph=13.4112 meters per second
joules=0.5*m*v*v
joules=81566.63944704
kwh=2.7778e-7*joules
kwh=0.022657222

period, full stop. Your theory is %100 busted.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Simpliest way at 35 MPH my car has almost *742 HP* equivlant and the alternators take 16 HP to reach peak output





major said:


> Take care of your family. Come back afterwards and explain to us your 742hp car.
> 
> major





iainventor said:


> DBC
> 
> I am not going to make it more difficult than it is by doing 40 miles when the commonality is 35 mph so 35 miles and hour are equivalent since everthing can be easly calculated in seconds, minutes, and hourand use sixty minutes to calculate everthing compared 68 mins 57 seconds.
> 
> ...


That's far short of the 742hp. But 397hp doesn't seen right either. Are you sure about your math?

major

{edit} poundal is a unit of force which is equal to 0.138 newtons. Where did you come with the following?


> which when converted to watt seconds with common conversion of 0.0421 to convert poundals to watt seconds


How can you convert force to energy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundal


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

So instead of spouting off all the numbers you will need to do at least three tests. One is to charge your cars lithium batteries and drive until they are spent. Then charge them up again and then attach your fully charged lead batteries and then connect those up to your main pack to charge your main pack while you drive and do your drive again. Again logging your mileage. So you should have two different distances. Then connect it all up with your device and do your drive once again getting three different distances. 

If your vehicle has a gas engine don't use it during any of the testing. 

Have a third party verify your work. 

Having the local police follow you does not count. 

Sounds dubious that your device will increase your range. It would benefit you to spent the money on just another lithium pack to add to your current pack. Those batteries don't need any care even close to what you will have to do for your lead acid batteries. The reality of lead will become very obvious once you begin dealing with them. 

I remember riding my bicycle with those little generators. Man, you would not even think that those little things could cause such a huge extra drag just to produce enough power to light a little light bulb. You should try that. That is exactly what you are doing but at a much larger scale.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Re - Bicycle generators
Those bottle dynamos that rubbed on the tires - terrible things!

I finally coughed up the moola for a hub dynamo - just when LED lights made it unnecessary!

The drag from a hub dynamo was much less - the old bottle dynamos were bloody inefficient


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Duncan said:


> Re - Bicycle generators
> Those bottle dynamos that rubbed on the tires - terrible things!
> 
> I finally coughed up the moola for a hub dynamo - just when LED lights made it unnecessary!
> ...



awwwww man, I was trying to get him to see the light, now you gave him some encouragement that his idea might just work. However, Im quite sure he already knows it aint gonna work and is just trying to get our goats by being an ......


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

onegreenev said:


> awwwww man, I was trying to get him to see the light, now you gave him some encouragement that his idea might just work. However, Im quite sure he already knows it aint gonna work and is just trying to get our goats by being an ......


I don't think he would "see the light" if you put a Battleship searchlight on him from 20 feet away


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Duncan said:


> I don't think he would "see the light" if you put a Battleship searchlight on him from 20 feet away


I agree with this assessment.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

https://thedailywtf.com/articles/The-Fizz-Buzz-from-Outer-Space


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> but in hour at 35 mph filled my weakened auxiliary batteries up to 11,165 watt/hrs.
> 
> inversion and power port charger conversion back to DC on EV Approx = 9,400 watt /hrs range = 9,400 watt/hrs / 192 watt/hrs per mile = 49.4 miles range for every 35 miles driven
> ...


Mr. Iainventor,

I interpret the statement quoted above as a claim that you can generate and store an amount of energy sufficient to propel the EV for 49.4 miles at 35mph from the vehicle's kinetic energy while the vehicle runs at 35mph for one hour (travels 35 miles). Do I understand you correctly?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

major


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> oh man, so saving this. says he isn't gonna make it difficult, then writes wall of text, confuses mph with miles, thinks a tested program is worse than doing it manually infinite times, i didn't even read it all, just gonna come back to it some day for a good laugh.
> 
> edit: 85.5 Kw/hrs
> nope, not even close, try 0.023 kwh.
> ...


you wanted to know how many kwh needed to propel the car 40 miles thats bull shit . 30 miles at 30 mph made it easier for me 1 hour for 1 hour 30 mph velocity too. You asked me me how much kinetic energy is in the 1 ton vehicle at 30 mph. thats what I solved. 

why mess around going from pound to kg when good old english units work just as good 1,000 lbs is half mass and 44 ft/sec is velocity at 30 mph 
at 30 mph how much kinetic energy is 
pound x ft^2 / sec ^2 is a poundal look it up and the conversion factor poundals of kinetic energy to equivalent watts is = poundals x 0.0421poundals/ watt sec 

so poundal watt/ sec equivalent = 1,000 lbs x 44 ft/sec x 44 ft/sec x 0.0421 = 81.5 Kw/hrs 

I think you should sharpen your pen yourself because your reasonable answer is backwards or the online cheat calculator programmed wrong?? you calculated backwards almost not sure if by chance but if you take your so called kw/hr 0.02265722 sec and multiply it by 3,600 seconds in an hour you get 81.5 kw/hr power 

either way you are wrong and proved to me that you can't solve this stuff yourself like I just did right here, not even using metric units still came out right now didn't it??

I do apologize transposed 85.5 Kw/hr for 81.5 kw/hrs in my first answer, but you also said calculate the kinetic energy at 30 mph if stayed constant velocity but that's power now that where you are confused true energy units is joules/sec or more correctly to Kw/hr equivalent in Energy= Joule/hour

but the constant velocity means every second 81.5 kw generated 81,500 Joules of energy/sec x 3,600 sec/hour = Kw/hr = roughly 293 Mega Joules Kinetic Energy

because poundals and watts were per second time frame 

just like the power company 1kw/hr is a 1,000 watts a second per hour so 1 watt-second = Joule-second. Then watt-hr to Joule equivalent is Joule - sec x 3,600 second / hour = 3,600,000 Joules or 3.6 MJ energy unit = 1 kw/hr 

But truly a senior member as advanced as you, that truly you get the energy power relationship skewed and you say I am the messed up one. Just because you didn't understand my answer don't scoff it off as I am wrong because truly I am not. Maybe others should take notice of my response it is equivalently accurate between energy & power equivalents. 

So just wait a few days and let me get some charging to kinetic energy curves plotted out. 

Lets make one thing clear I do agree that an internally powered from own inertia will come to a rest quickly. Say you powered the EV to 60 mph and turned off motor and had wheel generator hooked up it would capture energy but still stop quickly 

Just like a simple pendulum if you started out 0 degrees x axis level and it fell towards negative y axis it will swing back and forth but each period will shrink in degrees of motion until it stops at 270 degrees or y axis that equation is 2 pie X square root of (L/g) from internal power.

but not the case with externally powered thing EV gas steam still powering the system at even a constant velocity that is where I can gain some minor efficiencies and transform it into energy efficiency to get us further. 

I think you guys should encourage me to either prove this right or wrong but I do not know anyone who has first hand experience if what I want to do works or just says it wont work. But in a few days I will know for sure. Some people think I should have been born in the state south of me in MO. I am a hands on guy like see real things not theory and conjecture telling me I can't do it and leaving it at that. Show me in real life that's what I'm doing.

iainventor


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> That's far short of the 742hp. But 397hp doesn't seen right either. Are you sure about your math?
> 
> major
> 
> ...


i do apologize i meant foot poundals = pounds X ft^2/sec^2 = 0.0421 Joules/sec in energy and a joule/second = watt/second and a second time frame is how watts = joules that's how it gets this foot poundal to watt conversion factor to metric system 1 Joule/ sec = kg X m^2/sec^2 = 1 watt/sec

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foot-poundal
foot-poundal
n
(Units) a unit of work or energy equal to the work done when a force of one poundal moves through a distance of one foot:* it is equal to 0.042 14 joule*
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

here is another reference of what I had said earlier 

Conversion equivalents 

http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr/nuclear/petajoule.html


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> you wanted to know how many kwh needed to propel the car 40 miles thats bull shit . <skipped rest of insane rambling>


you accuse everyone of not listening, when it is you. I asked what was the kinetic energy (in kwh) of taking 2000 lbs and decelerating it from 30 mph to 0.

because that is what kinetic energy is.

period

full stop

your kinetic theory is %100 busted, because you don't know what kinetic energy is. you fail to comprehend that the 2000 lb car only has 0.023 kwh of kinetic energy at 30mph. it makes ZERO difference if it does 30mph for 40 miles.


let me ask you a simpler question, what is the speed of a vehicle moving 30mph? does it matter if it maintains 30mph for 40 miles? would you then integrate the speed over 40 miles and then give me a nonsense answer (while claiming you aren't going to make it difficult)?

what part of 0.5*m*v*v has anything to do with distance?!?

are you "man" enough to admit when you are wrong?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> i do apologize i meant foot poundals ...
> 
> here is another reference of what I had said earlier
> 
> ...


Thanks for the apology and correction. It still does not address the contradictory and unreasonable horsepower numbers you show.

Also, that referenced website has some serious errors.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> you accuse everyone of not listening, when it is you. I asked what was the kinetic energy (in kwh) of taking 2000 lbs and decelerating it from 30 mph to 0.
> 
> because that is what kinetic energy is.
> 
> ...


no Im not wrong at 30 mph you said nothing in your original post about decellerating to 0, quit talking out your ass because of changing the question from initial to this bullshit one. An hour is easier kw hr equivalent an hour for an hour. 

And again I can solve problems without having to use a program even in amercian units , how aqbout you 0 ?


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Thanks for the apology and correction. It still does not address the contradictory and unreasonable horsepower numbers you show.
> 
> Also, that referenced website has some serious errors.


here it is 5350 mass at 35 mph = 51.3 ft/sec 

Kinetic Energy = (5350 Lbs/2) X (51.3 ft/sec) X (51.3 ft / sec ) X (0.0421 ft/poundal/watt) = 296,759 watts/sec 

Horsepower Equivalent = 296,759 watts / (746 watts/hp) = 397 HP equivalent per second 

to prove accurate watts another less used formula is momentum P to kinetic energy.

that formula is 

Kinetic Energy = P^2/ 2m 

P = mass x velocity m=mass in pounds

v = velocity in ft/sec 

in this case 

K = (5350 pounds x 51.3 ft/sec) ^2 / (2 x 5,350 pounds) 

K = (75,423,467,679) / 10,700 = 7,048,922 ft poundals 

K = 7,048,922 ft poundals X 0.0421 ft poundals/ watts = 296,759 watts/sec

in this case multiply my British unit answers to Watts by 0.0421 

296,759 watts a sec HP = 296,759 watts/ 746 watts/HP = 397 HP

that is the stored kinetic energy in Power Equivalents of my 2013 Ford Focus weighing 5,350 pounds with a velocity of 35 MPH 296 Kw or 397 HP Equivalent 

True Energy Units 296 KJ/ drove for an hour energy = 296,000 x 3,600 sec/hr = 1.065 GJ 

Just to show exponential growth of stored kinetic energy at 60 MPH = 88 ft/sec velocity mass the same

5,350 mass / 2 X 88 ft/sec X 88 ft/sec X 0.0421 Watt Factor = 872,109 watts/sec 872 Kw/sec 

90 mph = 132 ft/sec 

K = 2,675 x 132 x 132 x 0.421 = 1,962,247 watts/sec 1.96 Mw / sec 

now again that is all available energy not consumed just there compared to the 11,165 watt/sec we are harvesting at peak alternator output.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> no Im not wrong at 30 mph you said nothing in your original post about decellerating to 0


wow, so if you are driving a car at speed v, and I ask you how fast you are going, you won't understand that it is in relation to zero mph.

I even gave you a calculator, you put in the speed (not and zero!) and the mass.

you REALLY don't understand kinetic energy do you. 

When someone asks you to get a dozen eggs, you should get them a trainload and act stupid and say "I didn't know you meant in relation to zero!"

you are beyond repair. your whole kinetic energy theory is still %100 busted, you still havent gotten the right answer to the simplest question about kinetic energy.

reminding you of YOUR THEORY:


iainventor said:


> ...
> Soem of you have made comments that the energy is only what the EV needs I say that is part right the energy needed to propel the EV. * But the total available kinetic energy is far above that*, so that is why with kinetic energy that there is so much more energy to tap...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ...
> why mess around going from pound to kg when good old english units work just as good 1,000 lbs is half mass and 44 ft/sec is velocity at 30 mph
> at 30 mph how much kinetic energy is
> pound x ft^2 / sec ^2 is a poundal look it up and the conversion factor poundals of kinetic energy to equivalent watts is = poundals x 0.0421poundals/ watt sec
> ...


James, all of the forum members who have commented about your calculations do understand power and energy, and the difference between them... senior or not. You can insult us, but it won't help your understanding, or get you any assistance.

I suggest that you take what you posted and I quoted above to any first-year engineering student, and have them correct the misuse of units of measure... or just have them submit those calculations as coursework, so they can be marked as a failure. Or, and I realize that this is a radical approach, enroll in a basic physics course (first-year college/university or below) and work through the material; don't just read the book, actually take the tests and get feedback from the instructor.

I'm not sure whether you are unable to do "units math", or you are deliberately picking incorrect units for your convenience, but in either case if you understood the difference between power and energy you would notice the many errors in your work.

You might try working in a single system of units (so if you like the foot-slug-pound-second system, energy will be in foot-pounds; if you like the foot-pound-poundal-second system, energy will be in foot-poundals) all the way through; you might get less confused.

Here's a small sample of your problem: there is no "conversion factor poundals of kinetic energy to equivalent watts" because a poundal is a unit of force and a watt is a unit of power. Neither is a unit of energy. Just follow those links to Wikipedia, and subsequently on to the reference sources if you don't believe the Wikipedia entries. If you're not willing to do that, you are just wasting everyone's time, including your own.

I do realize that James (iainventor) is likely beyond hope... or at least beyond being helped by this forum. I do hope that others who find their posts dumped in this thread might recognize that they are making similar errors, and consider the need for some basic technical education.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Re - Bicycle generators
> Those bottle dynamos that rubbed on the tires - terrible things!
> 
> I finally coughed up the moola for a hub dynamo - just when LED lights made it unnecessary!
> ...





onegreenev said:


> awwwww man, I was trying to get him to see the light, now you gave him some encouragement that his idea might just work.


I'm with onegreenev... the problem is still there with the hub-mounted generator; the old tire-driven things just accentuate the problem with their inefficiency. After I wrote my original remark about the bicycle headlamp generator I watch the video in Facebook, and - surprise! - the alternators mounted on the trailer are tire-driven!  So my example was much closer than you might think.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> i do apologize i meant foot poundals...


Okay, that's progress.  Now go through every step of the calculations and fix all of the unit errors. We'll wait...


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> here it is 5350 mass at 35 mph = 51.3 ft/sec
> 
> Kinetic Energy = (5350 Lbs/2) X (51.3 ft/sec) X (51.3 ft / sec ) X (0.0421 ft/poundal/watt) = 296,759 watts/sec
> 
> ...


Do you realize that hp (horsepower) is a unit of power? And kinetic energy is energy and therefore carry units of energy? Obviously not. Did you bother to look at the link I gave in post #1348? It would be a good (necessary) start for you to learn "energy" and "power". Then go on to learn what kinetic energy actually is.

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> And again I can solve problems without having to use a program even in amercian units , how aqbout you 0 ?


I often use a calculator program, just because it's easier, but I'm sure that most of us are quite able to do the order-of-magnitude calculations required for this type of discussion in our heads. I use unit conversion tools, just because that's easier than memorizing all of the factors, and I'm sure that's true for others as well. I use some "American" units when the input values for a problem are in those units, but normally S.I. (metric) units for anything involving power or energy, but there is no difference in the understanding required.

Attacking the ability of others to do calculations is a highly questionable tactic, when your own calculations are incorrect in very fundamental ways... especially if you want to get assistance or win support for your ideas. 

Focus on understanding the *meaning* of the values, not the precision of the numbers.

For example (avoiding the specific speed used earlier to stay focused on the point), consider the calculation of the kinetic energy of car moving on a highway:

if a one-ton vehicle is moving at 60 mph that's a mile per minute or about 6000 ft per minute or 100 ft per second, so it has about ten million foot-poundals (by mental arithmetic) of kinetic energy due to that motion... or more precisely 7744000 foot-poundals (by calculator)
if a one-tonne (1000 kg) vehicle is moving at 100 km/h or about 30 metres per second, it has about 500,000 joules (by mental arithmetic) of kinetic energy due to that motion... or more precisely 385802 joules (by calculator)
7744000 poundal-feet is 326333 joules, and 385802 joules is 9155220 poundal-feet.

Regardless of the units used, the answer is the comparable (a tonne of 1000 kg is 10% more than a ton of 2000 pounds, and 60 mph is less than 100 km/h, so the answers are not quite the same). More importantly, rough mental math using rounded numbers gets about the same result as plugging into a calculator. Most importantly, the units resulting from a correct calculation of kinetic energy are units of *energy* (poundal-feet or joules), *not* units of *power*.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

brian_ said:


> units of *energy* (poundal-feet or joules),


or kwh, i.e. if you are wondering how it compares to the energy in the battery pack. i.e. 0.023 kwh kinetic energy for a ton at 30mph, vs 10kwh potential energy of a charged battery.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

dcb said:


> or kwh, i.e. if you are wondering how it compares to the energy in the battery pack.


Yes, that would make sense for a pack size comparison, but I'm encouraging the idea of taking sensible steps, avoiding the nonsensical jumps that have led to invalid conclusions. The units of an energy comparison don't matter yet when the previous step doesn't even result in an energy.

Or, when someone is building a house a list of suitable roofing materials is good, but is premature when they don't understand how to build the foundation yet.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

> True Energy Units 296 KJ/ drove for an hour energy = 296,000 x 3,600 sec/hr = 1.065 GJ
> 
> Just to show exponential growth of stored kinetic energy at 60 MPH = 88 ft/sec velocity mass the same
> 
> ...


The claims of James seem to arise from his consistent incorrect terms for energy E as P/t, rather than P*t. Power is energy expended per unit time, so if you multiply power by time you get energy. If you divide energy by time you get a meaningless figure of E/t^2, which is analogous to an acceleration such as meters/sec/sec. Power is meaningful only as an instantaneous measurement, or you could speak of average power over a period of time.

Thus it helps to maintain consistency and correctness of units, so from the quote above, at 90 MPH, the kinetic energy is 1.96 Mw-s, which is 0.544 kW-h. It is possible to calculate the average power required to STOP the vehicle in a certain period of time, such as 10 seconds. It is easily seen to be 1960 kw-s/10 sec = 196 kW. You can also calculate the G-force as deceleration of 9 MPH/sec or 4 m/s/s which is about 0.41G (based on gravity constant of 9.8 m/s/s. This passes the reality check of what might be expected for stopping a car at that speed.

It can be difficult to accept a mistake in reasoning, and cognitive dissonance may prevent one from correcting a belief based thereupon, especially when it sounds so promising. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that entails accurate measurements. One simple reality check would be to connect the cart with the alternators to the towing hitch using a spring scale, and measuring the force required to produce a certain amount of power, which can be easily measured using DC volts and amps. 

According to my EV Calculator, to produce 10 kW (with 100% efficiency):

88 kph 92 lb
60 kph 137 lb
40 kph 202 lb


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

that's all fine and good, but his claim is that there is secret kinetic energy, lots of it, and nobody has ever thought of it before. And that we are all idiots for questioning him. when really the kinetic energy is tiny compared to the energy needed to complete a trip.

he doesn't trust programs, yet here he is using a web browser, running a php program, with some javascript. He probably doesn't even believe we are real (well, that day is coming, but not this day). hell even his car has programs.

YOU CANT FIX STUPID!!!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Paul
A big part of the problem is that we do use incorrect units
We use Watt Hours - 
While we do use them "correctly" Watt Hours is a horribly bastardized unit - we should be talking about Joules

Watt Hours are really useful - we buy power in Kilo Watt Hours and we buy our batteries in Amp Hours

But both non standard units can cause confusion
If we were to deal with the proper units - Joules and Coulombs - then people would not keep confusing them


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> According to my EV Calculator, to produce 10 kW (with 100% efficiency):
> 
> 88 kph 92 lb
> 60 kph 137 lb
> 40 kph 202 lb


Yes, power is simply the product of force and speed, so if working in one consistent set of units it's trivial to find any of the three values from the other two. It's good to look at those numbers (or the corresponding value for any desired speed and power): as these examples show, the proposed generator trailer will be resisting motion with substantial force. With the massive mechanical and electrical inefficiencies of the proposed design, the actual drag will be much higher.



PStechPaul said:


> One simple reality check would be to connect the cart with the alternators to the towing hitch using a spring scale, and measuring the force required to produce a certain amount of power, which can be easily measured using DC volts and amps.


This idea of physically measuring the drag by the generator trailer, as an indication of mechanical power required to generate electrical power, is interesting. 

We're dealing with concepts that do not require any empirical work: all the relevant factors are known, the theory is well-known and validated, and the calculations are straightforward. On the other hand, there is always value in seeing a concrete demonstration, and for some people it's the only way to understand. For many people, the calculations are too abstract, so they can't see the physical reality that they represent, and it is too easy to see numbers and snippets of other information (units of measure) in the blur of calculation text, and pick out whatever they want to see rather than the actual result. Even for those who don't have trouble accepting the results of correctly executed calculations, physical demonstration is valuable - that's probably the reason for many good DIY EV projects!

A drag-measuring trailer would be relatively easy to implement, although it would be tough to do with a spring scale. The most mechanical would be to use a hydraulic surge-braking coupler (with or without actually using it for braking), converted from the usual single-acting hydraulic cylinder to a double-acting (or just single-acting pull type) cylinder. The force pulling the trailer forward would be shown by the hydraulic pressure in the additional side of the cylinder, which can be monitored by a simple dial gauge and a camera. There's also the electronic strain-gauge approach, but the more mechanical the better in this case, for acceptance of the result. It would need to be calibrated before use by comparing measured pressure to the reading of a spring scale in a static test.

So, iainventor, what do you think: are you willing to add to your test trailer to more fully demonstrate your ideas? You can find out just how well it works.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

dcb said:


> he doesn't trust programs, yet here he is using a web browser, running a php program, with some javascript. He probably doesn't even believe we are real (well, that day is coming, but not this day).


Well, I don't know about you, but I am just a figment of your imagination.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> A big part of the problem is that we do use incorrect units
> We use Watt Hours -
> While we do use them "correctly" Watt Hours is a horribly bastardized unit - we should be talking about Joules
> 
> ...



Very true!

I have participated in travel trailer (RV) forums in which people are hopelessly confused by sloppy use of units in discussion of energy supply and storage calculations for their 12 V (nominal) battery systems. They often spout nonsense such as "amps per hour"  (and they're not talking about a current slew rate).

Even a simple task such as comparing the cost of powering a home with electricity or natural gas is complicated by this inconsistency. The natural gas industry has advanced to the point of selling their product in fundamental energy units (gigajoules, because the quantities are large), but the electrical power industry still uses kilowatt-hours, at least at the consumer level.

A relatively recent bastardization is the expression of energy consumption of EVs in "miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent" (based on 121 MJ/gal), which means nothing useful to anyone. There was an opportunity to advance to providing a fundamentally sound measure of energy per distance (or distance per unit energy) for all vehicles: MJ/km in most of the world (and miles/GJ in the U.S.); this could be provided for a vehicle with any energy source, although people would still need to be reminded that a gigajoule of electrical energy takes much more than a gigajoule worth of fuel if generated by a fossil-fueled system.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> you must be referencing box trucks not Trailer refrigeration units the Diesel is usually around 35 hp , and the
> 
> link uses 28 HP Electric http://thermoking.com/sb/
> 
> thats right the truck ones box trucks use an alternator to power truck reefer while running at maybe 14 kw...


Thanks - perhaps I was looking at the smaller units. 

Since that's your only comment about this post of mine, then can I assume that I have correctly understood your previous work:


brian_ said:


> I hadn't paid much attention to this reefer situation before, but it looks like a previous project involved driving an alternator from a wheel of a commercial refrigerated trailer (or semi-trailer). The power would have then be used to drive a refrigeration unit, rather than driving it with a small diesel engine as in conventional practice.


Since this is - apparently - confirmed to be the prior work on which the Kinetic Energy Vehicle (wheel-driven generator trailer) is based, we have a starting point to follow the proposed project design.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

brian_ said:


> Well, I don't know about you, but I am just a figment of your imagination.


i wasn't going to go full solipist 

"you never go full solipist"


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> James, all of the forum members who have commented about your calculations do understand power and energy, and the difference between them... senior or not. You can insult us, but it won't help your understanding, or get you any assistance.
> 
> I suggest that you take what you posted and I quoted above to any first-year engineering student, and have them correct the misuse of units of measure... or just have them submit those calculations as coursework, so they can be marked as a failure. Or, and I realize that this is a radical approach, enroll in a basic physics course (first-year college/university or below) and work through the material; don't just read the book, actually take the tests and get feedback from the instructor.
> 
> ...


Brian

You really think I'm wrong huh? The quoted text below you think is wrong? I am just making sure first. 

" Just like the power company 1kw/hr is a 1,000 watts a second per hour so 1 watt-second = Joule-second. Then watt-hr to Joule equivalent is Joule - sec x 3,600 second / hour = 3,600,000 Joules or 3.6 MJ energy unit = 1 kw/hr " 

I am again just making sure first before I respond again. 

thanks 

iainventor


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> James, all of the forum members who have commented about your calculations do understand power and energy, and the difference between them... senior or not. You can insult us, but it won't help your understanding, or get you any assistance.
> 
> I suggest that you take what you posted and I quoted above to any first-year engineering student, and have them correct the misuse of units of measure... or just have them submit those calculations as coursework, so they can be marked as a failure. Or, and I realize that this is a radical approach, enroll in a basic physics course (first-year college/university or below) and work through the material; don't just read the book, actually take the tests and get feedback from the instructor.
> 
> ...





iainventor said:


> Brian
> 
> You really think I'm wrong huh? The quoted text below you think is wrong? I am just making sure first.
> 
> ...


1 kw/hour = 3,600,000 Joule/hrs just ;like I put above 
So Power Units Watts = Energy Units Joules this way the LCD is per second in time Joules = Watt 

http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/kWh_to_Joule.htm
How to convert kWh to joules
One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3600000 joules:
1kWh = 3600000J = 3.6⋅106J = 3.6MJ

And just one last thing kinetic energy is the variable part from delta V = change in velocity is the variable in kinetic energy that ev has in it the faster less drag inverse really to aerodynamic drag where faster the more winds effect ev mileage. I am again not talking energy to propel ev rather the whole amount that is available at any one second. 

So the energy in joules E(J) is equal to 3600000 times the energy in kilowatt-hour E(kWh):
E(J) = 3600000 ⋅ E(kWh)


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> I'm with onegreenev... the problem is still there with the hub-mounted generator; the old tire-driven things just accentuate the problem with their inefficiency. After I wrote my original remark about the bicycle headlamp generator I watch the video in Facebook, and - surprise! - the alternators mounted on the trailer are tire-driven!  So my example was much closer than you might think.


Brian, Duncon, and onegreenev 

You are all right I am aware higher losses to friction heat etc wheel on wheel. That is exactly why I am doing it to see it in a more extreme condition to start with like any new product development research project.

Because if proves out promising at all only know will be better efficiency when developed and more refined,

need wheel on wheel to have alternator fan convection right on AC Delco GM Alternators need CW End View Motion to cool right. Next will maybe not need second wheel. Just drive wheel touching the ground when needed. 

I had time tonight to turn on alternator system energize stuff make sure making at least 11,165 watt/hrs at 14.5 volts bulk charging. Will share more later today or tomorrow Tuesday if today turns into Tuesday. L-Loop first lithium then lead batteries discharge to Lithium then wheel generator refills lead acid which fills up lithium after 1st lead acid discharge. And then its off of kinetic energy harvest.

""""" While testing alternator I had a true gain, " Had gain" but need more proof today when light.""" believe me or not..!!!! 

So my next few days this theory is going to be debunked and I will publicly acknowledge 

1.0 I am totally wrong or it doesn't even partially work less than zero gain in 1st wheel recharge. 

2.0 Or if it works as great as I predict which is for every 28 miles I drive can recharge my Ford Focus to 44 or more miles or what kind of range I got if partially works greater than 5%. 

3.0 you guys are right will be below zero or partially right and I get less than 5% gain you all think I will get net loss but will concede low NPV even though greater than 0.

4.0 Or several of you if DIY group if you have any integrity at all will be eating many meals and meals of crow.

5.0 Or no matter what you won't believe me and my results. Then I would say watch the news and my kits being installed on EV's I'm making money if works. And you DIY people won't acknowledge the truth. IMHO if works I do not care if its power energy or over unity whatever mute point then isn't it, because the paying customer's opinion then the only thing that really matters to me. 

iainventor


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Thanks - perhaps I was looking at the smaller units.
> 
> Since that's your only comment about this post of mine, then can I assume that I have correctly understood your previous work:
> 
> Since this is - apparently - confirmed to be the prior work on which the Kinetic Energy Vehicle (wheel-driven generator trailer) is based, we have a starting point to follow the proposed project design.


Well not quite but didn't bring it up. That is another fact I learned in my research is drag and load are not a linear cause and effect relationship. For instance an empty class 8 heavy truck system tractor trailer may weigh 34,000 pounds. 

For this example that should be adequate -- it may get 5.5 MPG avg tractor trailer driving empty. 

But loaded up to legal limit 80,000 pounds for an increase of 46,000 pounds the mph is possibly 5.3-5.4 MPG. 

so for the additional momentum going interstate speed forward and 46,000 pounds difference only best 0.2 MPG the extra drag of running compressor on trailer refrigeration unit is negligible at best rounding error 5th digit of pie.

this fact is where I had my discovery moment when I made the connection. All I can say.


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

iainventor said:


> ...
> I had time tonight to turn on alternator system ...
> 
> """"" While testing alternator I had a true gain, " Had gain" but need more proof today when light.""" believe me or not..!!!!


The proof is in the testing, as the case may be. The results will stand to prove your theory true or false.

An education is an expensive luxury item. Some folks pay with money and spend time to attend schools with professors to teach them. Other folks pay with time as they attend the school of hard knocks and learn by trial and error. In either case there is a cost and it is expensive.

The main benefit of learning at school is the ability to predict the future--to quickly determine the likely outcome of experiments based upon fundamental principles of nature, as expressed in the language of the sciences, i.e. math. This results in a savings of time and resources, by not fighting the forces of nature or repeating previous attempts.

The benefit of learning by trial and error is the process of discovery.

Endeavor to persevere in your education.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> 1 kw/hour = 3,600,000 Joule/hrs just ;like I put above
> So Power Units Watts = Energy Units Joules this way the LCD is per second in time Joules = Watt
> 
> ...


This is so wrong. Joules are not equal to watts. "kw/hour" and "Joule/hrs" are ridiculous units for this discussion. What does "the LCD" have to do with anything?

From reading your posts over several weeks I conclude you are sloppy and do not care at all about details of language and math which are essential for communication. Combine that with your ignorance of physics relating to power and energy along with wild misconceptions of kinetic energy, you are a sad case.

Several members here have given you the "tools" and indicated the path but you choose not even to look at the truth. When reason and logic fail I'll just get out of the way and let the train wreck.

major


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

iainventor said:


> Well not quite but didn't bring it up. That is another fact I learned in my research is drag and load are not a linear cause and effect relationship. For instance an empty class 8 heavy truck system tractor trailer may weigh 34,000 pounds.
> 
> For this example that should be adequate -- it may get 5.5 MPG avg tractor trailer driving empty.
> 
> ...


This is your "discovery moment "????? You're forgetting, ignoring, or don't understand that much of the energy required(hence fuel) to move a vehicle at interstate speed, on level ground, is used to overcome the aerodynamic drag. This drag, and the amount of fuel used to overcome it, is the SAME whether the vehicle is LOADED or UNLOADED. Think(PLEASE THINK!!!) about it!!!! The small increase in fuel usage, that you seem to be basing your "discovery moment " on, is primarily from the small increase in rolling resistance.

Dragging something behind your vehicle to recover energy in normal driving conditions, will not work. In fact, the increase in rolling resistance, other drags, and power transmission inefficiencies (Geez man, inefficient, stone age tire on tire friction drives?) will result in increased energy (fuel) usage. I'm qualifying this for normal driving conditions because you could, in the case of electric vehicles, recover some energy through regenerative braking. This is usually a very small amount (and far from any net gain overall, for crying out loud!) in typical driving conditions and much more efficiently accomplished through the existing electric drive train.

DUDE, you've based your "connection" on a bad premise. Put the premise down, and step away from the premise. Come back from that other universe and rejoin our universe. Use your talents for something that doesn't ignore common sense and the laws of physics (at least in this universe) and stop wasting our time! 

By the way, if you are truly from another universe, I got a great place to view the up-coming eclipse, and I'd love to chat with you.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I think that Paul had a brilliant insight earlier...

James, do you understand the difference between a slash ("/") which indicates division, and a dash or dot ("-" or "*")
which indicates multiplication? I suspect that you don't understand the difference; whether it is a lack or understanding or just sloppy typing, it makes what you type into nonsense.



iainventor said:


> Brian
> 
> You really think I'm wrong huh? The quoted text below you think is wrong? I am just making sure first.
> 
> ...


Yes, this is wrong at almost every step. In detail...



iainventor said:


> 1kw/hr


This means one kilowatt per hour, which is nonsense. If you mean a unit of energy, it would be kilowatt-hour or "kw-h"


iainventor said:


> 1,000 watts a second per hour


This is the same nonsense; again, it would be "1,000 watt-seconds" if it is supposed to mean an amount of energy... but I think the "a second" is just a completely superfluous couple of words, and the "per hour" is just a continuation of the previous error, being "/hr" instead "*hr".


iainventor said:


> Then watt-hr to Joule equivalent...


Strangely, watt-hr (or watt-hour) is actually a valid energy unit... but 


iainventor said:


> ... Joule - sec x 3,600 second / hour = 3,600,000 Joules or 3.6 MJ energy unit = 1 kw/hr


Oh, so close.... why is there a "sec" after the "Joule"? The energy unit is the joule; a "Joule - sec" is nonsense, and a "joule per second" would the basic power unit of a watt.
Yes, converting the time basis from hours to seconds is a factor of 3600. If you actually multiply joules times seconds by seconds/hour you get joule-seconds-seconds per hour, which is more nonsense. If you meant to convert 1,000 watt-hours (1 kW-h) to 3,600,000 watt-seconds (or 3,600,000 joules, or 3.6 MJ), that would be correct... but that's not what you wrote.

If you take the care to correctly write each unit of measure, then when you take an invalid step in logic it will be apparent and people can help you spot and understand the error, instead of it being lost in something which is nonsense - because of the way it is written - and attracting ridicule.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> 1 kw/hour = 3,600,000 Joule/hrs just ;like I put above


This is an excellent example of the notation and communication problem.

"1 kw/hour" is nonsense; it was supposed to be 1 kW-hour if it is energy (or just 1 kW if it is power)
Joules/hrs (if it were correctly written as J/hr or joules/hour) is an amount of power, not energy.
The correct notation is right there in the material copied from the linked source:


iainventor said:


> http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/kWh_to_Joule.htm
> How to convert kWh to joules
> One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3600000 joules:
> 1kWh = 3600000J = 3.6⋅106J = 3.6MJ


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... the extra drag of running compressor on trailer refrigeration unit is negligible at best ...


Thanks for confirming the design, and for acknowledging that the wheel-driven generator collects energy by causing drag and so requiring the truck's engine to provide that energy.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Kinetic energy can only be "harvested" by reducing the speed. You can also "harvest" the potential energy of the vehicle by changing the altitude. So, if you configure the trailer with the alternators such that it makes contact with the road when the brake pedal is pressed, it will supply energy to the batteries that otherwise would be wasted as heat in the brakes. This is simply regenerative braking, that is usually implemented on modern EVs with induction motors, or PMDC, or BLDC. "Old school" EVs with series wound motors cannot practically provide regeneration.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

electro wrks said:


> This is your "discovery moment "????? You're forgetting, ignoring, or don't understand that much of the energy required(hence fuel) to move a vehicle at interstate speed, on level ground, is used to overcome the aerodynamic drag. This drag, and the amount of fuel used to overcome it, is the SAME whether the vehicle is LOADED or UNLOADED. Think(PLEASE THINK!!!) about it!!!! The small increase in fuel usage, that you seem to be basing your "discovery moment " on, is primarily from the small increase in rolling resistance.


out of all the errors, I wonder if iainventor will even acknowledge this, in clear and unambiguous language. 

Or if his fantasies of getting rich and finding glory on the news for being smarter than everyone else will prevent even the slightest hint of objectivity.

or maybe he will be a wussy and run to his facebook friends for emotional support again.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... Will share more later today or tomorrow Tuesday if today turns into Tuesday. ...


Tuesday's come and gone.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Tuesday's come and gone.


Hey just barely past Tuesday its 12:25 AM CST Midwest USA on Wednesday.

I have some promising results but think it premature to disclose. I am not running away at all. But ran into some difficulty with a weldment breaking and need to shore up my alternators on each side. I do not have a welder never learned how. I machine things but never learned welding and do not have a welder to weld anyway. The fab shop will have it done hopefully tomorrow. 

I don't want 100 lbs of alternators falling off when driving hurting someone with my experiment wouldn't be right. So it will start again when trailer safer. 

And also forgot how much current is needed to go through exciter wires energizing 7 alternators on 1 switch. Had lighted switch only good for 15 Amps 7.5 to 10 minutes into test burnt up. So replaced that switch, with high power blade disconnect breaker and that issue solved too. 

Learned something else though too was interesting that my headlights in 2013 Ford Focus EV burn through alot of power because of heat did most testing range at night pulling extra weight wheels up all the stuff in my prototype in daylight at 35 MPH on cruise control averaged 135 watt* hrs/ mile. 

the night driving without extra trailer averaged 185 watt * hrs./mile so 50 watt * hrs/mile quite a bit energy loss there. Enough going to switch current bulbs to LED headlamps.

But will say really good for the little running of my trailer, I got % of recharge on battery bank even surprised my including putting a 2 min load on the batteries to get accurate percent charge and get rid of static plate charge.

Believe me or not dont care, it could be in your favor an anomaly outlander about my test results. But we will see tomorrow Thursday, since today Wednesday trailer at Fab place, and my son is still in hospital will get to see him tomorrow. Actually all of this is good for me to be on here not thinking then about him then. Thats why alot of my replies have been late night .

iainventor


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> Kinetic energy can only be "harvested" by reducing the speed. You can also "harvest" the potential energy of the vehicle by changing the altitude. So, if you configure the trailer with the alternators such that it makes contact with the road when the brake pedal is pressed, it will supply energy to the batteries that otherwise would be wasted as heat in the brakes. This is simply regenerative braking, that is usually implemented on modern EVs with induction motors, or PMDC, or BLDC. "Old school" EVs with series wound motors cannot practically provide regeneration.


well think of what I'm doing as trickle charge regenerative breaking in way. Actually in my research and testing on flat land with doing 75 mph it takes 17.5 seconds even with regen on to decelerate to 65 mph, and then 15.5 seconds 65-55 mph, this was with regen on. but the motor/generator cannot back feed power when in use as a motor, so I can add my alternators and do this when in forward motion. What I'm saying is even drawing out charges of at least 50kw still doesn't stop that quick sorry there is room to tap the power I am after.

wanted to show some graphs of kinetic energy capture coasting to stop

but at 35 mph 50kw charging rate is possible. So my meazly 11,165 watt charge rate is very plausible. I am so glad found a Ford Focus EV website group like this one. 

http://www.myfocuselectric.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2513










so really can do this same amount of kinetic energy regardless of coasting or not with foot pedal down maintaining. 

so someone said 0.023 kwh at that part even keeping the charge rate and 35 mph velocity for one hr would give 10,000 watts* sec keeping connstant velocyu in 1 hour have 10kwh 

found out in research too Tesla gets maybe 100 kw charging rate from same velocities, it really all depends on BMS State cuts off upper limit if too charged Lithium Ion. So there is room for regen increases too. 

So again this sort of sides this over to my favor possibly we are talking kw charge rate in seconds aren't we not fractions of watts and that is not all the motor generator can produce. 

so next version wheels on ground change the fans and drive them with ground wheel only gain 25 % more efficiency too. 

please look around on the Ford Focus EV owners group forum . shows sort of what I have been saying isnt it?

Iainventor


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Learned something else though too was interesting that my headlights in 2013 Ford Focus EV burn through alot of power because of heat did most testing range at night pulling extra weight wheels up all the stuff in my prototype in daylight at 35 MPH on cruise control averaged 135 watt* hrs/ mile.
> 
> the night driving without extra trailer averaged 185 watt * hrs./mile so 50 watt * hrs/mile quite a bit energy loss there. Enough going to switch current bulbs to LED headlamps.


The units here are all perfectly sensible and clearly stated. Excellent! 

Typical headlamps are about 50 watts each (less on low beam, more on high beam, exact value dependent on type and system voltage)... so 100 watts for a pair. Add another 50 watts of tail and marker lights, for a total of 150 watts. Burning an extra 50 watt-hours per mile is consistent with 100 watts of power and 
150 watts / 50 watt-hours/mile = 3 miles/hour​so I guess the testing involved some slow travel and a lot of lights-on idle time... which is how testing often goes.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> well think of what I'm doing as trickle charge regenerative breaking in way.


It would only be that if the vehicle was slowing down, with *no power going to the motor* and a "trickle" of power from the alternator due to a low rate of deceleration caused by low mechanical power to the alternator (dragging gently).


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... found out in reaserch too Tesla gets maybe 100 kw charging rate from same velocities. So there is room for regen increases too.


Regenerative braking means no motor power, with regeneration power coming at the expense of reducing kinetic energy by reducing speed. Telsa does not magically generate power, so if you think Tesla is generating 100 kW other than in regenerative braking, you have misread what you found; however, they could operate regenerative braking at that level (to decelerate a 2000 kg vehicle at 0.5 g would require 10 kN, at 35 mph or 16 m/s that's 160 kW ideally). Provide a link, and someone might interpret it correctly for you.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

James posted on Facebook that a single switch, rated 15 amps, burned up and almost caused a fire after driving 7.5 minutes. Here is my response:



> Do you have a schematic of the setup? I'm picturing 7 alternators each connected to a 12V battery for a total of 84 VDC nominal in series. That may be tricky if the alternators are not isolated from ground (frame). And then how does that battery voltage get converted to charge the EV's battery pack (probably 250-350 VDC)?
> 
> If you have the alternators in parallel, each of them can produce 30-40 amps, so you could have 280 amps going through a single switch rated 15 amps? You would need welding cable, or perhaps 7 #10 wires in parallel. You really should make sure you know what you are doing, or you risk damage to your vehicle, the batteries, and yourself. And your insurance may not cover unauthorized modifications. Please be careful! I think you will fail this experiment, but I don't want to see you "go down in flames".


I think this now qualifies as a "dangerous prototype" (although the website may not be what you think):

http://dangerousprototypes.com/blog/


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

kennybobby said:


> The proof is in the testing, as the case may be. The results will stand to prove your theory true or false.
> 
> An education is an expensive luxury item. Some folks pay with money and spend time to attend schools with professors to teach them. Other folks pay with time as they attend the school of hard knocks and learn by trial and error. In either case there is a cost and it is expensive.
> 
> ...


Kennybobby

thanks I agree , 1 thing I see here for real are all these people telling me I cant do this from book smarts only or what others have told them it wont work. I have yet heard from any of you all this, "that you have tried this and know 120% it will not work at all negative gains no power back to battery/"'

Just conjecture that they think I'm wronf right?

Well there was a mindset 525 years ago that they told Columbas the earth was flat. And took him years to find a backer to fund his voyage. But he did and was vindicated wasn't he?

I have funded my own voyage paid for it all not asking anyone for support , so cant understand why so much flak about trying to make our country less dependant on foreign oil if this hypothesis work. I am a disabled US Army veteran I have a TBI and PTSD my lungs are fried from oil smoke when we were in Kuwait and Southern Iraq had friends die for our country and our oil addiction. The driving force is my 4 boys 16-25 and leaving them a better world and keep them out of harms way to support our oil addiction. And as long as I am breathing I will do everything in my power to, "defund oil so it then defunds terrorism to stop it all. 

I want ISIS POS'S to be known as WAS-WAS soon. I am as you all can tell not an energy insider but most major disruptive innovations and breakthroughs comes from people who are looking at things differently and you experts here are too focused on what you know than what you do not know. 

More to come in my invention discovery. 

iainventor


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> James posted on Facebook that a single switch, rated 15 amps, burned up and almost caused a fire after driving 7.5 minutes. Here is my response:
> 
> 
> I think this now qualifies as a "dangerous prototype" (although the website may not be what you think):
> ...


no not the alternator to battery post all in parallel each alternator has 6 gauge wire to batteries. ALL IN PARALLEL only about 6ft each run. Know for sure 6 gauge can carry 150 Amps 12 VDC in parallel entire system carries 770 Amps of 14.5 VDC bulk charging lead acid battery banks. 

I have had 1 switch for each exciter wire for all 7 exciter wire feeds that is the 1pin on 2 pin AC Delco alternators to make the magnetic feild in each alternator probably 15 amps per pin plugin so 105 amps going through a 15 amp switch.

otherwise safe now safe again .

thanks for your concern somehow though I feel your dangerous prototype may be what???? towards me??


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Regenerative braking means no motor power, with regeneration power coming at the expense of reducing kinetic energy by reducing speed. Telsa does not magically generate power, so if you think Tesla is generating 100 kW other than in regenerative braking, you have misread what you found; however, they could operate regenerative braking at that level (to decelerate a 2000 kg vehicle at 0.5 g would require 10 kN, at 35 mph or 16 m/s that's 160 kW ideally). Provide a link, and someone might interpret it correctly for you.


no its showing there is probably as much kinetic energy as I have thought. of course you can only regen when motor not powering vehicle I am only showing that if maintain speed and had my alternators take it at the back end more efficient kee constant speed constant power consumption and recharge with my alternators. 

screw the link to tesla what do you have to say about my ford focus owners group link or do you think its all made up too? That shows it all too .

just wondering, forget it I know what your going to say already possibly and wont belive it.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> out of all the errors, I wonder if iainventor will even acknowledge this, in clear and unambiguous language.
> 
> Or if his fantasies of getting rich and finding glory on the news for being smarter than everyone else will prevent even the slightest hint of objectivity.
> 
> or maybe he will be a wussy and run to his facebook friends for emotional support again.


not my intentions at, also how is my post running whinging to my facebook friends?? and anyways at least I got friends ') hahee
truly read why I am doing this in my responces , not about fantisies of getting rich?

One last thing have you actually built tried and tested my theory and can tell me 100% this wont work, or did you have to use your corrupt online java scrip calculator to tell me I'm wrong again?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Well there was a mindset 525 years ago that they told Columbas the earth was flat. And took him years to find a backer to fund his voyage. But he did and was vindicated wasn't he?


Here is a sincere suggestion: don't bring up "flat earthers" in this context... you won't like the comparisons which will likely result. 

And the world was known to be round hundreds of years before Columbus convinced people to fund his journey, which failed to reach its target (Asia) because no one knew about the continents in the way, and because it was the long way around. "They" didn't tell Columbus that the earth was flat; potential backers were just reluctant to fund a journey which did not seem worthwhile (and wasn't, for the stated goal). Columbus didn't understand how large the diameter of the earth was, and thought Asia was bigger than it was, so the shortcut to Asia (which wasn't his original idea) wasn't really a shortcut. The correct diameter and a closer estimate of the extent of Asia were established over a thousand years before Columbus sailed, but he apparently chose not to believe that information; sufficiently accurate understanding of physical reality is important to success. 

The world was not out to get Columbus, and the established science of the time was not wrong. Sometimes the reality is just not as exciting or scandalous as the popular fiction.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... what do you have to say about my ford focus owners group link or do you think its all made up too? That shows it all too .
> 
> just wondering, forget it I know what your going to say already possibly and wont belive it.


The chart from the Focus group just shows the power which can be generated by reducing kinetic energy by reducing speed, which is what regenerative braking does. I have no reason to doubt that it is valid, since the regen power is limited by the rate of reduction of kinetic energy (calculated as I showed earlier for the Tesla example), by the motor and controller designs, and by limits programmed to protect the battery... so I had not followed the link. I just read it, and that is indeed what the graph shows.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> The chart from the Focus group just shows the power which can be generated by reducing kinetic energy by reducing speed, which is what regenerative braking does. I have no reason to doubt that it is valid, since the regen power is limited by the rate of reduction of kinetic energy (calculated as I showed earlier for the Tesla example), by the motor and controller designs, and by limits programmed to protect the battery... so I had not followed the link. I just read it, and that is indeed what the graph shows.


however, if it can capture that much regen that means its stored in the vehicle system to already as kinetic energy to capture it to begin with, doesn't it?? Or how is my logic wrong on this assumption?

because if captured or not at the second point in time its stored in the vehicle system to capture to begin with right?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

iainventor said:


> however, if it can capture that much regen that means its stored in the vehicle system to already as kinetic energy to capture it to begin with, doesn't it?? Or how is my logic wrong on this assumption?
> 
> because if captured or not at the second point in time its stored in the vehicle system to capture to begin with right?


Your logic is wrong because you swore right left and center that you were NOT talking about re-gen braking but about some way of getting the energy without changing the speed


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> however, if it can capture that much regen that means its stored in the vehicle system to already as kinetic energy to capture it to begin with, doesn't it?? Or how is my logic wrong on this assumption?


To convert kinetic energy into a different form, be it electric via a generator or thermal via friction brakes, requires a change in velocity (slowing).

major


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I don't need a calculator for 0.5mvv...

nor do I see anything but speed and mass in that equation...

edit: and for our purposes, mass is a constant, so kinetic energy IS speed (* speed), not speed integrated over time/distance/??, just instantaneous speed squared times a constant (you can assume relative to 0mph unless otherwise stated..).

and converting the stored energy in the battery to/from changes in speed and overcoming resistance has losses (heat). you can't put more back in the battery then you took out, only less.

so the emphasis is on efficiency (how can we avoid making useless heat), which your design has ignored completely.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

iainventor said:


> I have funded my own voyage paid for it all not asking anyone for support , so cant understand why so much flak about trying to make our country less dependant on foreign oil if this hypothesis work. I am a disabled US Army veteran I have a TBI and PTSD my lungs are fried from oil smoke when we were in Kuwait and Southern Iraq had friends die for our country and our oil addiction. The driving force is my 4 boys 16-25 and leaving them a better world and keep them out of harms way to support our oil addiction. And as long as I am breathing I will do everything in my power to, "defund oil so it then defunds terrorism to stop it all.
> 
> I want ISIS POS'S to be known as WAS-WAS soon. I am as you all can tell not an energy insider but most major disruptive innovations and breakthroughs comes from people who are looking at things differently and you experts here are too focused on what you know than what you do not know.
> 
> ...


You know, by perpetuating this illogical, unworkable fiasco you're actually contributing to the problem of dependence on foreign oil. You're tying up the time of people who could actually reduce the dependence through their good work. Instead, we are having to waste time, holding your hand, and trying to show you the uselessness of your pointless exercise. I'm responding to you because I'm tired of having to answer people's questions about useless perpetual motion schemes, like yours, that they saw on the internet. You should put your skills and talents to better use. Like something that could actually work. Make it something your fellow Vets and your family could be proud of.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

I encourage the completion of the experiment, correctly. That way he will SEE.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> I encourage the completion of the experiment, correctly. That way he will SEE.


I vote pete to explain every mistake/misconception in iainventors testing methodology, yes it is a forgone conclusion that it will be all kinds of screwed up at this point.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

onegreenev said:


> I encourage the completion of the experiment, correctly. That way he will SEE.


Na. When it doesn't work, he'll just blame us for putting some bad MoJo on his YoYo drive, or some other wacko thing.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> however, if it can capture that much regen that means its stored in the vehicle system to already as kinetic energy to capture it to begin with, doesn't it?? Or how is my logic wrong on this assumption?
> 
> because if captured or not at the second point in time its stored in the vehicle system to capture to begin with right?


It is correct that the motion of the vehicle represents kinetic energy. The power calculations, such as those for the Tesla or the Focus, just put a number to the rate at which this energy is removed from that motion and possibly made into electricity.

A change in speed represents a change in kinetic energy; the rate of the speed change determines the rate of energy change. The energy which is no longer kinetic energy will go somewhere... to drag losses, to heat in the brakes, and in some cases to the battery by regenerative braking.

If you convert the kinetic energy to electrical energy, it isn't kinetic energy any more... which means the vehicle is not moving as quickly. "Capturing" energy just means converting it from one form to another, and that means braking the vehicle to make heat, and maybe some electrical energy. This is just the opposite of accelerating, which (in an EV) is converting electrical energy (from the battery) into the kinetic energy of motion.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

From James's Facebook page:



> yeah they are parallel each when full rpm output 110n Amps 14.5 volts , its all good now.


And according to his post #1434:



> no not the alternator to battery post all in parallel each alternator has 6 gauge wire to batteries. ALL IN PARALLEL only about 6ft each run. Know for sure 6 gauge can carry 150 Amps 12 VDC in parallel entire system carries 770 Amps of 14.5 VDC bulk charging lead acid battery banks.
> 
> I have had 1 switch for each exciter wire for all 7 exciter wire feeds that is the 1pin on 2 pin AC Delco alternators to make the magnetic feild in each alternator probably 15 amps per pin plugin so 105 amps going through a 15 amp switch.
> 
> otherwise safe now safe again .


So apparently the alternator fields are using 105 amps * 14.5 volts = 1522 watts of heat, in order to generate 770 amps * 14.5 volts = 11.1 kW. That would be about 86% electrical efficiency. There would (or should) be #6 wires from each alternator DC output as well as the ground, to each corresponding battery post. I might also think the batteries are separately tied in parallel as well, but that would not be necessary. 

What is necessary is a way to use the charged lead-acid batteries to charge the EV's battery pack. I'm assuming that might be done with a 12 VDC to 120 VAC inverter, and then an EV charger (perhaps the car has a 120V) charging option). Those conversions also take a toll on the efficiency. 

James, I admire your tenacity, conviction, and higher purpose, but I think you have been blinded by an incomplete and flawed concept of the science and engineering principles that every knowledgeable and experienced person here has been trying to convey. Perhaps the "proof is in the pudding" and your tests will be well documented and the data will not be fudged to fit your expectations. That would be "fudge pudding". 

I am still unclear about how you plan to test your hypothesis. I think perhaps you will fully charge your EV, and drive it for a few hours, dragging the "self-charger", until the lead batteries are fully charged. Then perhaps you will charge the EV until the batteries are depleted, hopefully adding 11 kWh for each hour you drive. If you do charge at 770 amps and the batteries are 110 A-h, one hour of driving would be a full charge. Then you would have to charge the EV battery pack through the inverter, which is probably only about 1500 watts. Thus it would require about 7.3 hours. One hour of driving at 60 MPH would normally use about 18 kWh at 300 Wh/mile, but if you are dragging the alternators making 11 kW, you will be adding 11 kW/60 miles = 183 kWh/mile. And that is based on 100% efficiency, whereas I estimate perhaps 60%. So it will add 305 Wh/mile, essentially doubling the energy consumption.

I assume you don't have any professional test equipment to measure DC power and energy, so you will probably rely on the EV's battery "fuel gauge". I am sure you will find that your expectations will not be met. If you have other ways to test your device, please share them. I wish you luck, but mostly that you stay safe and don't spend too much money, time, and effort before you realize that this is futile, and perhaps you can focus on more practical and worthwhile projects that will help you toward your noble goals of reducing demand for fossil fuels, and even lithium.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... 1 thing I see here for real are all these people telling me I cant do this from book smarts...


People with little education often ridicule "book smarts". In fact, that knowledge is the accumulated, tested, and refined result of the effort and experience of everyone who came before us. To ignore or discount it is obviously foolish. None of us can live long enough or be intelligent enough to re-create all of the technical knowledge of humanity for ourselves; the best we can hope for is to advance the collection a little bit, whether by correcting errors or filling in some blanks or extending the scope of understanding.



iainventor said:


> I have yet heard from any of you all this, "that you have tried this and know 120% it will not work at all negative gains no power back to battery/"


There's no more need to do that than to hold an object out in front of you as you stand, and let go of it to see whether it goes up or down. That one has already been figured out, too.

Of course, if you don't understand something has already been figured out, it helps to demonstrate it for yourself. This is a fundamental part of learning, and reason for many exercises and experiments used in educational programs. A question might be: what things are worth trying, given limited time, energy, and funding?

And the statement should be "no _net_ power back to the battery"... if the generator idea worked, there would be power being taken out due to the generator operation, but the generator would be putting more power back than is being taken out, so there would be a net gain. Again... if it worked, which we know it will not.  Just generating power proves nothing, because it is exactly what we all expect when you drag a generator trailer.

Also... 120% of what? This is a silly expression, usually used by sports coaches and players, which makes no sense and just irritates rational and intelligent people, leading them to write off those coaches and players as morons. That may be harsh, but it's reality...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> I am still unclear about how you plan to test your hypothesis.


I don't know, either. Lacking good instrumentation, I would hope for one of two approaches:
A more *fundamental range test*:

baseline
hook the trailer up to the car, but without the generator drive engaged (the extra batteries attached to the generators will not be used and so not change charge during this phase of the test)
drive the car until the range is exhausted, around a well-defined test loop under completely known conditions - note the baseline range

device test
engage the generator drive
drive the car until the range is exhausted, around the same well-defined test loop under exactly the same conditions - note the initial charge range
recharge the car from the extra batteries, with whatever energy has accumulated in the extra batteries
drive the car until the range is exhausted, around the same well-defined test loop under exactly the same conditions - note the additional charge range
add the initial and additional range values to get the new "improved" range

repeatability test
repeat the baseline (phase 1)
repeat the device test (phase 2)

If the new "improved" range from each device test were to exceed the baseline range from both baseline tests, by an amount clearly greater than the uncertainty in the measurement, that would indicate success.

Or perhaps a isolated *energy in/out study* of the generator trailer:

set up instrumentation to measure the pulling force on the trailer by the car's towing ball
drive at constant speed, on level ground, while the generators charge batteries
measure the pulling force - multiply by speed to get power used to drive trailer
measure the charging voltage and current - multiply together to get power obtained from generators
continue to measure force, speed, voltage, and current to verify that steady operation has been reached
repeat test in opposite direction on same road - average results of the two directions to balance out wind effects
repeat entire sequence (both directions) multiple times - average results, and evaluate variability of results to estimate one source of uncertainty
If the power out of the generators were to exceed the power required to pull the trailer, by an amount clearly greater than the uncertainty in all of the measurements, the system would be successful. Dividing the output electrical power by the input mechanical power provides the efficiency of just the trailer (the complete system is even less efficient).

This is a pretty crude test design, but it's a start in the right direction. If any of this doesn't make sense, it's time to study experimental design.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

James, I would suggest that you get a meter that will measure volts, amps, watts, and watt-hours. Here is one for about $11 that will work up to 100 amps DC (50A continuous) and 6.5 to 90 VDC:

https://www.banggood.com/50A-DC-Dig...Ammeter-With-Shunt-p-996110.html?rmmds=search










You can get a 200A shunt for $6:

https://www.banggood.com/200A-75mV-...-Amp-Meter-Ammeter-p-988659.html?rmmds=search










Or a 500 amp shunt for less than $10:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Shunt-Resistor-for-DC-500A-75mV-Current-Meter-Ammeter-/120758311453










These tools may help you understand what is going on and will lend some more credibility to your research.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> I vote pete to explain every mistake/misconception in iainventors testing methodology, yes it is a forgone conclusion that it will be all kinds of screwed up at this point.


Paul spit it out quite well in the above post. I had already PM'd this guy with nearly the same information but more drawn out. 

I still encourage him to do this and post his real findings. But I'm afraid he is rather stuck in a loop that his idea is valid. Its not valid until the experiment has been done correctly. Until then it is an unknown, well we do know because it can be done on paper too. But whats the fun in that. I had suggested he do this with a Bicycle and little tow along trailer with small alternator to charge an aux battery. Even suggested a bench top model and do the same.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Dang, I should pull my electric powered bike down and replace the batteries and do this very experiment just to show the results so others coming here will have something to see.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Your logic is wrong because you swore right left and center that you were NOT talking about re-gen braking but about some way of getting the energy without changing the speed


i am still saying that, just pointing out in my Ford focus its showing 50 kw regen still takes 17.5 seconds decellerate from 75 mph to 65 mph with this regen on, so there has to be at least 50kw to tap from my way if its there already for regen.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> You know, by perpetuating this illogical, unworkable fiasco you're actually contributing to the problem of dependence on foreign oil. You're tying up the time of people who could actually reduce the dependence through their good work. Instead, we are having to waste time, holding your hand, and trying to show you the uselessness of your pointless exercise. I'm responding to you because I'm tired of having to answer people's questions about useless perpetual motion schemes, like yours, that they saw on the internet. You should put your skills and talents to better use. Like something that could actually work. Make it something your fellow Vets and your family could be proud of.


Oh how am I tying up people's time? I ran across this group and subject , and I have never said its perpetual motion just that this thread had alternators as well. Perpetual motion I understand wont work because would only be internally powered like pedulium motion gravity feeds it and gravit slows it down in other end until period = o 

but an externally powered system can capture motion use it again , like return air hvac system.



And I dont know who you think you are being so prideful I do not need any hand holding sorry.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Perpetual motion I understand wont work because would only be internally powered like pedulium motion gravity feeds it and gravit slows it down in other end until period = o


no, gravity has nothing to do with the pendulum slowing down. That is all air resistance and bearing friction, just like your car, without all the rubber hysteresis. and it is better described as a reduction of amplitude, as the frequency actually gets faster. edit NOT NECESSARILY! http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=890465#post890465

if you have reason to disbelieve wikipedia on this, then do your own homework
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> From James's Facebook page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your close on assumptions but not 110 VAC 240 VAC pure sine wave split phase out of the 11,165 exact, but continuous use output my be more efficient since they are in a 150 F degree cooler working environment.

between conversion efficiencies secret with inverters and the level 2 power port on EV charger built into car now will use about 10,000 watt * hrs from battery and lose 15% inverting and charging lithium EV batteries which is roughly 8,700 watt * hrs and the rate of consumption at 35 mph is avg 135 watt * hrs daytime and 185 watt * hrs nighttime driving .

might be a mute point but can produce 11,165 watt * hrs but battery only uses 10,000 watt * hrs so 10,000/11,165 but would only meed to be used 53 min every hour. Anyways from about without units 

8,700/135 = 65 miles 

8.700/ 185 = 47 miles.

when proved out be perfect solution mobile anywhere ev charging in metro areas think Uber Lyft ideal. 

then if I get anything close to this putting it on Zenn car lead acid too and drive and charge. hell if I get 22 miles every 35 driven be happy .


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> no, gravity has nothing to do with the pendulum slowing down. That is all air resistance and bearing friction, just like your car, without all the rubber hysteresis. and it is better described as a reduction of amplitude, as the frequency actually gets faster.
> 
> if you have reason to disbelieve wikipedia on this, then do your own homework
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum


alright even you might be right, but still doesent matter what forces act upon it unless powered will stop eventually powered only from internal power short period each time until it finally comes to rest. that I agree on. But external electrons power my ev so contant power and less resistance to drag the faster I go can take the 10kw out easier at 35mph than at 5mph.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> But external electrons power my ev so contant power and less resistance to drag the faster I go can take the 10kw out easier at 35mph than at 5mph.


I think people have made their guesses as to how much energy that crime against humanity trailer will give back to the battery(ies) that it took.

it isn't much. I wouldn't be completely suprised if it was negative, but can't really decipher much about any details, and have stopped trying.

Is it safe to say your zenn doesn't have regen, and putting in a motor/controller that does regen (and reclaims more than %10 of the available kinetic energy) hasn't been considered why?

edit: sure this has been mentioned, but I *can* charge my prius battery while driving, moreso if i ride the brake lightly. but it isn't %100 efficient, it is more efficient not to drive so you have to brake all the time, even with regen.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

> But external electrons power my ev so contant power and less resistance to drag the faster I go can take the 10kw out easier at 35mph than at 5mph


How do you get the idea that there is less drag the faster you go? Drag is about proportional to the square of velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

There is (much) more kinetic energy at 35 MPH than 5 MPH, but you can get 10 kW at any (non-zero) speed. But for a 1000 kg (2200 lb) vehicle at 35 MPH you can get 10 kW for 12 seconds (at which point the car stops), while at 5 MPH you can get 10 kW for 0.25 seconds. 

Theoretically, you can get just about any given amount of *power* using regenerative braking for an EV, but only for a short period of time. The amount of kinetic *energy* of the vehicle at 35 MPH is just 33.6 W-h, or about the amount in three alkaline C-cells. And at 5 MPH it is only 0.69 W-h, which is about half that of an alkaline AAA cell. 

http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Energy-tables.html


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

iainventor said:


> ...
> [But external electrons power my ev so contant power and less resistance to drag the faster I go]
> 
> [ can take the 10kw out easier at 35mph than at 5mph.]


the first statement above makes it appear that you understand how drag works--so what happens when either air drag, or some external drag such as the wheeled generator, increases? 

If you don't add power from the pack's electrons your speed will drop.

And if you press the throttle to maintain constant speed, then your pack battery gets depleted quicker since you are using more power.

No math needed, just think about it--more load (air drag or generator) requires more power to maintain speed. There is no free energy available that can be harvested--the generator will add more drag and power load to the EV than can ever be recovered.

If your experiment is a success, then you will be the first person in history to make it work.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Think of the EV (including the regen trailer) as a closed system. It has a certain amount of energy stored in the batteries (or other fuel system), and if it moves and returns to the same place and stops, it requires a quantifiable amount of power for acceleration, and to overcome the forces of drag and rolling resistance which increase with speed. It is theoretically possible to recoup most of the kinetic energy built up at maximum speed, as well as the potential energy of altitude changes. But kinetic and potential energies cancel out for any round trip that returns to the same place.

So, without any external source of energy input over the course of the drive (such as solar energy, wind, or microwaves), the total energy must be less upon return than it had when it started with a certain level of charge and/or other stored energy such as liquid fuel. The only interaction of the closed system vehicle with the environment is through the tires in contact with the road, and the air through which it moves. Unless there is a strong tailwind, or the road moves, all effects will be subtractive - energy will be lost in the form of heat. The _only_ thing a trailer can do is cause additional drag. 

I have already shown that the alternators are at best 85% efficient, and that means 15% of output is lost as heat in the field coils. Charging and discharging of lead-acid batteries is very inefficient compared to using a well-designed EV motor/generator and controller, and then there are more losses in the 12VDC to 220VAC inverter and the vehicle's on-board charger. Every time energy is transferred from one form to another, there will be losses. So it should be obvious that a range extender like this cannot increase overall efficiency of the vehicle. And the alternators, trailer, batteries, wiring, and inverter add weight and aerodynamic drag to the vehicle, which increase its energy usage per mile.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

PStechPaul said:


> Think of the EV (including the regen trailer) as a closed system. It has a certain amount of energy stored in the batteries (or other fuel system), and if it moves and returns to the same place and stops, it requires a quantifiable amount of power for acceleration, and to overcome the forces of drag and rolling resistance which increase with speed. It is theoretically possible to recoup most of the kinetic energy built up at maximum speed, as well as the potential energy of altitude changes. But kinetic and potential energies cancel out for any round trip that returns to the same place.
> 
> So, without any external source of energy input over the course of the drive (such as solar energy, wind, or microwaves), the total energy must be less upon return than it had when it started with a certain level of charge and/or other stored energy such as liquid fuel. The only interaction of the closed system vehicle with the environment is through the tires in contact with the road, and the air through which it moves. Unless there is a strong tailwind, or the road moves, all effects will be subtractive - energy will be lost in the form of heat. The _only_ thing a trailer can do is cause additional drag.
> 
> I have already shown that the alternators are at best 85% efficient, and that means 15% of output is lost as heat in the field coils. Charging and discharging of lead-acid batteries is very inefficient compared to using a well-designed EV motor/generator and controller, and then there are more losses in the 12VDC to 220VAC inverter and the vehicle's on-board charger. Every time energy is transferred from one form to another, there will be losses. So it should be obvious that a range extender like this cannot increase overall efficiency of the vehicle. And the alternators, trailer, batteries, wiring, and inverter add weight and aerodynamic drag to the vehicle, which increase its energy usage per mile.


 This and the clear, logical explanations from other folks, is what I call having to hold your hand. And, it has gone way beyond pride, as you contend, to take all this time and effort to point out your mistakes. You're very fortunate to have found a group with so much patience to try to work with you. Why don't you listen to us?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> How do you get the idea that there is less drag the faster you go?


I believe that he gets that idea by continuing to confuse energy with power: more speed means more kinetic energy, and he thinks that means more power is available from the magic power well. 

But to be fair, more power is dissipated (in friction braking) or generated (by a regenerative brake) at higher speed, for the same amount of drag... or conversely the same power implies less drag force at high speed than at a lower speed. It's the same as the torque-speed relationship: you can apply high torque at low speed, or low torque at high speed, to deliver (or absorb) the same power.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... will use about 10,000 watt * hrs from battery and lose 15% inverting and charging lithium EV batteries which is roughly 8,700 watt * hrs...


If these were intended to be quantities of energy, the units are correctly stated; however...



iainventor said:


> ... and the rate of consumption at 35 mph is avg 135 watt * hrs daytime and 185 watt * hrs nighttime driving .


A rate of energy consumption would be power, but "watt * hrs" is a unit of energy. If these were intended to be energy per unit distance (which I think they were), then the distance part of the units is missing.

Keep working on the notation, and when you can clearly express what you are thinking, a constructive discussion becomes possible.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

135 W-h/mile is very low for a 4 wheeled 2-4 passenger EV at 35 MPH. The additional 50 W-h/mile for night driving would indicate that the lights use 1750 watt-hours/hour or 1750 watts. Those must be some mighty bright lights! 

And 135 W-h/mile for a 1000 kg (2200 lb) vehicle means that the motor is running on 4.725 kW or 6.3 HP. That is what would be required for an average slope of 0.6%, and does not take into account the efficiency of the drivetrain. Even flat ground requires 5 HP, for my default values of drag coefficient 0.25 and frontal area of 1.25 m^2.

If the EV's lithium pack is 20 kW-h then it should be able to travel 133 miles at 35 MPH for a DOD of 90%. I don't know the make, model, and capacity of your EV, so I'm just guessing. 

I looked for W-h/mile figures for EVs and they are generally 250-350 for small cars. Of course that may be for more usual 50-60 MPH driving. My calculator shows a minimum of 108 W-h/mile at 35 MPH, 130 W-h/mile at 50 MPH, and 150 W-h/mile at 60 MPH. But remember that those are theoretical figures not counting losses, and for a totally flat road.

Here is a detailed analysis of efficiency calculations for an EV: 
http://insideevs.com/kia-soul-ev-range-autonomy-demonstration-nets-100-miles/

And a pretty good article on EVs and battery technology, particularly the advantages of fuel cells:
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

Another useful article:
http://www.fveaa.org/fb/Knowledge_is_Power_Part_1_0_233.pdf


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> 135 W-h/mile is very low for a 4 wheeled 2-4 passenger EV at 35 MPH. The additional 50 W-h/mile for night driving would indicate that the lights use 1750 watt-hours/hour or 1750 watts. Those must be some mighty bright lights!
> 
> And 135 W-h/mile for a 1000 kg (2200 lb) vehicle means that the motor is running on 4.725 kW or 6.3 HP. That is what would be required for an average slope of 0.6%, and does not take into account the efficiency of the drivetrain. Even flat ground requires 5 HP, for my default values of drag coefficient 0.25 and frontal area of 1.25 m^2.
> 
> ...


well that's what my EV Ford Focus Electric Quessomter showed in real time, it was all over the place first few miles but after about 35-50 miles levels out pretty accurate to what i shared. Maybe one reason is there is no transmission direct to wheels from EV motor . 

And that was very gently accelerating from 0-35 that's where the loss is staring from a stop. But just maintaining the speed of 35 mph on cruise control when up to speed. 

and that was with everything batteries, trailer with alternators, Level 2 chargers, inverter, and all that stuff plus myself and curb weight of my 2013 Ford focus and all this stuff equals 5,350 Lbs 2426.71 KG and constant velocity 51.3 ft/sec or 15.6 m/sec grade for sure is avg < 1% .

The lamps are not LED can you believe that ?


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

Hey though 1 question I want to throw out there that I do not know about at all, that you guys probably know. 

The next test if this one is promising with putting back 20 of 35 miles driven or higher. Is this: If using a Curtis 1236 48-92 volt I think controller for the ZENN Car. If I have nominal voltage of 72 Volt setting if I power it to 85.2 possible charging potential for alternators. Will I get overvoltage error or will it be able to use this?

Hell even if this doesn't work put a 6.5 Kw genset in their and drive and charge. 

Anybody know this anwser?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> well that's what my EV Ford Focus Electric *Quessomter* showed in real time,...


What is "Quessomter"? Is it same as LCD? 



iainventor said:


> ...
> So Power Units Watts = Energy Units Joules this way the *LCD* is per second in time Joules = Watt
> 
> ...


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> What is "Quessomter"? Is it same as LCD?


Guess-O-Meter I'm sure is what he meant. Could have meant Questionable-O-Meter as well. The slang for the Nissan Leaf's battery gauge is Guess-O-Meter. The first generation was the worst. My current one is a bit more accurate but still a Guess-O-Meter. 

I can get you a real time readout while driving mine at 35mph. It is in my opinion a better vehicle than the Electric Focus.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

onegreenev said:


> Guess-O-Meter I'm sure is what he meant.


To what is he referring?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> Hell even if this doesn't work put a 6.5 Kw genset in their and drive and charge.


The first sane thing to come of all this. How novel, a gas powered generator to charge the batteries. Well, there is the Volt. Might have been a better option than the Focus.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> To what is he referring?


The information the car gives in real time. There is a meter on the middle screen that you can pull up that gives an average kWh reading per mile. On average I get around 3.5kWh per mile driven. This of course changes as driving conditions change and since the conditions always change the meter is Guessing. Its a much smarter gauge now than it was in the 2011 and 2012 models of the Nissan Leaf. The lower the number you can get the better. It also calculates in the Air and Heat energy needs when you turn either one of those on. 

As for the light? The Nissan uses LED for the low beams and crappy regular lights for the High Beams. The high beams are not terrible bright and have a yellowish hue. I rarely ever use the high beams.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

onegreenev said:


> ... On average I get around 3.5kWh per mile driven. ...


That's awful. Hope you meant miles/kwhr.

Anyway, if there is a decently accurate "whr/mile" gauge, should it not easily prove our position and reflect the additional energy consumption (power) taken from the propulsion system when the load (alternator trailer) is turned on?

major


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> Hope you meant miles/kwhr.
> 
> major


Yes, I meant miles/kwhr. Thanks for catching the mistake.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> That's awful. Hope you meant miles/kwhr.
> 
> Anyway, if there is a decently accurate "whr/mile" gauge, should it not easily prove our position and reflect the additional energy consumption (power) taken from the propulsion system when the load (alternator trailer) is turned on?
> 
> major


Yes, it is good enough to do that. I notice a difference when conditions change. I don't have a hitch so can't connect a trailer to do a test with the added drag of a trailer.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

He expects to tow the trailer for 35 miles at 35mph with the alternators charging full blast into the lead-acid batteries such that it puts like 10,000 whr of energy into them. We know the alternators' fields take 1500w. Remaining alternator machine efficiency maybe 90% on a good day. Mechanical efficiency road to wheel to wheel to pulley; be kind, call it 80%. So we're looking at about 15kw of power to pull the trailer while charging. He says he'll get that from kinetic energy while traveling at 35mph constant speed. I say it'll come from the propulsion system taking the energy from the main Li battery. 

15kw for one hour at 35mph amounts to about 430 whr/mile. So his little meter should go from 135 whr/mile to 565 whr/mile.

Should be pretty easy to spot.

major

{edit}
For reference:



major said:


> iainventor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I missed these earlier...



iainventor said:


> I actually think this is so simple that many if not all except me of course blew this off as not even worth trying. No degreed engineer would even try it, sort of like told wright brothers they would never fly scientifically impossible in their day.
> 
> Or telling chuck yeager if he went faster than sound his plane would self destruct all debunked wrong.


Throwing around historical names does not buy credibility, except among people who are ignorant of history. Using them in an attempt to prove something which is not true is disrespectful to those historical figures.

Flying was not believed to be "scientifically impossible" in the day of the Wright brothers; in fact, they were not even the first to fly... they just set a milestone for sustained control in flight. They did get together a sufficiently powerful engine, light enough airframe, sufficient wing surface, and a workable control system, so they made some noteworthy flights and contributed to advancing the technology. They were not working against established science, but building on it.

Chuck Yeager was (in 1947) a test pilot. He did not design or build the aircraft which he flew, nor did he do anything other than tasks assigned by the massive organization which employed him. Supersonic flight was not impossible by established aerodynamics of the time, and supersonic bullets demonstrated that it was viable; it was just difficult, which is why when the science of the day led to the design of the X-1 by a team of engineers at Bell Aircraft, highly capable test pilots were required. Yeager was the third pilot of the X-1 (the first one died testing a different plane, the second was replaced due to a contract dispute), and was the one at the controls when the program reached the point of attempting supersonic speeds; without Yeager, the Bell X-1 would likely still have been the first supersonic manned aircraft. Rather than being an example of a rogue innovator, he was a disciplined military man playing his part is a large program, which succeeded in part through meticulous testing and documentation, careful measurement, and extensive sharing of technical information.

I think it's great to celebrate the accomplishments of great people in history. To imitate their success, it might help to understand why they succeeded, and that is very much about working with qualified people who understand what has gone before them and building on it rather than ignoring it.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> The additional 50 W-h/mile for night driving would indicate that the lights use 1750 watt-hours/hour or 1750 watts. Those must be some mighty bright lights!


That assumes a constant speed of 35 mph, or an instantaneous reading. Earlier, I had assumed that these values were averages over a meaningful test cycle, and so the average speed must have been low (causing a long duration and significant energy consumption by the lights). If the 50 W-h/mile value really is at 35 mph, then the energy use data is highly suspect.



iainventor said:


> The lamps are not LED can you believe that ?


Yes. The Focus EV is a Focus with an EV powertrain, so it has Focus headlights. The Focus is a Ford's bread-and-butter economy/family car (although it is used as the basis for vehicles addressing other markets), so it's not at all surprising to me that it does not yet have LED headlights. It wouldn't make sense to tool up unique headlamps for the obscure (and not profitable) EV variant, although it (all variants of the Focus) will inevitably have LED headlamps.

That's not a criticism of the Focus; I drove one for years (until it was destroyed in a collision) and enjoyed it. The headlights are not a big deal, but the validity of the energy consumption data is.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> I don't know the make, model, and capacity of your EV, so I'm just guessing.


iainventor apparently has two EVs, as described in post #1379.

The first is a Ford Focus.


iainventor said:


> My Ford Focus EV
> ...
> so my Ford Focus at 35 mph consumes around 185 watt/hrs per mile...


The Focus is the vehicle to which 185 Wh/mile and 135 Wh/mile consumption are attributed, and I assume it the the vehicle for all existing data, since the other vehicle is new to him. While I haven't questioned this specific value, it does seem unlikely at any significant speed. This emphasizes the importance of controlling and documenting the conditions of tests, to make the tests results useful, and simply for credibility.

The discussion above about the accuracy of these dashboard displays emphasizes the importance of test methods which provide more valid information.

He also said that the vehicle next vehicle to be used in the generation scheme is a 2009 Zenn; he showed it and it does look like a Zenn.


iainventor said:


> ... But the second KeV will be able to charge and drive it has a 72V DC Lead Acid powered car.
> 
> This 2009 ZENN will be my first KeV conversion to dynamically charge while driving.


From what I've seen the Zenn was only an NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle), with a top speed of 25 mph (40 km/h). It uses a 72 V lead-acid battery set. Anyway, this is a small and light vehicle, and will be driving slowly, so low energy consumption per unit distance should be expected.

The energy consumption values attributed to the Focus seem more likely for the Zenn, but the Zenn can't even reach the typical test speed (of 35 mph) mentioned in several posts.

While the Zenn is on the "toy" side of the range of possible electric road vehicles, it does have some characteristics that make it attractive as a vehicle to learn on: the basic and small (in capacity) battery could be inexpensive, the lead-acid battery could make operation without a BMS practical, the car is light enough to be functional with a small motor, and despite the basic nature of the vehicle it still has a modern AC PM motor.

As iainventor suggested, the low operating voltage of this vehicle allows the crude charging trailer to charge the vehicle battery directly; there are implementation advantages to keeping an experimental EV's voltage low. The details are still problematic: six 12V alternators are to charge the car's six 12V lead-acid batteries, all at different levels from ground (requiring isolation of alternator connections which are normally grounded to the chassis), and all while the car is running.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Buried in all this discussion, there's a technical question which someone can answer, and should to allow iainventor's experiment to proceed to it's inevitable conclusion:


iainventor said:


> If using a Curtis 1236 48-92 volt I think controller for the ZENN Car. If I have nominal voltage of 72 Volt setting if I power it to 85.2 possible charging potential for alternators. Will I get overvoltage error or will it be able to use this?


As I understand the situation, the Zenn's battery will be charged by the generator trailer while the Zenn is driving. As with any charging system, the peak charging voltage is well above the voltage of the fully-charged battery; the unusual situation is that charging is occurring while the vehicle is operating. Of course hybrids normally operate under the same combination of conditions, I doubt many use either Curtis motor controllers or a crude charging system which is not integrated with any of the other controls.

The alternators will not be able to push the batteries to a fully charged state, but who knows what voltage might be seen at the batteries. It might be safe to just assume that the charging voltage will never be above (or even at) the resting voltage of the batteries at 100% SOC.

I know nothing about Curtis controllers, and although I assume the answer is in available documentation, it seems like a valid question.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Those Curtis AC drives are made for induction motors. I do not believe they are compatible with ACPM or BLDC. So the voltage question doesn't matter, but I think it will tolerate that level. A check with the dealer or company with the complete part number should be made.

major



brian_ said:


> ...
> While the Zenn is on the "toy" side of the range of possible electric road vehicles, it does have some characteristics that make it attractive as a vehicle to learn on: the basic and small (in capacity) battery could be inexpensive, the lead-acid battery could make operation without a BMS practical, the car is light enough to be functional with a small motor, and despite the basic nature of the vehicle it still has a modern AC PM motor.
> ...


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

It really depends on the model number, but the 1236 48-80V version goes up to 105VDC MAX before it won't start up.

See the manual, page 55.

http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/Manuals/1234_36_38 Manual Rev Feb 09.pdf


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

fwiw, the zenn got an HPEVs motor (and presumably a matching curtis controller) around 2008 
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/miles-electric-car.html

problem here is while you could possibly bolt in a regen motor/controller, the NEV zenn is a light weight slow box, there isn't much there to regen.

just get some leaf/volt batteries (and figure out how to keep them happy), best mod per $ for that thing. probably 1/2 the weight and double the range for under $2k.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Thanks for finding details on the EVs involved in this discussion.

A 72V lead-acid pack at 85.2V is 14.2 volts per battery, which is a reasonable limit for active charging at the high end of SOC.

I don't know what is being used to control charging with the 6 or 7 alternators in the cart. Very likely the charge regulator is built-in. Here are some typical wiring diagrams:

http://brianesser.com/technical-information/alternator-wiring-diagrams-and-information/

A discussion about alternators and batteries in parallel (and series):

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/connecting-car-alternators-in-parallel.317213/

A good explanation of the automotive alternator. It looks like it may be possible to use an external three-phase bridge rectifier to avoid the problem of isolating the frames. 

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/alt_bwoh.pdf

A white paper from Delco-Remy indicates a typical alternator efficiency of 55%, which means losses of 1.8 kW for 2.1 kW produced, and a mechanical power of 3.9 kW per unit. Thus, seven alternators would produce 14.7 kW for a mechanical load of 27.3 kW or 36 HP. These figures are for an alternator producing 145 amps at 14.4 volts, while a typical car alternator is about 1/3 that. So they would produce 4.9 kW with losses of 4.2 kW. Moreover, the actual efficiency varies greatly with speed and load, as shown in figure 28. Efficiency of more than 70% may be realized from 1500 to 2500 RPM and current of 40-80 amps.

http://www.delcoremy.com/documents/high-efficiency-white-paper.aspx

Much better efficiency (80-90%) as well as simpler wiring may be realized by using PMDC treadmill motors or windmill generators, which can often be bought for as little as $20-$50 each. But they will still not save this design from the inconvenient truth of basic physics and thermodynamics.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

or, if you are really on a budget, hock the alternators, and set your trailer up to carry just batteries, same voltage as onboard battery, and parallel them (with lead is probably fine at 72v level or whatev). Then a couple thick cables to hook up to the existing pack, somehow. positive to positive pls.

you will want to match the voltage when connecting them (i.e. just recharge or drive the zenn till its battery voltage matches the trailer battery voltage).

then charge that whole mess as one before you go.

what is the null hypothesis here? It won't go farther (though it will use more wall power, and handle worse).


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

dcb said:


> fwiw, the zenn got an HPEVs motor (and presumably a matching curtis controller) around 2008...


Thanks. I saw PM AC, but I didn't have an authoritative source. Since iainventor has a Curtis, he must have that HPEVs combination.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> A white paper from Delco-Remy indicates a typical alternator efficiency of 55%, which means losses of 1.8 kW for 2.1 kW produced, and a mechanical power of 3.9 kW per unit. Thus, seven alternators would produce 14.7 kW for a mechanical load of 27.3 kW or 36 HP. These figures are for an alternator producing 145 amps at 14.4 volts, while a typical car alternator is about 1/3 that. So they would produce 4.9 kW with losses of 4.2 kW. Moreover, the actual efficiency varies greatly with speed and load, as shown in figure 28. Efficiency of more than 70% may be realized from 1500 to 2500 RPM and current of 40-80 amps.
> 
> http://www.delcoremy.com/documents/high-efficiency-white-paper.aspx


Car alternators may have grown larger than you think, Paul, but this is still an excellent resource and a sound analysis. Serious suppliers such as Delco-Remy often provide great information. This paper is worth reading for the education, even for someone who is not choosing an alternator.

It gets to the important issues, right from the opening of the summary:


> Electrical power on a vehicle is not free. It comes as a direct result of consuming fuel within the engine to drive the alternator.


... or in this case, consuming energy from the battery to run the drive motor,, to keep the vehicle moving, to turn the trailer wheels, to run the alternators.

I think it would be helpful for iainventor to graphically show where energy goes in his proposed system in the style of the Delco-Remy paper's Figure 1.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you can get up to %10 more mpg with an alternator DELETE  

http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Alternator_delete


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> What is "Quessomter"? Is it same as LCD?


guessometer = my watt * hr/mile readout. 

LCD not liquid crystal display. LCD is least common denominator 

at second time interval energy power work can be interchanged same value

1 watt Sec = 1 Joule/sec = Nm/sec 

https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/power/1-58/watt-joule%2Fsecond/


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> guessometer = my watt * hr/mile readout.
> 
> LCD not liquid crystal display. LCD is least common denominator
> 
> ...





> 1 watt Sec = 1 Joule/sec = Nm/sec


That is incorrect. You copied it wrong. 

Did you get the alternator trailer tested?

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> 1 watt Sec = 1 Joule/sec = Nm/sec


No.
1 watt-second = 1 newton-metre (*not* 1 newton-metre/second), and
1 watt-second = 1 joule (*not* 1 Joule/sec)​
1 Joule/second does equal 1 newton-metre/second, because those are equivalent power units; neither is equal to any energy unit.



iainventor said:


> https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/power/1-58/watt-joule%2Fsecond/


This linked page contains only power units, so it does not contain the units of watt-second or joule. It will not convert power units such as watts to energy units, because that would not make sense.

It _does_ contain
1 watt = 1 joule/s (or 1 W = 1 J/s)​because the watt is the basic power unit, and the joule and second are units from which is it derived.

Switch the same conversion tool to energy units, and it shows joule and watt-second... and will not convert energy units such as joules to power units, because that would not make sense.


Please slow down and read what is actually in your reference sources - not just what might be convenient to think is there - and you'll have all you need.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> iainventor apparently has two EVs, as described in post #1379.
> 
> The first is a Ford Focus.
> 
> ...


hey your post has a lot of assumptions. 1st the previous owner upgraded the 1236 curtis controller Polaris-GEM owns the controller now. but will do 43 mph already.

but someone said start sooner smaller so still scale same same may only take 6 alternators. But what I can do is charge and drive without any dc/ac inversion and AC/DC conversion or dc/dc up conversion to lithium in Ford EV 300 volt system. Need 360 VDC to charge right. 

with mine same way neg pos each 12 volt battery so all 6 will charge each 12 volt cell I have learned this works. 

testing went well these last 3 days. 35 mph = 60min /35 miles/hr = 1.71 minutes per mile. this will come in handy later.


producing 11,165 watt -hrs from 7 alternators so 11,165 watt - hrs / 60 min/hr 186 watt-hrs / min x 1.71 minutes mile = 318 watt-hrs a mile . 

this dynamic charging is where we are going to gain range with no conversion losses. No stop and charge no time waste and again no conversion losses. 

and lead acid I really do not have to worry about overcharge since the IVR will prevent that, made for lead acid to start with.

More next week not by Tuesday but will be done with zenn and trailer wiring.

Also going to eliminate 2 wheels each side, easier to change alternator fans in reverse than lose the friction loss wheel on wheel. And going to change belts too double pulleys transferring motion better too. 










this is the Zenn Car even put 1.75 hitch adapter on it.










new improved trailer will soon have 1 set of wheels


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> That is incorrect. You copied it wrong.
> 
> Did you get the alternator trailer tested?
> 
> major


please follow link for power units select watts 1 watt all the fields will show this is the case.

Or what do you think is wrong with my statement the second time frame is the unit m/sec Nm-s and Watt/sec 

1 watt=1 Nm-s = 1 Joule/sec


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Those Curtis AC drives are made for induction motors. I do not believe they are compatible with ACPM or BLDC. So the voltage question doesn't matter, but I think it will tolerate that level. A check with the dealer or company with the complete part number should be made.
> 
> major


Thanks for answering the question the Zenn Car went out of business 2010.

what are ACPM or BLDC?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> this dynamic charging is where we are going to gain range with no conversion losses. No stop and charge no time waste and again no conversion losses.


A. stop calling it dynamic charging, it is regenerative braking, commonplace on EV's and hybrids. it doesn't matter if the car doesn't actually slow down while its on, the mechanism is the same.

B. there are ALWAYS CONVERSION LOSSES! this is your new mantra, repeat this, till you believe it.

so you had a curtis?!? still clear as mud. did your car come with regen or not?!?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> hey your post has a lot of assumptions. 1st the previous owner upgraded the 1236 curtis controller Polaris-GEM owns the controller now. but will do 43 mph already.


As I said, I passed on the information which I had. Thanks for the additional information about the Zenn, which I understand to be

controller changed
40 km/h limiter or limiting function removed



iainventor said:


> but someone said start sooner smaller so still scale same same may only take 6 alternators. But what I can do is charge and drive without any dc/ac inversion and AC/DC conversion or dc/dc up conversion to lithium in Ford EV 300 volt system. Need 360 VDC to charge right.
> 
> with mine same way neg pos each 12 volt battery so all 6 will charge each 12 volt cell I have learned this works.


Eliminating voltage conversion steps is wise, to reduce the amount of energy wasted by the whole generator trailer system, which itself is a superfluous energy conversion device which inherently wastes energy. The voltage match between the Zenn's pack and a half-dozen automotive alternators reduces the required conversions.



iainventor said:


> testing went well these last 3 days. 35 mph = 60min /35 miles/hr = 1.71 minutes per mile. this will come in handy later.


The final result is time per unit distance, which is inverted from the starting point which is in distance per unit time. This should tell you that the units are incorrectly handled. If you bothered to make even a small effort to do this correctly, you would have
(60 min/hr) / (35 miles/hr)
=1.71 min/mile
The end number is fine; the way it is presented suggests that it might be just luck, but I'll assume that in this case you understand what you're doing and just can't communicate it.



iainventor said:


> producing 11,165 watt -hrs from 7 alternators so 11,165 watt - hrs / 60 min/hr 186 watt-hrs / min x 1.71 minutes mile = 318 watt-hrs a mile .


No, not "11,165 watt -hrs from 7 alternators", but "11,165 watts from 7 alternators"
No, not "11,165 watt - hrs / 60 min/hr [=] 186 watt-hrs / min", but "11,165 watts / 60 min/hr [=] 186 watt-hrs / min"
... but yes, that power at 35 mph corresponds to 318 watt-hrs per mile. iainventor, do you just throw random time units in where ever you feel like typing them? If you want clear communication, you'll have to try at least a little bit...

What this really means is that the generator is producing sufficient power to run the entire car... actually an even heavier car; that makes sense, since 11 kw or 15 hp is enough to maintain 35 mph against aero and rolling drag. With the massive inefficiency of the system, it will be dragging that poor Zenn back like it was towing a couple of reasonable cars in neutral. That means the Zenn will be sucking back power from the battery at more than double the normal rate for that road speed, to provide the power the trailer is sucking. This is the core of the reason that this whole scheme was dumped in the "Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that..." thread. 



iainventor said:


> this is the Zenn Car even put 1.75 hitch adapter on it.


I'm guessing that you meant 1.25"... that's the common size for light-duty (Class 1 and 2, up to 3500 pound trailer weight) hitch receivers. It doesn't matter; it's just important to be careful about details in technical discussions. But maybe that ship has sailed...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> what are ACPM or BLDC?


"*AC PM*" means AC (alternating current) powered, PM (permanent magnet) rotor... the type of motor used by almost all current production EVs by major manufacturer (with Tesla being the notable exception).

"*BLDC*" means brushless DC, meaning a motor with external electronic commutation instead of using brushes and a commutator. Since it is entirely brushless, the rotor must be a permanent magnet type (not induction, because that would require a 3-phase AC stator).

This is the sort of thing most people learn very early as the gain enough understanding to design an electric vehicle system.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Or what do you think is wrong with my statement the second time frame is the unit m/sec Nm-s and Watt/sec
> 
> 1 watt=1 Nm-s = 1 Joule/sec


No again...
1 watt is 1 newton-metre *per* second (Nm/s), not newton-metre _times_ seconds. It's just a "/" instead of a "-", but they mean opposite things. Still don't understand that? 

So:
"m/sec" means metres _per_ second (a velocity unit)
"Nm-s" means newton-metres _times_ seconds (which is nonsense, but "Nm/s" would be a power unit)
"Watt/sec" means watts _per_ second (which is nonsense, but "W-s" would be an energy unit)


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> A. stop calling it dynamic charging, it is regenerative braking, commonplace on EV's and hybrids. it doesn't matter if the car doesn't actually slow down while its on, the mechanism is the same.
> 
> B. there are ALWAYS CONVERSION LOSSES! this is your new mantra, repeat this, till you believe it.
> 
> so you had a curtis?!? still clear as mud. did your car come with regen or not?!?


Yes I already said curtis 1236 48-92 volts minimum regen, not going to spend an extra dime on updating.

no still calling it dynamic charging because that's what I am doing dynamic doing while driving 

compared to other way, drive generate store power, invert, charge EV while parked Then drive again static charging 

tell me what conversion losses trailer to batteries would I be having from generating same nominal voltages where is my loss? 

other way static yes, dc/ac inversion then level 2 power port AC/DC Conversion


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Yes I already said curtis 1236 48-92 volts minimum regen, not going to spend an extra dime on updating.


I wouldn't. as kinetic energy is mass and speed, and the zenn is slow and light and draggy, there isn't much to recapture.



iainventor said:


> no still calling it dynamic charging because that's what I am doing dynamic doing while driving


yep, it is still regen, I have tried it in the prius, it results in net loss of range, and even in a plain old car with an alternator at 12v it is lossy.



iainventor said:


> tell me what conversion losses trailer to batteries would I be having from generating same nominal voltages where is my loss?


you are still converting mechanical energy to electrical, inefficiently, and even the electrical part has things like stator resistance and battery resistance and coulombic efficiency and etc. "unity" thinking is just as bad as "overunity" thinking.

you started with an efficiency hit, battery->motor shaft.

and lots of other misc losses.

those will only be amplified by adding a trailer.

which has its own numerous losses, to put it back in the battery/motor for another round of losses.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> To what is he referring?


here is an image of my quessometer , this picture shows me in middle of nowhere being able to recharge from my L-Loop prototype. Anyways price was my decision to do that. $1200 in leas acid against $20,000 in Lithium for same wattage. 

And now I have Level 2 charger in my ev can charge and recharge both with a 14-50 240 VAC Plug built onto Me2 Kit too.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> $1200 in leas acid against $20,000 in Lithium for same wattage.


Wattage?!? Anyway folks are getting 45kwh lithium packs for ~$1500 these days (that could power 10 zenns at a time). I already told you you could convert it to lithium for less than $2k, not $20,000!!! and reduce the pack weight substantialy and increase range substantially.

I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS!!!


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> I wouldn't. as kinetic energy is mass and speed, and the zenn is slow and light and draggy, there isn't much to recapture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what you mean you tried it in a pryus? And last week you all said to me you included not what trying to do was regen.

Actually if I only had a 33% net gain still would get 3x mileage wouldn't you say that would be more efficient than doing nothing at all. 

And actually while producing 11,165 watts my theory less drag higher speed held true 35 mph driven avg 35 watt hrs / mile more than 45 mph for 10 miles and the only other factor some cross winds.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> what you mean you tried it in a pryus? And last week you all said to me you included not what trying to do was regen.


I've been telling you it is a form of regen from the start, this statement doesn't parse. I mean you can apply the brake lightly in a prius, with zero hydraulic pressure and regenerate, and it will lose efficiency.



iainventor said:


> Actually if I only had a 33% net gain still would get 3x mileage wouldn't you say that would be more efficient than doing nothing at all.


with speculative figures, lets say it will take %66 of your range to power the trailer, and it gives back %33, you are left with %66 of the range you had with no trailer. It is worse than doing nothing BECAUSE ALL CONVERSIONS HAVE LOSSES!!! This one has far worse efficiency than the built in regen.

and no if something (not this) gave you %33 energy gain, you get %33 more range, not 3x the mileage. and realistically more energy means more battery. But there are diminishing returns on adding battery, moreso with lead, which is more expensive over the life of the vehicle than lithium, by a wide margin.

regen while decelerating makes sense, because otherwise it is lost as heat. here you are just riding the brakes.

re: prius, has a mode called "heretical mode", because folks were surprised they did it, but the trade offs are well understood, it enables, complete with losses, a broader rpm/torque range. 
it takes power from the wheels (mg2) and powers MG1. it reduces the available wheel torque and increases rpm, like a real sloppy gear change. http://prius.ecrostech.com/original/SideBars/Overdrive.htm


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

aug 7th FB:
"Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."

Fuck you, telling these people who don't know any better that a zenn is gonna get 320 miles with an alternator trailer.

Seriously fuck you.

You just pick and choose what you listen to, so as to try and sell this monstrosity.

320 miles! DO IT!!! 

Or man up and admit you didn't do it.

Where is the part where you fix your own trail of misinformation? where here we spend COUNTLESS HOURS, listening to whiny little bitches who believe in unicorns and call us meanie pants.

Fuck you, and anything else you have to say.

P.S. Fuck you.

P.P.S. Fuck you.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> here is an image of my quessometer , this picture shows me in middle of nowhere being able to recharge from my L-Loop prototype. ...





iainventor said:


> guessometer = my watt * hr/mile readout.


OK. Thanks. Where does it display those numbers you were using like 135 and 185 whr/mile?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

major said:


> iainventor said:
> 
> 
> > guessometer = my watt * hr/mile readout.
> ...





iainventor said:


> major said:
> 
> 
> > That is incorrect. You copied it wrong.
> ...





> 1 watt=1 Nm-s = 1 Joule/sec


You have a mental problem. Seriously. A.D.D. or something. I suggest you seek professional medical help.

Even after brian_ has given you detailed, clear explanations of your errors.

major


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

iainventor:

Your supposed archenemies, ISIS, OPEC, the Saudis, along with the Koch brothers, are all laughing at YOU (or with you?) right now for making their job easier by perpetuating this dead-end idea. You should talk to the Koch brothers. I'm sure they, along with the others, would love to fund your "voyage" to help discredit Electric Vehicles. If they aren't already.

How does it feel to be a dupe, knowingly or unwittingly, of these people and their cause?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

dcb said:


> you are still converting mechanical energy to electrical, inefficiently, and even the electrical part has things like stator resistance and battery resistance and coulombic efficiency and etc. *"unity" thinking is just as bad as "overunity" thinking.*
> 
> you started with an efficiency hit, battery->motor shaft.
> 
> ...


Well stated.  The bolded part is particularly insightful; it directly addresses the "I'll make it more efficient and it will work" fallacy.



iainventor said:


> tell me what conversion losses trailer to batteries would I be having from generating same nominal voltages where is my loss?


*Conversion losses* are plentiful, as dcb explained. Here's an explicit list:

converting chemical energy in the battery to electrical energy (ohmic losses, internal current leakage, etc)
converting DC power from battery to AC power for motor (ohmic losses in conductors and devices, voltage loss in semiconductor devices)
converting electrical power into motor to mechanical power (ohmic losses of current flow in wire, magnetic flux power loss)
converting high-speed/low-torque mechanical power from motor to lower-speed/higher-torque mechanical power to the wheels (gear losses, bearing friction, seal friction, fluid power loss in lubricant)
converting mechanical shaft power to the wheels to linear force at road speed to keep the rig moving (tire losses due to hysteresis)
converting linear force at road speed to mechanical shaft power at the trailer wheels (tire losses due to hysteresis)
converting low-speed/high-torque mechanical power from trailer wheels to higher-speed/lower-torque mechanical power to the alternators (belt hysteresis losses, bearing friction, seal friction)
converting mechanical power to electrical power from alternator (ohmic losses of current flow in wire, magnetic flux power loss)
converting 3-phase AC power from alternator windings to DC power (voltage loss in diodes)
converting electrical energy to chemical energy in the battery (ohmic losses, internal current leakage, etc)
... and I'm sure that I've missed some.

Yep, that's one big lossy and pointless loop!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

fwiw, apparently I DONT understand pendulums, the period is the same regardless of amplitude, except at extremes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0FbQdH3dY


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

dcb said:


> A. stop calling it dynamic charging, it is regenerative braking, commonplace on EV's and hybrids. it doesn't matter if the car doesn't actually slow down while its on, the mechanism is the same.


That's inspirational: to explain why the alternator trailer makes no sense...

it's like riding the brake pedal for regenerative braking on one EV, while towing it with another EV, and expecting the towing EV to use less additional power than the regenerative braking produces (classic free energy nonsense)
fully functional EVs have regenerative braking, but can't brake while driving (because they're opposite actions)... so this is like putting two motors in an EV, one driving while the other is regenerating so they fight over whether the car even moves, which makes even less sense than just putting both of the motors on a shelf and expecting one to drive the other endlessly with no energy consumed (the classic perpetual motion nonsense)


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

dcb said:


> fwiw, apparently I DONT understand pendulums, the period is the same regardless of amplitude, except at extremes...


True... that's why pendulums are traditionally used to drive clocks, and why the spring (instead of gravity) equivalent - the balance wheel - is used to drive watches (and more portable clocks).


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> OK. Thanks. Where does it display those numbers you were using like 135 and 185 whr/mile?


that is another display setting can have that just this is the normal screen I use the one that say how many miles left. 

but have always just used this view. 1 thing with recovery vehicle in tow we were able to drive 5 miles before we called it quits this was when 0 miles left, warning came on under 0 miles left said pull over when safe.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> Wattage?!? Anyway folks are getting 45kwh lithium packs for ~$1500 these days (that could power 10 zenns at a time). I already told you you could convert it to lithium for less than $2k, not $20,000!!! and reduce the pack weight substantialy and increase range substantially.
> 
> I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS!!!


show me a link, not new are they, what voltage are these 45 kwh packs? Still more volume not smaller in volume than 12 lead acid batteries, and without BMS I bet too?

Hell if it pans out may use these as auxililary battery my current patent app covers. Thanks for helping .

Search it out the Ford Focus Power pack $22k


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> I wouldn't. as kinetic energy is mass and speed, and the zenn is slow and light and draggy, there isn't much to recapture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but we were at this point in this response talking electric charge inneefencies.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> As I said, I passed on the information which I had. Thanks for the additional information about the Zenn, which I understand to be
> 
> controller changed
> 40 km/h limiter or limiting function removed
> ...


no meant 1.75 ball adapter mine cane use 2.0 and 1.75 balls.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> show me a link, not new are they, what voltage are these 45 kwh packs? Still more volume not smaller in volume than 12 lead acid batteries...


Batteries for modern production EVs are high-voltage compared to most DIY conversions, compared to most low-production efforts fitting electric powertrains to gliders (vehicles purchased without powertrains, such as the Zenn), and neighbourhood electric vehicles (such as the Zenn). 360 V (nominal) is typical, consisting of about one hundred cells in series, and some number in parallel depending on cell size.

For comparison, the Zenn's stock 72 V (nominal) lead-acid battery set consists of 36 cells, all in series.

Any lithium-based automotive battery for a hybrid or EV will have much higher energy density by volume than lead-acid batteries... so a pack the size of the Zenn's set of batteries would have much more capacity. Conversely, a lithium battery with the capacity of the lead-acid set would be much smaller than the lead-acid set.

It is true that the affordable battery sources commonly recommended in this forum are typically used, from wrecked production EVs (or plug-in hybrids) such as the Leaf, Volt, and Tesla Model S.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

kennybobby said:


> the first statement above makes it appear that you understand how drag works--so what happens when either air drag, or some external drag such as the wheeled generator, increases?
> 
> If you don't add power from the pack's electrons your speed will drop.
> 
> ...


getting there thanks


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> no meant 1.75 ball adapter mine cane use 2.0 and 1.75 balls.


Most likely you can mount 2" and 1-7/8" balls. I don't know if there has ever been a 1-3/4" (1.75") ball sold... so if you go looking for one, you'll find the 1-7/8". Either size is fine for the little alternator trailer - just match the trailer's coupler size.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Batteries for modern production EVs are high-voltage compared to most DIY conversions, compared to most low-production efforts fitting electric powertrains to gliders (vehicles purchased without powertrains, such as the Zenn), and neighbourhood electric vehicles (such as the Zenn). 360 V (nominal) is typical, consisting of about one hundred cells in series, and some number in parallel depending on cell size.
> 
> For comparison, the Zenn's stock 72 V (nominal) lead-acid battery set consists of 36 cells, all in series.
> 
> ...


brian thanks, was really asking DCB to show me the link, of new batteries when we sell our L-Loop kits needs to be new not refurbished. And I am betting that 45 kwh used batteries over 7 to 10 years have lost 0.5 of original battery capacity. 22.5 Watts top end 100% capacity. and then bottom 25% of what is left cant use, and top 20% not used lets say 0.55 useable safely 22.5 kwh x 0.55 = 12,375 watt hrs 

So less than my useable 14,500 watt hrs and alternators with internal IVR made for lead acid charging. 

And there is no doubt more green sustainable battery to battery. Since lead acid end of use almost 100% reclaimed, less by far for lithium heard in some circles more to recycle than mfg lithium ion. Going to be a nightmare about end of life for these batteries. 

thanks


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> show me a link,


iainventor aug 7th FB:
"Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."

320 miles, Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> brian thanks, was really asking DCB to show me the link, of new batteries when we sell our L-Loop kits needs to be new not refurbished. And I am betting that 45 kwh used batteries over 7 to 10 years have lost 0.5 of original battery capacity. 22.5 Watts top end 100% capacity. and then bottom 25% of what is left cant use, and top 20% not used lets say 0.55 useable safely 22.5 kwh x 0.55 = 12,375 watt hrs
> 
> So less than my useable 14,500 watt hrs and alternators with internal IVR made for lead acid charging.
> 
> ...


Well, used lithium from wrecked vehicle will still be better than lead acid and way way cheaper than NEW. But I CAN get a replacement battery pack for my Leaf for just over $5k. Not $22k. As for loss of capacity, well yes there will be some because they are used but lead acid will loose capacity much faster and the overall life of lead is pretty dismal. The recyclability of these lithium batteries would be 100% or nearly so like the Lead Acid. A LiFePO4 cells is mostly plastic, aluminum, and copper with a dash of carbon and lithium and a tiny bit of electrolyte. Easy Peasy. The recycling of lithium will occur and you will not have to worry about polluting the environment. Just send them to your local recycler. Many of the new batteries you buy at the store today are going lithium so it is not uncommon to recycle lithium batteries. 

Lithium batteries also don't degrade like Lead Acid batteries do when not in use. Most of the used vehicle lithium batteries can be broken down and reconfigured to a much lower voltage. Im using Leaf Modules and going to be making a pack of just under 120 volts for my VW Bus. I will use as many as I can to get the most capacity possible. My Modules are from 2011 and they are still holding pretty much the same capacity as when I got them a few years ago. Still sitting and waiting. Yet they are still at the same voltage and capacity. Lead Acid won't do this. Yes, you may want a simple BMS but many have shown you don't need a complex system to monitor your cells. 

I'd go for the used battery packs and you would of course want to find out how many miles the vehicle actually had and you'd really want the ones with the least miles on them. My current leaf has 28,000 miles and nearly the same capacity as when new. Pretty good. If you go Leaf Modules, go with 2013 or later. They are better than the early Leaf Modules.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> aug 7th FB:
> "Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."
> 
> Fuck you, telling these people who don't know any better that a zenn is gonna get 320 miles with an alternator trailer.
> ...


I am and if you facebook stalked me read the rest , and as I said here done when done. I do not believe I asked more than 2 questions here. This group though has served 1 purpose to motivate me to finish. 

So if I drove 35 miles in 1 hour and generated equivalent power of 34.07 miles captured in auxiliary batteries so can refill the lithium batteries can power the car 34.07 miles where am I missing it . no grid power charger to do this with no need k-loop truly did this. 

did well enough that going to end Ford Focus testing anymore, and do detail testing similar to that of Brian and OnegreenEV suggested for me.

But with one exception of 1st test, not Zenn Alone drive , but Zenn & trailer, with wheels up not charging. Drive until whole system runs out of power on a predetermined route that goes in all 4 directions to account for wind resistance.

second test, the Zenn fully charged and when 35 mph wheels down generating power back fed to the 72 VDC Zenn Batteries drive until batteries depleted and cant go further same predetermined route, 

truly feel you guys are looking to how it works proving it, and I truly only care that it does and is reproducible -- for selling finished product in the marketplace. And don't think for a minute that I still do not need more testing and validation but well enough to start refining it. And prove it out by several test tracks to make the test . 

But it was nowhere near the wattage per mile that you guys a few days back posted here. no-where near the predicted by group 550-650 watts hrs/ mile much much lower.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> Well, used lithium from wrecked vehicle will still be better than lead acid and way way cheaper than NEW. But I CAN get a replacement battery pack for my Leaf for just over $5k. Not $22k. As for loss of capacity, well yes there will be some because they are used but lead acid will loose capacity much faster and the overall life of lead is pretty dismal. The recyclability of these lithium batteries would be 100% or nearly so like the Lead Acid. A LiFePO4 cells is mostly plastic, aluminum, and copper with a dash of carbon and lithium and a tiny bit of electrolyte. Easy Peasy. The recycling of lithium will occur and you will not have to worry about polluting the environment. Just send them to your local recycler. Many of the new batteries you buy at the store today are going lithium so it is not uncommon to recycle lithium batteries.
> 
> Lithium batteries also don't degrade like Lead Acid batteries do when not in use. Most of the used vehicle lithium batteries can be broken down and reconfigured to a much lower voltage. Im using Leaf Modules and going to be making a pack of just under 120 volts for my VW Bus. I will use as many as I can to get the most capacity possible. My Modules are from 2011 and they are still holding pretty much the same capacity as when I got them a few years ago. Still sitting and waiting. Yet they are still at the same voltage and capacity. Lead Acid won't do this. Yes, you may want a simple BMS but many have shown you don't need a complex system to monitor your cells.
> 
> I'd go for the used battery packs and you would of course want to find out how many miles the vehicle actually had and you'd really want the ones with the least miles on them. My current leaf has 28,000 miles and nearly the same capacity as when new. Pretty good. If you go Leaf Modules, go with 2013 or later. They are better than the early Leaf Modules.


one question though what kind of environment do you live in. Here in Midwest cold takes it biggest toll on them more than anuthing.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> I am and if you facebook stalked me...


YOU posted the link, idiot.
iainventor aug 7th FB:
"Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."

320 miles, Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.

I should write a "program" to respond to you till you retract ALL YOUR BULLSHIT!


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> aug 7th FB:
> "Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."
> 
> Fuck you, telling these people who don't know any better that a zenn is gonna get 320 miles with an alternator trailer.
> ...


I'm just wondering if the moderators are ok with this kind of language and direct attack on people, guess its ok should figure it from you guys. 

Again a little prideful in your post dcb the trouble you went through in your answering all these questions and again no help except through Brian and Major on 1236 curtis controller.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> <crybaby ranting deleted>


iainventor aug 7th FB:
"Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."

320 miles, Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> YOU posted the link, idiot.
> iainventor aug 7th FB:
> "Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."
> 
> ...


Might be shared the link, you must live a real boring life that you need to keep viewing my page. Aint retracting anything that's true will happen soon. No way around still Facebook stalking. 

Or unless you truly cannot read was able to reclaim in 1 hour at 35 mph to power my EV batteries from lead batteries ro go another roughly 34 miles.

Again i guess that is ok to just say what you want huh on some groups you would be removed for cause talking the way you are on here. 

Again the true p[lace that matters is the marketplace thats who i need to prove anything for, not you at all you do not factor into the equation not even 0.00000000001%


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

iainventor said:


> did well enough that going to end Ford Focus testing anymore,


You're basing you're evaluation of the product on one test? Was it because it didn't work very well? You really need to come clean with this. You've dragged (no pun intended) us along too far to chicken out now. Looking this over with the incredibly detailed, gobbledygook patent (I'm sure the patent office granted the patent just to get you off their back!) and our attempts to verify your claims, and straighten out your knowledge of physics, you at least owe us a good series of tests. Don't leave us hanging now!

Some posts back, I thought you saw the light and were going to ditch this idea and explore a range extending gas powered generator system? BMW and others have tried this, with some success, so you're not so far out in wacko land, if you looked into it.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

As a "Admin" (I'm not very moderate) I'm OK with dcb - I don't like frauds either


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Don't skip the first base test. You need to see. You can't claim victory until you do it all.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Lav- so you are saying you have already done this?



> Or unless you truly cannot read was able to reclaim in 1 hour at 35 mph to power my EV batteries from lead batteries ro go another roughly 34 miles.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> You're basing you're evaluation of the product on one test? Was it because it didn't work very well? You really need to come clean with this. You've dragged (no pun intended) us along too far to chicken out now. Looking this over with the incredibly detailed, gobbledygook patent (I'm sure the patent office granted the patent just to get you off their back!) and our attempts to verify your claims, and straighten out your knowledge of physics, you at least owe us a good series of tests. Don't leave us hanging now!
> 
> Some posts back, I thought you saw the light and were going to ditch this idea and explore a range extending gas powered generator system? BMW and others have tried this, with some success, so you're not so far out in wacko land, if you looked into it.



onegreenev

*No on the contrary did better so good I'm going to make the investment of my own dollars, and time* to do the testing we were going to do on the Ford Focus and use the same planned testing expect just going to measure it trailer zenn at first same mass of whole system -without wheel generator capturing 11,165 watt secs. 

Then same test wheel down capturing harvesting the 11,165 watt -sec or power trying even faster than 35 trying 40-45 mph - and will backfeed power into battery .

Kinetic energy in the vehicle per second is K= 2P^2/2m X 0.0421 foot poundals to watts 

Zenn with 12 batteries and trailer, and myself 2200 pounds velocity at 40 mph = 58.6 ft/sec and P = Mass X Velocity momentium K = kinetic energy is 

K = (58.6 ft/sec X 2,200 pounds ) ^2 / (2 X 2,220 pounds) 

K = (16,658,204,444) / (4,400 pounds) X (0.0421) = 159,388 watts or 
214 HP



OnegreenEV

I know all about the i3 and the 1.8 gal of gas they limited it to and wont let them power it enough to go very far and it like limp home speed. Know a lady who has one. but that proves can charge and drive and more efficient just a workaround in code probably. 

I am no way stopping but really after the attitude that dcb took and the moderator calling me a fraud without even seeing what i have done on my own. Do not feel i owe anyone here a bit of test data. 

And anyways its written rule cannot patent perpetual motion. Also after I got my patent filed another man named Brian Arnold tried to get a patent on the same thing . They worked it from concept to completion and a mcdonalds food distribution company used the reefer powered on kinetic energy from Tampa to Orlando area no fuel used no measurable fuel consumption on class 8 truck pulling the kinetic energy powered reefer. My patent though probably put them out of business. patent examiner cited mine the gobbledygook as you call it and stopped them never issued. 

But anyways I tracked down the McDonalds executive Kim Seigler, Vice President of Caspers Distribution Company. He is no longer there call them and google caspers distribution tampa fl will find it, ask for his new number they probably gove it to you. And he told my over the phone that was their biggest concern and looked at under a microscope and he told me, "that they didn't see a measurable fuel loss to power the trailer refrigeration thing off of Kinetic energy. 

https://vimeo.com/64563542

All I'm going to say. the Kim guy never knew before i called but told me the story about it an how he was very impressed with no noticeable fuel loss. 

Anyways dcb just keep on facebook stalking me as usual and then will post results there. So you can cowardly talk behind my back as usual. 

But again so sure about last weeks drives once trailer modifications done that that's what matters what i saw and verified with my own eyes.

Thats what matters to me my own time my own money have to answer to no one you, OnegreenEV I am sorry just saw your message last night. Thanks for advice and seeming more reasonable for some on here. I tuly feel that its not anyone's place to tell me anything about what i am doing and paying for myself nor do owe anyone an explanation of anything at all either. Hell your not any authorty over me that i can see. And none of you would buy my finished L-loop anyways, so not real customers for market advice either as far as I can tell. 

Initially as said I came across this thread thought it looked interesting that's why i posted it here, thought would be fair and balanced but closed to anything but what you feel is true and no way it could work or even approach unity. Seen while reading you guys just try to destroy anyone who thinks different than you. Feal sorry for the others before me that you ran off. probably the only difference with me I am not afraid to have an opinion and have worked things out thus far without needing help very much. Now I am not the typical engineer designer or technician. But its like some amazingly gifted musicians cant read sheet music but they are more gifted than those pro musicians that can. And I am driven do not let your guard down with a man driven he will find a way to do things not yet known to man. For my cause that i feel some of you scoffed at but true want to develop things to defund oil to possibly defund terrorism. 

All Im going to say


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> YOU posted the link, idiot.
> iainventor aug 7th FB:
> "Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."
> 
> ...


actually posted the video link I think 1st reply thats how you stalked me right or the image link. No matter I recently replied all I'm going to do. 

that's it.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> But it was nowhere near the wattage per mile that you guys a few days back posted here. no-where near the predicted by group 550-650 watts hrs/ mile much much lower.


So state the actual numbers and test conditions.

{edit}
For reference: 



major said:


> He expects to tow the trailer for 35 miles at 35mph with the alternators charging full blast into the lead-acid batteries such that it puts like 10,000 whr of energy into them. We know the alternators' fields take 1500w. Remaining alternator machine efficiency maybe 90% on a good day. Mechanical efficiency road to wheel to wheel to pulley; be kind, call it 80%. So we're looking at about 15kw of power to pull the trailer while charging. He says he'll get that from kinetic energy while traveling at 35mph constant speed. I say it'll come from the propulsion system taking the energy from the main Li battery.
> 
> 15kw for one hour at 35mph amounts to about 430 whr/mile. So his little meter should go from 135 whr/mile to 565 whr/mile.
> 
> ...


So what exactly were the numbers? How many watt hours per mile when towing the trailer at 35mph and alternators charging at 10-11 kW (that would be ~700 amps at 14.5V)?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor, all you do is lie, all you are is a lie.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> 
> *No on the contrary did better so good I'm going to make the investment of my own dollars, and time* to do the testing we were going to do on the Ford Focus and use the same planned testing expect just going to measure it trailer zenn at first same mass of whole system -without wheel generator capturing 11,165 watt secs.
> ...


11,165 watt secs is the amount of energy which is stored in a single AA alkaline battery.



iainventor said:


> ...
> Kinetic energy in the vehicle per second is K= 2P^2/2m X 0.0421 foot poundals to watts
> 
> Zenn with 12 batteries and trailer, and myself 2200 pounds velocity at 40 mph = 58.6 ft/sec and P = Mass X Velocity momentium K = kinetic energy is
> ...


You can't argue with that math  214 HP of energy in his Zenn and trailer 

And FWIW, you'd think those trucking businessmen would sink a few bucks into a technical/engineering consultant before "partnering" with some outfit like that. And the news reporter might run her story past a science editor. Oh well.

major


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... and the moderator calling me a fraud without even seeing what i have done on my own. Do not feel i owe anyone here a bit of test data.
> 
> And anyways its written rule cannot patent perpetual motion. Also after I got my patent filed another man named Brian Arnold tried to get a patent on the same thing . They worked it from concept to completion and a mcdonalds food distribution company used the reefer powered on kinetic energy from Tampa to Orlando area no fuel used no measurable fuel consumption on class 8 truck pulling the kinetic energy powered reefer. My patent though probably put them out of business. patent examiner cited mine the gobbledygook as you call it and stopped them never issued.
> 
> ...





> the moderator calling me a fraud without even seeing what i have done on my own. Do not feel i owe anyone here a bit of test data.


You owe the world test data or verification of your claims. If you are unwilling or unable to backup your claims, you are a fraud or nutjob. Own up to it.



> like some amazingly gifted musicians


You think you're amazing and gifted. Aren't we all? You're just so much better and smarter than the rest of us. Right? 

Proof? Data? We don't need no stinkin' data! Right? You're special and you know it.

What a joke.

major


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Still enjoying reading this poppycock.  No data = no credibility.

The Diesel refrigeration unit can be more efficient than getting power from the vehicle's engine because it can run at a maximum efficiency point, perhaps as high ad 50%. It can also be cycled on and off to keep the batteries charged. Diesel has about 36 MJ/liter or 136 MJ/gallon. Thus one gallon of fuel can provide real energy of 18.9 kW-h. Depending on ambient temperature and insulation, a refrigeration unit may run at only 50% duty cycle, so it could have a 38 kW (51 HP) motor running 50% of the time. Refrigeration units have a COP (Coefficient of performance) such that typically 3 units of heat are removed per unit of input energy. So a diesel powered unit using 1 gallon per hour can provide 38 * 3 * 2.6 = 296,000 BTU/hour, or 24.7 tons. 

From what I found, typical reefers use 5-10 kW of refrigeration, so that seems to indicate that a gallon of diesel fuel should provide at least 2-3 hours of refrigeration, which could also be provided by a 20 kW-h battery pack.

http://www.grimsby.ac.uk/documents/defra/trns-refrigeenergy.pdf

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

https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BolesLectureNotesThermodynamicsChapter10.pdf


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> did well enough that going to end Ford Focus testing anymore...





electro wrks said:


> You're basing you're evaluation of the product on one test?


I think iainventor has designed the alternator trailer to charge the Zenn's 72 V (nominal) lead-acid battery set, and not the more normal (for modern EVs) Focus Electric. Using the Zenn eliminates the transfer of generated energy between battery sets, and so could facilitate a more clear demonstration of the effect of using the alternator trailer.

I support this approach to testing, because it will definitively show that the whole idea of continual (not just while braking to slow down) operation of an alternator is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> I know all about the i3 and the 1.8 gal of gas they limited it to and wont let them power it enough to go very far and it like limp home speed. Know a lady who has one. but that proves can charge and drive and more efficient just a workaround in code probably.


The limited capability of a U.S.-spec BMW i3 REx is a deliberate restriction of operating modes, intended to meet the rules for a "range-extended battery-electric vehicle" in California so it is eligible for California's green sticker. It is a dodge around the rules to extract benefits for owners (subsidies and special privileges) and to help BMW meet legal requirements; it has nothing to do with any technical consideration... so it is a distraction from any technical discussion.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> 11,165 watt secs is the amount of energy which is stored in a single AA alkaline battery.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Major 

so you dont believe then a company as big as this really did it and vp of operations told me it worked that well. That just shows your bias and meant that in 1 hour alternators produce 11,165 watt hrs . enough


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> I think iainventor has designed the alternator trailer to charge the Zenn's 72 V (nominal) lead-acid battery set, and not the more normal (for modern EVs) Focus Electric. Using the Zenn eliminates the transfer of generated energy between battery sets, and so could facilitate a more clear demonstration of the effect of using the alternator trailer.
> 
> I support this approach to testing, because it will definitively show that the whole idea of continual (not just while braking to slow down) operation of an alternator is fundamentally flawed.


just when I think your finally seeing. that's 3/4 right more about the 300 v Focus batteries too much code and too complicate bms and overcharge could cause thermal runaway. Since Zenn old school lead acid can do what we want it to do. 

you know what adding flywheels to trailer wheels too cant under stand why you guys cant see that in a way my ev is an energy storage device like a horizontal flywheel. but will see and no conversion losses electrical anyways.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> You owe the world test data or verification of your claims. If you are unwilling or unable to backup your claims, you are a fraud or nutjob. Own up to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


just saying I truly owe you nothing you didn't pay anything towards it, not in dollars and time nobody's data but mine -- with the attitude and all from almost everyone here don't owe you or anyone else anything will share if I want to but not obligated in any way.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> Still enjoying reading this poppycock.  No data = no credibility.
> 
> The Diesel refrigeration unit can be more efficient than getting power from the vehicle's engine because it can run at a maximum efficiency point, perhaps as high ad 50%. It can also be cycled on and off to keep the batteries charged. Diesel has about 36 MJ/liter or 136 MJ/gallon. Thus one gallon of fuel can provide real energy of 18.9 kW-h. Depending on ambient temperature and insulation, a refrigeration unit may run at only 50% duty cycle, so it could have a 38 kW (51 HP) motor running 50% of the time. Refrigeration units have a COP (Coefficient of performance) such that typically 3 units of heat are removed per unit of input energy. So a diesel powered unit using 1 gallon per hour can provide 38 * 3 * 2.6 = 296,000 BTU/hour, or 24.7 tons.
> 
> ...


sorry 

i don't need your guys affirmation don't care if you think its credible or not your opinion of my credibility doesn't factor either. 

the marketplace does nothing else and believe me when demo units hit the market and people drive them getting the miles I have been saying your calculations asinine assumptions mean squat then as now. 

just like in the bible says don't through perils at swine no good wont listen any ways. sounds like most of you. The customer matters not you guys IMHO


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

iainventor said:


> just saying I truly owe you nothing you didn't pay anything towards it, not in dollars and time nobody's data but mine -- with the attitude and all from almost everyone here don't owe you or anyone else anything will share if I want to but not obligated in any way.


You promised you were going to show us how well your machine worked. Now you not going to do it? Kinda two faced, don't you think. It's not like we're asking to see your taxes or something.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> <deleted usual delusions>


iainventor aug 7th FB:
"Then We Can rewire the Wheel Generator onto Little Blue Zenn 1 pull trailer but can charge and refill batteries same time I drive it Tuesday at 40 mph and do 320 miles no stopping 8hrs before batteries deplete."

320 miles, Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> You promised you were going to show us how well your machine worked. Now you not going to do it? Kinda two faced, don't you think. It's not like we're asking to see your taxes or something.


no I remember saying that 

1.0 I would concede if wrong and admit it, 

2.0 would say overwhelming success not share actual results because you guys wouldn't believe it anyways.

3.0 Or say it wasn't a failure but wasn't very promising like very few miles captured. 

just wait until Zenn Car setup. And you guys will not get much info , probably more from when dcb stalks my facebook page like he has been obsessed with.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Major
> 
> so you dont believe then a company as big as this really did it and vp of operations told me it worked that well.


I never said that.



iainventor said:


> Major
> 
> meant that in 1 hour alternators produce 11,165 watt hrs .


You did say "watt secs".



iainventor said:


> enough


No, not enough. I don't recall seeing where you were invited to post on this forum. You came here and made claims. You promised data and proof even saying if tests proved you wrong (and us correct), you'd be man enough to admit it here publicly. So do what you said. Then it will be "enough".

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> just when I think your finally seeing.
> ...
> 
> you know what adding flywheels to trailer wheels too cant under stand why you guys cant see that in a way my ev is an energy storage device like a horizontal flywheel. but will see and no conversion losses electrical anyways.


Simply storing energy does nothing for you. As long as energy is stored in something (battery, kinetic energy of a moving vehicle, kinetic energy of a spinning flywheel), it does you no good; you need to take it out to use it, and that means putting it in at some other time. Storage is just how you take energy from where and when it is available to where and when you want to use it.

The alternator trailer has repeatedly been presented as a steady-state device, meaning it is used in a continuing fashion, specifically while a vehicle moves at a constant speed. There is no energy stored in the trailer or alternators, other than the same kinetic energy which would be stored by pile of sandbags of the same mass carried in the car's trunk; it is claimed to be generating power, not storing it. Since the vehicle is not decelerating (as it would be for useful regenerative braking), the device cannot extract the stored kinetic energy of the vehicle (with or without trailer).

And I suggest going back to our long lists of energy conversions; voltage conversion (avoided by running the alternators at battery voltage) is not the only one.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> more from when dcb stalks my facebook page like he has been obsessed with.


I looked once at a link you provided, saw your lies to your emotional support group, you keep proving what an idiot you are.

we have all the data on that that we need.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> 2.0 would say overwhelming success not share actual results because you guys wouldn't believe it anyways.


That doesn't make sense.

If it is successful, then you can share the actual results which demonstrate that... I would think that you would be proud to do so. If you don't share the actual results, but only claim "overwhelming success" without supporting data, any reasonable person would assume that you are lying (out of greed in an attempt to sell a fraudulent device, or embarrassment at failure). The fix is easy: *just share the results*.

Do you believe everyone who makes unsupported claims for their products or services? If not, why would you expect anyone to believe you?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

brian_ said:


> The fix is easy: *just share the results*.


there are no results, it is %100 bullshit. if that isn't obvious by now...

every single claim he has made has been literally destroyed. he is an idiot. he thinks he can negotiate with (over)unity. i.e. still thinks there are no electrical conversion losses even when I explain it to him.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> I never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so when I signed up for DIY group I had to be invited to post here ? 

I am saying that it was a success but want more testing before I proclaim it ,almost unity. And an additional drive proved at 45 mph the watt hrs a mile dropped proving my theory more velocity less cumulative drag since kinetic energy increases and trailer drag stays constant. But you guys wont believe me anyways Zenn will even do better since in real time can put power back into battery bank. 

and if it had almost failed but didn't do well and took like 600 watt hrs per mile or more would get 17.0 miles from 11,165 watts 

And ifeven less like 900 watt hrs/mile say I failed would have about 11 miles recharge range or less would have said I was wrong but that didn't happen .

And even though you all wont buy it my L-Loop product is getting a bunch of interest worldwide best low cost solution to get rid of the 80 mile commute pain and anxiety. Focus, Leaf and Volt kits coming soon. both level 2 and CCS DC/DC fast charging. 

The Focus kits are ready in a few weeks. Have a good multi-location car dealer lined up be our first dealer purchase order before Sept 15, 2017 if all goes well. this is without wheels.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> I am saying that it was a success


that was disproven, repeatedly.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> that was disproven, repeatedly.


If I must ask what was disproven repeatedly?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> iainventor


You came to us. You have claimed much but still shown no proof. We are not asking you to reveal how its done but you are required to show your proof that the wild claims are truthful. We have seen many dupe people and take hard earned money only to disappear never to be seen again. We are 100% sure this is the case here. You will not be taking any money from us unless you actually show proof. We don't take this shit lightly. I can say all sorts of shit and make all sorts of claims but without proof its meaningless and just bull shit. We do have some very well educated people here. You have come here with a clear agenda of trying to get some dupes to buy your bull shit. Well, you came to the wrong place. We are calling you out on your BS. BS Meter is on High Alert.

Sounds like you have been here before and got the same result under a different name and different product. We are not the people to try to sell snake oil crap. Also if you actually had a product you'd be way more than willing to share your results and proof. But no, like the others, you hide and spout shit without ever showing proof and claiming you don't have to do so. You are wrong and you have no product. You have not tested shit and you have been called out.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> That doesn't make sense.
> 
> If it is successful, then you can share the actual results which demonstrate that... I would think that you would be proud to do so. If you don't share the actual results, but only claim "overwhelming success" without supporting data, any reasonable person would assume that you are lying (out of greed in an attempt to sell a fraudulent device, or embarrassment at failure). The fix is easy: *just share the results*.
> 
> Do you believe everyone who makes unsupported claims for their products or services? If not, why would you expect anyone to believe you?


no not selling anything fraudelent why would I? But did get good results anyone buy something that didn't work, wouldn't sell anything that didn't work . nor embarrassment just like last reply I want to see if duplicatable could of been an outlier anomaly. Think out of anyone here you would agree with that. 

low 3xx actually less at 45 mph 2xx range I know you guys think Im wrong I get it but think about it for the nanosecond your brain can handle the truth for a wahile.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> If I must ask what was disproven repeatedly?


what obligation do I have to present, let alone repeat, that information?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> If I must ask what was disproven repeatedly?


All of it. Was easily disproven without ever building a thing. It is BS. 



SHOW US, PROVE US WRONG. Can't just say it. You have to Show it. Many here showed that your claim is not possible. 

One other thing. Who wants a 340 mile Zenn. Im not interested in a car that only goes 35 to 45 mph. Not many others will be either. I prefer a car over a golf cart.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> no not selling anything fraudelent why would I? But did get good results anyone buy something that didn't work, wouldn't sell anything that didn't work . nor embarrassment just like last reply I want to see if duplicatable could of been an outlier anomaly. Think out of anyone here you would agree with that.
> 
> low 3xx actually less at 45 mph 2xx range I know you guys think Im wrong I get it but think about it for the nanosecond your brain can handle the truth for a wahile.



Testing needs to be reproducible by anyone else doing the same exact test. If it is not reproducible the results are not valid. 

Sounds like flat earther talk.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> low 3xx actually less at 45 mph 2xx range I know you guys think Im wrong I get it but think about it for the nanosecond your brain can handle the truth for a wahile.


You just can't post exact numbers and accurately describe conditions, can you? So I take "3xx" to mean that your quessometer displayed 300-399 watt hours per mile at 35mph with the trailer and alternators charging the lead-acid batteries. Is that right? What was the total alternator output? Amps? Volts?

The fact that the tow vehicle energy consumption increased from 135 whr/mile to 3xx whr/mile tell you anything?

major


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> what obligation do I have to present, let alone repeat, that information?


your plane stupid get medicated right?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> your plane stupid get medicated right?


I like this comment.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> You just can't post exact numbers and accurately describe conditions, can you? So I take "3xx" to mean that your quessometer displayed 300-399 watt hours per mile at 35mph with the trailer and alternators charging the lead-acid batteries. Is that right? What was the total alternator output? Amps? Volts?
> 
> The fact that the tow vehicle energy consumption increased from 135 whr/mile to 3xx whr/mile tell you anything?
> 
> major


that the 135 was an anomaly malfunctioning quessomter and didn't use it a base point.

But the rate 3xx power consumption to put back in 11,165 watts. what it tells me is if just consuming not aux battery capable harvest it and put it back in an almost equal rate as consumption production going to increase to almost equal consumption not over unity though not perpetual motion since the work was done by consuming electrons. Just like the magnetic field in alternator electromagnetic field took consuming energy to put back in aux batteries.

And the velocity of 45 mph says that too that less overall system drag with more stored kinetic energy.

thats all Im going to say until ZENN Testing. 

just like the mcdonald's distribution center, you said you didn't say you didn't believe it. Yet at same time in that post said these people should run these things past experts, why you make that statement then if you believed the no measurable fuel loss from kinetic energy harvesting to power the reefer? 

Why becuase yuo dont beleeive it then. Hell in this case if they would of run this past a guy like you in their coimpnay they never would have known you were wrong right?? I get you.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> All of it. Was easily disproven without ever building a thing. It is BS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hey thats your choice proves it all though when done. And I said it once will say it again , the customer ion the real marektplace is the only view I care about. You would never buy my product any of you here probably but I do not care what you think, so suttle you were your just as closed minded as dcb and major.And all those faulty assumption 550 -700 watt hrs/mile everyone thinks they atre smart I quess with mob mentality dont make it right many mensa wannibiees here on DIY if you wer so smart you would have seen things the way I do. No matter I'm done.

Oh and next guy that Facebook stalks us and is rude enough to comment see what happens.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> that the 135 was an anomaly malfunctioning quessomter and didn't use it a base point.
> 
> But the rate 3xx power consumption to put back in 11,165 watts. what it tells me is if just consuming not aux battery capable harvest it and put it back in an almost equal rate as consumption production going to increase to almost equal consumption not over unity though not perpetual motion since the work was done by consuming electrons. Just like the magnetic field in alternator electromagnetic field took consuming energy to put back in aux batteries.
> 
> ...


I never said that I didn't believe your account of the trucking businessmen conversations or the video news report which you posted. I commented that those people should get some technical counselling before committing resources to such an endeavor or airing a report about it. Maybe the trucking manager didn't have to buy fuel for the past 6 months for the refrigeration units but someone else was paying for the fuel elsewhere. The refrigeration power didn't come from kinetic energy and when you tell (sell) people (customers) that it does, that is fraud. Maybe you didn't know that before, but you do now. Ignorance is not a defense when prosecuted. Especially now that this record exists. And search engines can find it as well. What do you call it? K loop? L loop?

How many times have I mentioned that you need to learn power and energy, and find out what kinetic energy really is and how it is used?

major


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Oh and next guy that Facebook stalks us and is rude enough to comment see what happens.


who commented? wasn't me, I stopped looking, it was crap. but, what did you expect? the whole world can see us fwiw and you are an idiot.

I know you need your safe space, I respect that, snowflakes and unicorns go together. this isn't your safe space obviously.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> Testing needs to be reproducible by anyone else doing the same exact test. If it is not reproducible the results are not valid.
> 
> Sounds like flat earther talk.


Say it again I agree thats why I need more testing but everyone here wanted to proive me wrong so quick dont beleive my 3xxx watt hrs/mile range that it no more talk I shared you dont beleive you wont adnit I might be right enough said. 3xxx could result in 34 miles for every 35 driven


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

PStechPaul said:


> ... Diesel has about 36 MJ/liter or 136 MJ/gallon. Thus one gallon of fuel can provide real energy of 18.9 kW-h.
> ...


Checking your math here--seems a bit low.

i find diesel rated at 139,000 BTU/gallon (energy content of one gallon), and the conversion factor is 0.293 kWh/BTU.

So a gallon of diesel has an energy content of 40.7 kWh. 

Lots of variables in fuel consumption. The national average for a class 8 diesel is 5.5mpg, and the average truck has a fuel capacity of 250 gallons. The diesel reefers have about a 12 hp 3-cylinder burning about a gallon per hour from a 30-gallon tank.

Assume the wheelie alternator can replace the diesel with an 8 hp electric motor, but also assume worst case that it causes enough drag to burn an extra gallon of fuel per hour. At 60 mph the average truck burns thru about 10.9 gallons per hour, so add 1 gallon for the drag of the reefer alternator and it goes up to 11.9 gph. So his fuel mileage will be 5.1 vs 5.5 mpg. It's not a large difference, but the alternator is still a load and the energy is not free. You either take it from the 30 gallon tank or the 250 tank, but you will burn fuel to keep your fries frozen...


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> just like the mcdonald's distribution center, you said you didn't say you didn't believe it.


nope, what they said adds up, but it isn't a success, there was no gain. They stopped adding fuel to the small inefficient reefer engine and added it to the truck instead. big whup... no change in mileage. no mention of methodology either, so still crap. (plus now you have to keep moving to keep it cold!)

btw who did that pully alignment? it is awful.

edit this is the same shell game as your internal and external electrons shit. where you think you can ignore the laws of physics by adding a second pack (or think we won't notice).


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iain, serious question, if you still believe there are no electrical conversion losses by matching voltage between the alternators and batteries, why on earth are you worried about the alternator cooling fans?!? You should be able to rip them out, and rip them out of every 12v system for that matter.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> You came to us. You have claimed much but still shown no proof. We are not asking you to reveal how its done but you are required to show your proof that the wild claims are truthful. We have seen many dupe people and take hard earned money only to disappear never to be seen again. We are 100% sure this is the case here. You will not be taking any money from us unless you actually show proof. We don't take this shit lightly. I can say all sorts of shit and make all sorts of claims but without proof its meaningless and just bull shit. We do have some very well educated people here. You have come here with a clear agenda of trying to get some dupes to buy your bull shit. Well, you came to the wrong place. We are calling you out on your BS. BS Meter is on High Alert.
> 
> Sounds like you have been here before and got the same result under a different name and different product. We are not the people to try to sell snake oil crap. Also if you actually had a product you'd be way more than willing to share your results and proof. But no, like the others, you hide and spout shit without ever showing proof and claiming you don't have to do so. You are wrong and you have no product. You have not tested shit and you have been called out.


No not until I signed up looked around here, thought though you guys are nothing but cyber bullies anyhow. I did not ask fro money wouldn't take from strangers anyways. So don't give yourself that kind of credit. Who is the delusional one now? Where when did I ask fro anything. O h yeah thats right never.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

really, we are gonna go back to victim mode? has it been 7 minutes already?


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

kennybobby said:


> Checking your math here--seems a bit low.
> 
> i find diesel rated at 139,000 BTU/gallon (energy content of one gallon), and the conversion factor is 0.293 kWh/BTU.
> 
> ...


Ok you may be right but that also the consumption average empty class 8 at 34,000 ponds 5.6 mpg loaded 46,000 pound drag 0.1 mpg difference the reefer battery electric kinetic system would be a rounding error that's where I get efficiencies when efficiencies increase to where wheel generator drag less than 0.005 range.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> really, we are gonna go back to victim mode? has it been 7 minutes already?


no its a mind over matter thing with you dcb you don't matter so never you mind.

too bad we don't live 150 years back when you could still dual, you talk your nonsense, be dead would't you with your nonsense??? Yeah you would.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> nope, what they said adds up, but it isn't a success, there was no gain. They stopped adding fuel to the small inefficient reefer engine and added it to the truck instead. big whup... no change in mileage. no mention of methodology either, so still crap. (plus now you have to keep moving to keep it cold!)
> 
> btw who did that pully alignment? it is awful.
> 
> edit this is the same shell game as your internal and external electrons shit. where you think you can ignore the laws of physics by adding a second pack (or think we won't notice).


no you don't the battery storage still runs it parked. And I am not saying over unity am I? I am saying can come close to unity gain can possibly approach it but if I consume 11,165 watts for 35 miles and can capture 10,850 and get 34 miles back is that not a very good success? If i can keep duplicating it then a home run. (not saying actual values just an example)

but again I knew when a shared you people here would try to silence me and not beleive but expected me to admit if I was wrong -- but when not you act this way.

and I'm not getting into critiquing my trailer design it work all that matters only better as we refine it by fall.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> the customer ion the real marektplace is the only view I care about.


So what the hell are you doing here?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> too bad we don't live 150 years back when you could still dual, you talk your nonsense, be dead would't you with your nonsense??? Yeah you would.


just making clear here you are considering killing me because you make crazy claims that you can't support. is that about right? 320 miles HAHAHA

no, really, I don't think you would duel me, you give yourself too much credit. you would shoot me in the back, unannounced, and call it a successful duel.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> (not saying actual values just an example)


So you can sell your shit with BS examples of BS data to dupe some poor schmuck that does not know? Nice. 

Love your work ethic.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

dcb said:


> just making clear here you are considering killing me because you make crazy claims that you can't support. is that about right? 320 miles HAHAHA
> 
> no, really, I don't think you would duel me, you give yourself too much credit. you would shoot me in the back, unannounced, and call it a successful duel.


 No no, he would start the duel in the traditional way. Back to back. But then instead of taking several paces, turning and firing he would take one step and fire without turning. He would aim towards the horizon allowing the gravitational pull of the earth to put the bullet into orbit. The bullet would then completly circumnavigate the globe using small solar panels forged into the lead. But then it would hit him in the back......because he is so far off the mark.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> that the 135 was an anomaly malfunctioning quessomter and didn't use it a base point. ...


Yet this is what you had to say about the 135 whr/mile figure. 



iainventor said:


> well that's what my EV Ford Focus Electric Quessomter showed in real time, it was all over the place first few miles but after about 35-50 miles levels out *pretty accurate* to what i shared. Maybe one reason is there is no transmission direct to wheels from EV motor .
> 
> And that was very gently accelerating from 0-35 that's where the loss is staring from a stop. But just maintaining the speed of 35 mph on cruise control when up to speed.
> 
> and that was with everything batteries, trailer with alternators, Level 2 chargers, inverter, and all that stuff plus myself and curb weight of my 2013 Ford focus and all this stuff equals 5,350 Lbs 2426.71 KG and constant velocity 51.3 ft/sec or 15.6 m/sec grade for sure is avg < 1% .


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> So what the hell are you doing here?


Thought this was a place to share ideas not get bullied not saying i cant take care of myself. When I first started reading this thread thought I would see about it since it had alternators in the title. 

Felt from reading earlier post <130 post saw your were pretty mean and maybe not right in all your intellectual glory . I hate to see anyone tell me or others we are wrong when they do not know by experience. 

Shared 3xxx watt hrs/mile and that we made 11,165 watt hrs of power - keep hearing bullshit you kept asking i finally share even say may be fluke too soon but it is what it is. 

Must say you guys are a very welcoming group to outsiders onegreenev dont give up your radilogy job yet keep ev as a hobby.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Yet this is what you had to say about the 135 whr/mile figure.


yeah it is what it is, get over it major tired of answering your BS. I did share what happened that's it for now. Proves though ecven with 3xx power consumption when producing and consuming can fly higher.

Alos proves you had no intention of honoring what I had to say anyways I answered don't like nothing I can do.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> And I am not saying over unity am I?


yes, numerous times you have invented energy out of thin air, yes, %100 yes. that is where your 320 mile zenn with alternators in tow came from.



iainventor said:


> I am saying can come close to unity gain can possibly approach it but if I consume 11,165 watts for 35 miles and can capture 10,850 and get 34 miles back is that not a very good success? If i can keep duplicating it then a home run. (not saying actual values just an example)


you don't use negotiation tactics with (over)unity, you can't simply keep making up shit and have your alternators (and everything else) suddenly become %99.999999 efficient. we WILL be critiquing the design as that is %100 relevant to efficiency and how close one can approach it.

You still don't seem to know what heat is or have a complete (or basic) understanding of all the losses involved here. You are incredibly sloppy about efficiency, you made a couple tweaks based on feedback here, but you are obviously in some desperate situation where you need something to be true that isn't. 

That is a personal problem, not our problem.

you might as well say 1+1=3 and get upset when people don't believe you, seriously. 

taking power from the motor to power an alternator trailer IS A LOSING PROPOSITION!

insinuating death threats while complaining about being silenced, even trying to use the moderators to silence others, you fucktard. You need to wake up, and quick. you are free to say whatever you want AND SO AM I! did you wake up on the tumblerina side of bed this morning?

Every single thing you have accused us of, has been %100 projection.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

galderdi said:


> No no, he would start the duel in the traditional way. Back to back. But then instead of taking several paces, turning and firing he would take one step and fire without turning. He would aim towards the horizon allowing the gravitational pull of the earth to put the bullet into orbit. The bullet would then completly circumnavigate the globe using small solar panels forged into the lead. But then it would hit him in the back......because he is so far off the mark.


but at least dueling in those days cut back on idots speaking bull shit I think i would take my changes with most all of you. Especially dcb how close you live to IA come over here and say your shit to my face and see what happens. I wait if it takes awhile.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

galderdi said:


> No no, he would start the duel in the traditional way. Back to back. But then instead of taking several paces, turning and firing he would take one step and fire without turning. He would aim towards the horizon allowing the gravitational pull of the earth to put the bullet into orbit. The bullet would then completly circumnavigate the globe using small solar panels forged into the lead. But then it would hit him in the back......because he is so far off the mark.


BCD No all I said was in the old days kept people from saying things thats might of wished they wouldn't with consequences. I n no way threatened to kill you just pointed out that dueling cut down on that kind of thing. I wouldn't even think of that waste of time.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> but at least dueling in those days cut back on idots speaking bull shit I think i would take my changes with most all of you. Especially dcb how close you live to IA come over here and say your shit to my face and see what happens. I wait if it takes awhile.


like I said, accusing me of stalking was you projecting.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> So you can sell your shit with BS examples of BS data to dupe some poor schmuck that does not know? Nice.
> 
> Love your work ethic.


Where can I read that never said anything of the sort.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

You really shoudl stop posting now for your own good. You wouldn't want soemone to steal your idea and there is no way to proove it without openning up the technology behind it. Continuing to post is just going to build on the angst.

Assuming you are on to something you should be focused on getting patents.

Then get a university to perform some thorough testing with established/accepted constraints, processes and outcomes.

Then you will be famous and we will all hear about it.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Where can I read that never said anything of the sort.


to use your own "logic", he is under no obligation to give you that information. He must be right though.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> like I said, accusing me of stalking was you projecting.


Projecting?? Did you or did you not look at my Facebook page on a totally different post than what I shared? Why did you go back and look around then if not stalking me after the first visit then? Or what would you call repeated visits to someone FB page your not friends with at all then?
The link to the FUCK YOU FUCK RESPONCE TOwards me was never shared here sorry.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> yeah it is what it is, get over it major tired of answering your BS. I did share what happened that's it for now. Proves though ecven with 3xx power consumption when producing and consuming can fly higher.


So what is the real number, watt hours per mile at 35mph constant speed without charging? Your 3xx comes out to 319 whr/mile at 35 mph while charging. You still haven't stated the measured alternator output for that test. What were the measured amps and voltage?

It's looking like pulling the trailer charging lead-acid batteries while going 35 miles in an hour more than doubles the energy consumption for that distance (35miles) so would cut over 35 miles range from the primary battery on the EV compared to driving without the trailer. So the proposition of using charge produced from the trailer in tow to recharge the main battery to get an additional 34 miles is a loser. In other words, drag this trailer so you can sit idle for hours to recharge to go a distance you would have been able to drive straight through had you not used the trailer.

No thanks,

major


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

galderdi said:


> You really shoudl stop posting now for your own good. You wouldn't want soemone to steal your idea and there is no way to proove it without openning up the technology behind it. Continuing to post is just going to build on the angst.
> 
> Assuming you are on to something you should be focused on getting patents.
> 
> ...


I somewhat agree, just answering a few questions but enough of it. Plan on using Auburn University they have a test track and do controlled mpg testing rolling resistance test and many others. 

Please then everybody hold it ion a little longer until Zenn Setup is complete and do more refining.

I again found your DIY site since building EV and such , found this thread and went south from there.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

you mean this? when I was trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about?
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184713

the exact same trailer we are discussing here? it isn't relevant how? this discussion is an extension of that thread!


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

iainventor said:


> but at least dueling in those days cut back on idots speaking bull shit I think i would take my changes with most all of you. Especially dcb how close you live to IA come over here and say your shit to my face and see what happens. I wait if it takes awhile.


OK Duncan, hasn't this gone on long enough. We got death threats. We got some very dubious commercial products apparently fobbed on to us (oh, sorry, not us-others that can be more easily duped). This person seems to have no idea what can happen, or really doesn't care what happens, when you flat out lie to people about a product you're trying to sell to them. I for one do not want to be anywhere near this person, internet or otherwise, when the charges of fraud and the lawsuits start to fly.

With his mentality I could see him saying: "the patent office gave me a patent for it so I thought it was a good idea and would work". Or, in the case of the other forum people: " I ran it by the DIY forum people, and they were unable to convince me that it would not work", as if it were our fault.

I think it's time to pull the plug.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I got whiplash from how quick he went from victim to bully.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> So what is the real number, watt hours per mile at 35mph constant speed without charging? Your 3xx comes out to 319 whr/mile at 35 mph while charging. You still haven't stated the measured alternator output for that test. What were the measured amps and voltage?
> 
> It's looking like pulling the trailer charging lead-acid batteries while going 35 miles in an hour more than doubles the energy consumption for that distance (35miles) so would cut over 35 miles range from the primary battery on the EV compared to driving without the trailer. So the proposition of using charge produced from the trailer in tow to recharge the main battery to get an additional 34 miles is a loser. In other words, drag this trailer so you can sit idle for hours to recharge to go a distance you would have been able to drive straight through had you not used the trailer.
> 
> ...


Thats your opinion but if can put it back in as I am going then it doesn't matter that much does it. If get 35 miles in battery and can put back in 30 miles back that means 7 x the original so 245 miles city driving be ideal for UBER or LYFT be a winner in my book. Bolt on kit all fitting under EV 

But sure isn't the 6xx that you all thought it would be enough said .

But here is what really happens the K-Loop(TM).


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> Where can I read that never said anything of the sort.





> the customer ion the real marektplace is the only view I care about.


If you gave a shit about your selling your product you'd actually test it.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Thats your opinion


that is pretty much the consensus here (and anywhere that people have studied and observed the physical universe), not just his opinion.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

electro wrks said:


> OK Duncan, hasn't this gone on long enough. We got death threats. We got some very dubious commercial products apparently fobbed on to us (oh, sorry, not us-others that can be more easily duped). This person seems to have no idea what can happen, or really doesn't care what happens, when you flat out lie to people about a product you're trying to sell to them. I for one do not want to be anywhere near this person, internet or otherwise, when the charges of fraud and the lawsuits start to fly.
> 
> With his mentality I could see him saying: "the patent office gave me a patent for it so I thought it was a good idea and would work". Or, in the case of the other forum people: " I ran it by the DIY forum people, and they were unable to convince me that it would not work", as if it were our fault.
> 
> I think it's time to pull the plug.


*Electroworks, * I did not at all threaten where do you get death threat? Really?? I just said come over to IA maybe I could convince him if he saw it right in front of his face. But the dueling stuff was just that making a reference to how things like this used to be handled *I did not interpret this as any threat in real time. Nor was it intended as such when I wrote it.
*
What fraud am i committing when it gets to market all this will be proven out, it will do what I say it does or wont sell it, people wouldn't buy it or no sense selling it if it doesnt work and have to take them back. 

Just wondering I am more than willing to show the ZENN real time charging soon.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> But sure isn't the 6xx that you all thought it would be enough said .
> ...


I'd be happy to reevaluate my calculations. Please give me the measured voltage and current from the total alternator system going to charge the lead-acid batteries while driving at 35mph. This is the third time I've requested that data. I doubt that you were generating 770 amperes to charge the batteries like you thought. 

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> no I remember saying that
> ...
> 2.0 would say overwhelming success not share actual results because you guys wouldn't believe it anyways.





brian_ said:


> ...
> If it is successful, then you can share the actual results which demonstrate that... I would think that you would be proud to do so. If you don't share the actual results, but only claim "overwhelming success" without supporting data, any reasonable person would assume that you are lying (out of greed in an attempt to sell a fraudulent device, or embarrassment at failure). The fix is easy: *just share the results*.





dcb said:


> there are no results, it is %100 bullshit.


There are, of course, no successful results at this time.

I was addressing the hypothetical case in which success is achieved and he would not share the results. The point is that claiming success is not an alternative to presenting results.

If everyone were to insist on clear objective and quantitative results rather than just confident claims of success - that means even iainventor insisting on real fuel consumption data for the truck refrigeration system - a lot less time and effort would be wasted by people with false hope for their schemes.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> If you gave a shit about your selling your product you'd actually test it.


O I plan to just that in order of time I may be 6 months from that point even now but L-Loop(TM) selling soon without wheel will do much for 80 mile commute for modern EV's My 2013 cant do that without my add on. 

Still thing from predominately city driving adding Kinetic to that is the answer for even further range. 

Don't worry about it nothing is getting sold without proving testing validation and beta customers who need to be extreme with their testing use for us.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... proving my theory more velocity less cumulative drag since kinetic energy increases and trailer drag stays constant...


The kinetic energy does increase in proportion with the square of velocity, but that is irrelevant since that kinetic energy is not used by the alternator trailer at constant speed: no change in speed means no release of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle.

The drag force increases approximately with the square of speed, but even if you ignore that and pretend that there is only rolling drag (which is roughly constant with speed), the power absorbed by that constant drag increases in direct proportion to speed.

It is not possible to effectively understand the situation if you don't understand these fundamental components.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> What fraud am i committing when it gets to market all this will be proven out


why doesn't that argument hold for the mcdonalds truck? Why aren't these reefers all over the road?

and why doesn't a tesla PxD just regen one axle all the time if it results in a gain? (hint, it results in a loss)

why can't you think critically about any of this?

goodnight james, don't be a psycho.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... I want to see if duplicatable could of been an outlier anomaly. Think out of anyone here you would agree with that...


Yes, ensuring that results are repeatable is very good. 
I was responding to your promise not to share final results. If you have reconsidered that and will share data proving final results when it is available, that's important progress.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... but think about it for the nanosecond your brain can handle the truth for a wahile.


Back to insults - that's not constructive.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Thats your opinion but if can put it back in as I am going then it doesn't matter that much does it. If get 35 miles in battery and can put back in 30 miles back that means 7 x the original so 245 miles city driving be ideal for UBER or LYFT be a winner in my book. Bolt on kit all fitting under EV
> ...


I guess I have to explain:

The EV has a 70 mile range at 35mph. Put the charge trailer on and it will only go 35 miles. Use the charged lead-acid battery to charge the EV's primary battery. Go 30 miles further. Total is 35 miles + 30 miles = 65 miles. That's 5 miles less than the 70 mile original range.

Now drive that 30 miles with the trailer charger going. Guess what? It'll only go 15 miles. So really the range with the trailer and recharge is 35 + 15 = 50 miles or 20 miles less than the original non-trailer EV range, unless of course you left the trailer behind after you charged.

So, where's this good idea of yours?

major


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Back to insults - that's not constructive.


I probably wouldn't be this way but look at this thread and see how many have been hurled at me ?????


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> I guess I have to explain:
> 
> The EV has a 70 mile range at 35mph. Put the charge trailer on and it will only go 35 miles. Use the charged lead-acid battery to charge the EV's primary battery. Go 30 miles further. Total is 35 miles + 30 miles = 65 miles. That's 5 miles less than the 70 mile original range.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily you have been doing alot of assuming guessing and do not know what I have learned. Wait for ZENN all I am going to say. Still more than the zero you thought it would. Your the one if I remember that assumed everything would be 550 watt hrs/mile or more much greater you missed that 1 didn't you? 

Please quit trying to figure it out until then. Zenn test soon. 

thanks


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> Still thing from predominately city driving adding Kinetic to that is the answer for even further range.
> ...


You really, really should learn what kinetic energy is and basic physics involved with motion, mass and dynamics. Your English or writing "style" is so bad I can't be sure of the meaning, but I think you have it backwards. 

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> just like the mcdonald's distribution center, you said you didn't say you didn't believe it. Yet at same time in that post said these people should run these things past experts, why you make that statement then if you believed the no measurable fuel loss from kinetic energy harvesting to power the reefer?


Just to be very clear: I am not speaking for anyone else, but I don't believe it.

More specifically, I _do_ believe that the former VP of the trucking company (Caspers) made a rash statement, apparently to a reporter (although perhaps just to someone at Wedway) and repeated to iainventor, that the drag of the trailer-mounted generator caused no additional fuel consumption by the truck which was towing that trailer. I do believe that iainventor is earnestly and sincerely pursuing what appears to be an opportunity based on that statement. What I _don't_ believe is that Caspers did objective testing or had a qualified professional assess the data.

Caspers does not have any reference to this system on their website, even though such a system - if genuinely successful - would give them a great story to promote their environmental performance. It would, if it existed, likely be shared by McDonald's as well as part of their message about corporate environmental responsibility.

My guess is that the system was not worthwhile because it required too much battery capacity on the trailer to get through periods during which the trailer was stationary, negating the advantage of not needing an engine or fuel tank on the trailer. Energy consumption was claimed as an advantage by the system supplier (a company which has since disappeared), but would never have been a meaningful factor in an assessment of the system.

It's this sort of fraudulent scheme which is harmful because it misleads people into wasting their resources and having unrealistic expectations which drives them away from truly beneficial technology with more modest (but honest) claims. To be fair to Caspers, I'm sure that they were sincerely looking for a better system, and just didn't find it.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Not necessarily you have been doing alot of assuming guessing and do not know what I have learned. Wait for ZENN all I am going to say. Still more than the zero you thought it would. Your the one if I remember that assumed everything would be 550 watt hrs/mile or more much greater you missed that 1 didn't you?


For the forth time, what was the alternator output power? Without that you have no idea if I was right or wrong with 550 whr/mile. I used 770 amps for that calculation. That was the information from you. What was the measured current during the test?

major


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

> Just wondering I am more than willing to show the ZENN real time charging soon.


Then just zip it and get on with showing it. We can wait. All here would love to see it work. But physics just says it won't work like you say. But we are still willing to wait if you are really willing to show.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> And all those faulty assumption 550 -700 watt hrs/mile everyone thinks they atre smart I quess with mob mentality dont make it right...


The constructive and effective way to combat assumptions which you believe to be faulty is to replace them with objective data. That means measured values from repeatable test conditions.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... many mensa wannibiees here on DIY if you wer so smart you would have seen things the way I do.


How about trying qualifying for Mensa, or just taking a Mensa workout, just to see if you have a basis for claiming to be more intelligent than everyone else. I have no delusions about this - I would not expect to make the cut.

I'm not interested in challenging anyone's intelligence, but I will challenge misinformation and invalid arguments. My response is not to claim higher intelligence, but to present factual arguments. Others may not have chosen the same approach, but might want to try it.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

brian_ said:


> The constructive and effective way to combat assumptions which you believe to be faulty is to replace them with objective data. That means measured values from repeatable test conditions.


And do so more than once or twice so you can show its repeatable. Well said Brian.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

kennybobby said:


> Checking your math here--seems a bit low.
> 
> i find diesel rated at 139,000 BTU/gallon (energy content of one gallon)...


The explanation for the difference is likely that 139,000 BTU/gallon is the Higher Heating Value (HHV), and for an engine the relevant value is the Lower Heating Value (LHV). The HHV can only be used if the combustion products are cool enough to condense the water vapour, releasing the heat of vapourization. The exhaust (in the cylinder at the end of the power stroke) of a diesel engine at a practical compression ratio cannot be that low.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ...thought though you guys are nothing but cyber bullies anyhow.


If you read the rest of the forum, particularly the many threads of people asking for and getting substantial assistance in their projects, you would know that DIY Electric Car is not about bullying anyone.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> I did not ask fro money wouldn't take from strangers anyways. So don't give yourself that kind of credit. Who is the delusional one now? Where when did I ask fro anything. O h yeah thats right never.


You are explicitly planning to sell a system to consumers, who would be strangers from whom you would take money.

Even though those customers would not likely include anyone in this discussion, it may include other forum members, and no matter who the customer is some of us are interested in protecting those people from scams. If you were to sell the system without objective testing, or after unsuccessful testing, that would be a scam. I believe - as I have repeatedly said - that objective testing will demonstrate that the system is fundamentally flawed, and so you will not sell it... so no one will be asked for money.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Ok you may be right but that also the consumption average empty class 8 at 34,000 ponds 5.6 mpg loaded 46,000 pound drag 0.1 mpg difference the reefer battery electric kinetic system would be a rounding error that's where I get efficiencies when efficiencies increase to where wheel generator drag less than 0.005 range.


No matter how small the numbers - even if you want to ignore them - the additional energy consumption to drive the alternators of the KEV/K-Loop/L-Loop/whatever will exceed the energy produced by them. Since there is no purpose for the system unless it has a gain, it doesn't matter how small it is compared to the fuel consumption of a truck.

The small scale does not help the efficiency.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> And I am not saying over unity am I? I am saying can come close to unity gain can possibly approach it but if I consume 11,165 watts for 35 miles and can capture 10,850 and get 34 miles back is that not a very good success? If i can keep duplicating it then a home run.


That's a pretty fundamental point, because it looks like you're asking if a system which consumes more energy than it produces is successful, because it didn't consume much more than it produces. The answer is obviously 'no'. Reproducing this waste of energy reliably just changes the answer to 'definitely no'.

Perhaps you meant something else. I suggest trying again, with sensible values and units. A power level for a distance is not meaningful, because the time is not given and so the amount of energy is unknown.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> If you read the rest of the forum, particularly the many threads of people asking for and getting substantial assistance in their projects, you would know that DIY Electric Car is not about bullying anyone.


Sure seemed like it when started reading this thread -- maybe your not but some guys here seem clearly mean hearted -- about some motors and other stuff. think they drove a few guys off for sure around page 120 or so.

Just like have you all ever heard of Papp Motor http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html it had some merit, actually i know persoanlly 2 old men in their 70's men here in iowa who built and machined parts for this guy. They say 100% worked i saw a video think something 350 ft/lbs torque at 200 rpm.

Now this guy was selfish as they say compartimilized the parts noone but him knew how it all worked. They raised millions, he had cancer took it to the grave with him. 

maybe perhaps everyone here could be slightly wrong and there are other forces that we know nothing about yet that could transform things. Like for instance a few years ago a man put high wattage radio wave through water and the water started on fire no bs .

I'm not arguing any of this exists but could, or how did Tesla make electricity travel through airwaves or do you think that was a hoax too? 

Enough said. I am going to work on ZENN and I am glad law enforcement agreed to follow me on this testing document everything no slight of hand, and gps tracking to make sure never stop near an available source of power.

I may have figured this out Major thinks 34 miles for 35 driven is bad and doesn't believe the watts hrs a mile dropped as my velocity increased and at highway speeds 8x the kinetic energy of 30 mph. 

no more questions for me then so I can focus on this save it for the final report.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Sure seemed like it when started reading this thread -- maybe your not but some guys here seem clearly mean hearted -- about some motors and other stuff. think they drove a few guys off for sure around page 120 or so.
> 
> Just like have you all ever heard of Papp Motor http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html it had some merit, actually i know persoanlly 2 old men in their 70's men here in iowa who built and machined parts for this guy. They say 100% worked i saw a video think something 350 ft/lbs torque at 200 rpm.
> 
> ...


Brian though 1 question for you that can possibly save me some problems i trust you that you will give me the right answer.

When wiring Zenn can i charge each battery in parallel and wire in series at same time?
So each battery all 6 in my nominal 72 volt systems could wire 6 batteries series for that voltage?

And still bring a 12 V + and 12 V - to each post on each 12 volt battery so have the alternators power onto a grounding bar and negative ground to trailer and batteries on another grounding bar. 

So I can just run a common wire to each 12 volt battery right? both the common ground and alternator power + wire to each battery? But can really charge in parallel and power Zenn in series? 

Think someone thought I was going to put 6 alternators in series then would need an isolated ground for each alternator to wire alternators in series. 

first alternator ground wire left for - power and the + alternator to next alternator to the negative terminal on 2nd alternator with separate ground correct?

Thanks in advance


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

brian_ said:


> You are explicitly planning to sell a system to consumers, who would be strangers from whom you would take money.
> 
> Even though those customers would not likely include anyone in this discussion, it may include other forum members, and no matter who the customer is some of us are interested in protecting those people from scams. If you were to sell the system without objective testing, or after unsuccessful testing, that would be a scam. I believe - as I have repeatedly said - that objective testing will demonstrate that the system is fundamentally flawed, and so you will not sell it... so no one will be asked for money.


yeah will be selling and only if the range is acceptable later on. They really do not need your protection again the market place and product viability is key to me. 

If I do not have a viable product wont sell it. But in previous life i have accomplished many things that experts said couldn't be done like designing molds for crash testing of my carseat stroller I used to make the first time. Passing 100 + page FMV Standard first time through, solved a linkage problem for this stroller. Took a look at a product a team of 6 degreed engineers had been stuck for a few month. Saw their problem and solved it quick from Friday to Monday had a working prototype that did what they wanted. Last year solved a problem for another small company where other had failed. 

This is a link to a website showing for reference values what i have made. The stroller carseat http://showcase.netins.net/web/jdierick/SnGModel100-c.html Please do not order 1 complicated to refund the money back through paypal. 

I am usually 99 % right when I see a vision for a product in my mind first all have worked, so up until now all have worked. No different here wait until Zenn equipped with Wheel Generator to see if i could get the needed range. 

But thank God the market likes my L-loop(TM) without wheels. Been getting new inquiries all this last week. Even tonight. i know some had said it sucks dumb ect but best game in town right now. 

Please don't ask me questions until I come back so i can focus on all that is going on. But brian please answer my question so I can start to wire the Zenn tomorrow. 

1 other thing is there a way to insert a spreadsheet excel sheet here?

Thanks


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Just like have you all ever heard of Papp Motor http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html it had some merit, actually i know persoanlly 2 old men in their 70's men here in iowa who built and machined parts for this guy. They say 100% worked i saw a video think something 350 ft/lbs torque at 200 rpm.


bullshit, Richard Feynman watched it first hand. A simple electric motor, with a battery built in so it can run for a little bit without being plugged in. now here is the important part, Papp rigged it to explode so he wouldn't have to deliver a prototype, but killed one person and injured 2 (and cashed in). I can't help but think of your kin running around your half assed battery->single phase inverter->dual single phase motors->gen head->3 phase motor with all kinds of disregard for things like alignment and a major case of desperation.

http://hoaxes.org/comments/papparticle2.html



iainventor said:


> no more questions for me then so I can focus on this save it for the final report.


how are these law enforcement people qualified for detecting energy hoaxes? There are a MILLION questions, like what the hell are you testing? If your final report is anything like we have already seen, it will be garbage.

I'm about back to just a constant stream of fuck you at this point. you truly think we are all idiots, here to help you in your scam by being silent and nodding politely. So, yah, fuck you. your mental problems are your own, we aren't here to validate your feelings by denying basic physics. You are just a cut rate manipulator, constantly looking for anything to whine about to keep the spotlight off this hunk of junk.

You wanted our attention, you got it. Now don't screw up the primer fuse timing...


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

dcb said:


> bullshit, Richard Feynman watched it first hand. A simple electric motor, with a battery built in so it can run for a little bit without being plugged in. now here is the important part, Papp rigged it to explode so he wouldn't have to deliver a prototype, but killed one person and injured 2 (and cashed in). I can't help but think of your kin running around your half assed battery->single phase inverter->dual single phase motors->gen head->3 phase motor with all kinds of disregard for things like alignment and a major case of desperation.
> 
> http://hoaxes.org/comments/papparticle2.html
> 
> ...


Think about it they would have to observe if I powered it somehow or if i just kept driving and having them observe me driving? Or dcb do you think I can somehow transmitted electricity to my Zenn if i have nowhere to charge over time say 2 hours or more how could it run then when it does?? 

Do you know this Richard Feynman personally the way you wrote it like you were there?

And do not care if you do not like my VFD 3 Phase design it cost a lot less than many EV kit controllers no matter if with wheel generator or not. Simple off the shelf stuff to do proof of concept with.

Why you keep attacking me about that stuff not part of the current discussion and again this post on my facebook page a year old already so back to stalking then? Why you got to bring my kids into this they have seen that drive work . 

I just said what they witnessed with their own eyes take it or leave it. But didn't hear that side from them, Papp said' he needed the 110 VAC cord plugged in to control the rpms of his motor, that what these guys said, and how could he get the torque from a 110 VAC socket anyways most 2000 watts at 110 VAC ? Then they said the DOE guy pulled the plug on the wall power and then machine took off so fast that the piston went through the side of the block. Why am I telling you this you now it all already right?

By the way though dcb what gives yo the right to be the way you are with your fuck yo fuck you rants . Just again thought you were mean rude and all to the guy who thought he had a new motor on around page 120 or so. I never came here to have you evaluate the things I have made do not need your approval at all. I just shared what i have done and haven'y gone way maybe that's I sign I believe what I am talking about and what i have seen. But save it for later. 

But please do not reply anymore like i asked no more question no more answers until i get Zenn done , Brian's answer is what i am looking for.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> When wiring Zenn can i charge each battery in parallel and wire in series at same time?


No. But you can charge individual batteries which are wired in series simultaneously only if each charger or alternator is isolated. This is called modular charging. We've discussed it a number of times on the forum.

A few years ago I installed a modular charging system in a friend's 72V Gem. I used two Minn Kota MK330 chargers.

https://www.minnkotamotors.com/Products/MK-330PC/


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> No. But you can charge individual batteries which are wired in series simultaneously only if each charger or alternator is isolated. This is called modular charging. We've discussed it a number of tomes on the forum.
> 
> A few years ago I installed a modular charging system in a friend's 72V Gem. I used two Minn Kota MK330 chargers.
> 
> https://www.minnkotamotors.com/Products/MK-330PC/


OK thanks may be too complicated. may take my 3-4% loss and create a dc/dc converter from 14.5 input to 84.5 VDC output each module 10-90 VDC at 600 watts have 20 or so laying around that might be easier.

Or Major are you saying I need to insulate the alternator and hardware in alternators from frame of trailer? then use the alternator case as an above ground ground? and wire each of the 6 batteries separately then ? each exciter wire switched to each battery the alternator and alternator case grounded to negative on each battery?

Thanks for answering my question.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I was away for the weekend and now that I'm back I thought I'd have a bit of entertainment in this discussion. Wow, something like 10 pages! There has yet to be any well-defined data - just assertions and desperate beliefs and hopes propped up by a wonky guess-o-meter and approximations and goofy units with made-up math and "alternate facts".

As to the question of wiring alternators and batteries in series or parallel, the very fact that it is a question tells much about "IAinventor's" (lack of) knowledge of basic electrical principles and physics. I mentioned this some time ago, and even provided a source for an inexpensive meter that could measure voltage, current, watts, and watt-hours. A data logger would be even better, but not needed for the purpose of (in)validating the claims being made. But good instrumentation exposes the truth, and people who make outlandish claims "can't handle the truth". 

Back to the alternator wiring - if each alternator will supply 100+ amps, there should be separate circuits from each to its own battery to charge properly. #6 AWG wire can handle 100 amps, but it has about 0.4 milliohms per foot, so a ten foot circuit will have a voltage drop of about 0.4 volts at 100 amps. That is significant when charging 12V lead-acid batteries, and represents heat loss of 40 watts. 

It is possible to wire the batteries in series for nominal 72 volts to match the NEV pack, but the alternator frames would need to be isolated. It would be better to use more efficient DC generators, and a 90 volt treadmill motor would be ideal because it could charge all 6 batteries in series.

Enough of this for now. Waiting for actual test data...


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> Think about it


fuck you, of course I've thought about it, and there are numerous tricks to be had. my guess is you want witnesses to whatever spectacle you have planned for an excuse, because that is what your hungarian hero would do.



iainventor said:


> Do you know this Richard Feynman personally the way you wrote it like you were there?


I'll take a first hand account from a respected physicist over hearsay from a guy with a lying problem anyday.



iainventor said:


> And do not care if you do not like my VFD 3 Phase design it cost a lot less than many EV kit controllers no matter if with wheel generator or not. Simple off the shelf stuff to do proof of concept with.


what "concept" where you proofing? you have a 1000 pound 5 hp inverter. Did you even bother to measure wattage? do you even know how to measure wattage?




iainventor said:


> Why you got to bring my kids into this they have seen that drive work .


you, being the manipulator you are, brought them in.



iainventor said:


> But please do not reply anymore like i asked no more question no more answers until i get Zenn done , Brian's answer is what i am looking for.


try answering some questions yourself sometime, because you are the one being extremely rude (aka projecting). And maybe stop stalking. Everything I've mentioned has been a direct result of your recent spewings.

so shut up and do whatever it is you are going to do, or don't. nobody here cares or expects anything from you anymore. It isn't like you answer direct and simple questions anyway. So set up your little stunt with the cops as witnesses and report back with wild speculation about how the eclipse interfered with it or other nonesense. Just try not to kill anyone while perpetuating your hoax, ok?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> OK thanks may be too complicated. may take my 3-4% loss and create a dc/dc converter from 14.5 input to 84.5 VDC output each module 10-90 VDC at 600 watts have 20 or so laying around that might be easier.
> 
> Or Major are you saying I need to insulate the alternator and hardware in alternators from frame of trailer? then use the alternator case as an above ground ground? and wire each of the 6 batteries separately then ? each exciter wire switched to each battery the alternator and alternator case grounded to negative on each battery?
> 
> Thanks for answering my question.


You're the inventor. I'm not designing it for you. I said each alternator must be electrically isolated (insulated) ( from each other). And yes, it becomes cumbersome when using grounded equipment.

You don't believe the other things I post. Why start now? Just try to wire your second alternator to the series connected battery and see what happens. You say that is the only method of learning which you use.

major



> Thanks for answering my question.


BTW, in return for me answering your question, please answer mine. For the fifth time, what was the measured output (V & amps) from the alternators during the test? You state as shown below but 11165w is obviously calculated (7 * 110A * 14.5V) and not measured.



iainventor said:


> that the 135 was an anomaly malfunctioning quessomter and didn't use it a base point.
> 
> But the rate 3xx power consumption to put back in 11,165 watts. ...


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Enough said. I am going to work on ZENN and I am glad law enforcement agreed to follow me on this testing document everything no slight of hand, and gps tracking to make sure never stop near an available source of power.
> 
> I may have figured this out Major thinks 34 miles for 35 driven is bad and doesn't believe the watts hrs a mile dropped as my velocity increased and at highway speeds 8x the kinetic energy of 30 mph.


I sure hope law enforcement personnel do this on their own time. I hate to think they would take time from appointed duties of serving and protecting (from terrorists) to observe your contraption. Good news: it won't run very long.

And where do you get off telling me and the rest of the world what I think. What I think is between God and myself until I tell you. And what you say about it is way off base. I explained it to you twice but you just don't get it. And I never said anything with regards to your contention that going faster uses less energy. I'm not touching that one.

major


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Sure seemed like it when started reading this thread -- maybe your not but some guys here seem clearly mean hearted -- about some motors and other stuff. think they drove a few guys off for sure around page 120 or so.
> ...


Just for the record I checked that and it was member username midastouch. Yes. He was definitely a fee energy nutjob. Not that there is anything wrong with that. That is why this thread exists. But he went off the deep end and started abusing other members and became extremely vulgar on other threads to the point where he had to be banned and a thread or two deleted. In my entire time here I've seen three banned. He is a poor example for you to use. Midastouch even claimed to have conversations with Tesla's mother. You haven't spoken with her, have you?

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Sure seemed like it when started reading this thread -- maybe your not but some guys here seem clearly mean hearted -- about some motors and other stuff. think they drove a few guys off for sure around page 120 or so.


The same people who may seem mean in this discussion have been very helpful in other discussions, where the new member is willing to listen and to learn.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Just like have you all ever heard of Papp Motor http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html it had some merit, actually i know persoanlly 2 old men in their 70's men here in iowa who built and machined parts for this guy. They say 100% worked i saw a video think something 350 ft/lbs torque at 200 rpm.
> 
> Now this guy was selfish as they say compartimilized the parts noone but him knew how it all worked. They raised millions, he had cancer took it to the grave with him.


Any website called "infinite energy" seemed immediately ridiculous, but to be fair I followed the link... and it's just another unfounded and ridiculous story. The article, by an author who is biased to believe in any wild claim, even volunteers that the "inventor" is a fraudulent crackpot. There are corresponding patents (US3680431, US4428193), which only demonstrates the sad descent of the US Patent and Trademark Office into its current role of registering anything which follows the administrative requirements of the application process, no matter how worthless the content... unless, of course, it mentions perpetual motion because a rule was made about that when the USPTO still assessed patents against all of the fundamental requirements for patentability.

If this crackpot's design works, go ahead and build it. The design is contained in the patents, and since the patents have long expired you can use the intellectual property without restriction or obligation. Since no one has done that, it is clearly a pile of bunk.

A battery attached to a demonstration device for an energy-producing scheme is usually a good indication that cheating is underway. 

That was my assessment even before coming back to the forum and reading dcb's wise observation.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ... how did Tesla make electricity travel through airwaves or do you think that was a hoax too?


Nikola Tesla "made electricity travel through airwaves" the way everyone else did, had been doing for several decades before Tesla was born, and still does: apply an AC signal to an antenna. There is no hoax, but also no mystery there; Maxwell mathematically described radio transmission when Tesla was eight years old, and Tesla applied his university education and engineering experience to work with the same theory used by others who were also making the transition from theory and lab experiments to functional radio frequency transmission systems.

Tesla was an eccentric character, with a major streaks of dreamer and con artist, but the designs which he actually developed were simply good science and engineering.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> I sure hope law enforcement personnel do this on their own time. I hate to think they would take time from appointed duties of serving and protecting (from terrorists) to observe your contraption. Good news: it won't run very long.
> 
> And where do you get off telling me and the rest of the world what I think. What I think is between God and myself until I tell you. And what you say about it is way off base. I explained it to you twice but you just don't get it. And I never said anything with regards to your contention that going faster uses less energy. I'm not touching that one.
> 
> major


Major 

I didn't tell what you think, just sharing what you said a few pages earlier?? where you said 34 miles from 35 miles driving wasn't good, you said bad and all. Look back that's what you replied. 

And major don't think it was that guy another guy who said could run a 5 hp motor on a AA battery or something seemed like a lot of guys not saying you were really mean to him IMHO.

And my new batteries to make a complete set for Zenn are ordered but wont be here until Aug 21-22, 2017. Doing updates single wheel on road with pulley connected to drive alternators, wiring everything 4 gauge since got 200 ft lying around. 

done when done but if not here for awhile please don't take it as a sign that I'm wrong . Oh and also the 135 watt hr / mile anomaly no wind at all any direction, and that day 15 mph winds out of South, heading south then east west so directly into wind, and strong cross winds . Even without wheels on my drive west usually 40 miles lose 5-7 miles on windy day. Most wind direction here west to east. 

So for the 135 watt hr/mile I theorize wind resistance higher than wheel drag. Said it alot I even feel too little driving yet to get watt hr/mile true result. But you guys were pressing me shared what I got .


----------



## iti_uk (Oct 24, 2011)

iainventor said:


> And major don't think it was that guy another guy who said could run a 5 hp motor on a AA battery or something seemed like a lot of guys not saying you were really mean to him IMHO.


I can take a shot of whiskey, put it in a pint glass and accurately state that I am able to drink from that pint glass. It doesn't mean I'll get a pint's worth out of it.

It could be possible, given low enough mechanical friction, to make a 5hp motor spin when connected to a single AA battery. The motor will not be creating 5hp in this case.

I'm all for inventors and dreamers coming up with new ideas to propel technology into an exciting future, but there are some things which have been found to be fundamental, which are not held to be true "just because", but because they can be demonstrated repeatably. When someone demonstrates such a lack of basic physics or electronics and yet seems so adamant in presenting testimonial data, it can be hard for those who understand these principles to take the claims seriously.

I'll never say "don't try it", and by all means the best way to learn is through practical experimentation, but please be honest with yourself with regards to the results you find. If you seem to be breaking accepted physical laws, you should be asking yourself "is this result real or is there something I have not accounted for taking place". Of course, there is a chance that you could have really found something significant (in which case, wright a paper and get a patent before someone steals the idea), but chances are that something has been overlooked...

Chris


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> Major
> 
> I didn't tell what you think, ...





iainventor said:


> ... Major thinks ...





iainventor said:


> ...
> And major don't think ...


The rest of the post is gibberish. I have no idea what you're talking about. But for the sixth time, what was the measured output power from the trailer during the test?

major

PS. When you attribute statements to me please include quotes with the source link as I have done above. Otherwise it is just your recollection which is generally erroneous. 



iainventor said:


> Major
> 
> ... you were really mean to him IMHO.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the truth sucks, especially for those living in la la land.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> And my new batteries to make a complete set for Zenn are ordered but wont be here until Aug 21-22, 2017.


That might be interesting, did you find some lithium that was affordable? What did you get? fwiw easily the best electric only range extender, based on tons of experience here, but there are a few things you need to be aware of.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> Major
> 
> And major don't think it was that guy another guy who said could run a 5 hp motor on a AA battery or something seemed like a lot of guys not saying you were really mean to him IMHO.


I have no doubt you could run for a very brief about of time a 5hp DC motor on a single AA battery. But it would not be producing 5hp. 


And neither are the motors in the video shown below. These motors are capable of producing a lot more than 5hp each.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The video shows three DC motors (series wound) running on about 3 VDC and 100 amps from a single 100 A-h lithium cell. Thus the total power is 300 watts, showing that each motor takes something like 50-150 watts just to spin with no load. The losses are probably mostly mechanical, from friction of the bearings and the commutator brushes. The resistance of the wiring and the motor windings may account for about 100 watts, so at 100 amps that would be resistance of 100/100^2 = 0.01 ohms and voltage drop of 1 volt. 

But there is 3 volts applied to the motors, so how can that be? The motors have a BEMF (back EMF) of 2 volts (average) due to their rotation and the movement of conductors through a magnetic field. This is for the benefit of "IAinventor" to help him understand some basic principles. IIRC, "MidasTouch" proposed that BEMF was somehow wasted energy that he wanted to recoup for higher efficiency and possibly over-unity. He proved to be a really nasty nut-job as evidenced around pages 110-120.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> The video shows three DC motors (series wound) running on about 3 VDC and 100 amps from a single 100 A-h lithium cell. Thus the total power is 300 watts, showing that each motor takes something like 50-150 watts just to spin with no load. The losses are probably mostly mechanical, from friction of the bearings and the commutator brushes. The resistance of the wiring and the motor windings may account for about 100 watts, so at 100 amps that would be resistance of 100/100^2 = 0.01 ohms and voltage drop of 1 volt.
> 
> But there is 3 volts applied to the motors, so how can that be? The motors have a BEMF (back EMF) of 2 volts (average) due to their rotation and the movement of conductors through a magnetic field. This is for the benefit of "IAinventor" to help him understand some basic principles. IIRC, "MidasTouch" proposed that BEMF was somehow wasted energy that he wanted to recoup for higher efficiency and possibly over-unity. He proved to be a really nasty nut-job as evidenced around pages 110-120.


just to make myself clear I never agreed with it or said it would work, but that is where I started to read this stuff and think people here were possibly overly meen to him , if he was a nut job that could make his mental health worse possibly???


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> if he was a nut job that could make his mental health worse possibly???


That is a big "if", well really everybody has problems, we just don't have convenient names for all of them. But we don't do that soft-"science" stuff here, because it is chocked full of manipulators. But you have mentioned a few things so make sure you see a therapist about it, there are effective tools out there to help people manage. I don't know what the selection is like in IA but shop around for a CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapist), it all boils down to perspective.

But in the "everybody has problems", I think it is a disservice to treat people differently, and assume that they are too fragile to criticize nonsense ideas. nonsense ideas wreak their own havoc.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

If you have a fragile ego or emotional/mental instability, you should not continue posting and arguing about something that flies against science and logic. Opposition and ridicule are to be expected on a forum that deals with established fact and sound engineering principles, so proceed at your own risk. Everyone has their own threshold of tolerance, and eventually responses may become nasty. It is especially frustrating when someone ignores or dismisses attempts at explanation, and instead perseveres with sloppy assumptions, "alternative facts", and no quantifiable data from careful testing, as has been suggested. Most members have responded with a great deal of patience and far more respect than may be deserved, but it does seem like you are attempting to develop and market something that clearly seems to be a scam, and those with extensive knowledge and experience want to protect those who may be gullible enough to pin their hopes and spend their money on snake oil.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> If you have a fragile ego or emotional/mental instability, you should not continue posting and arguing about something that flies against science and logic. Opposition and ridicule are to be expected on a forum that deals with established fact and sound engineering principles, so proceed at your own risk. Everyone has their own threshold of tolerance, and eventually responses may become nasty. It is especially frustrating when someone ignores or dismisses attempts at explanation, and instead perseveres with sloppy assumptions, "alternative facts", and no quantifiable data from careful testing, as has been suggested. Most members have responded with a great deal of patience and far more respect than may be deserved, but it does seem like you are attempting to develop and market something that clearly seems to be a scam, and those with extensive knowledge and experience want to protect those who may be gullible enough to pin their hopes and spend their money on snake oil.


PStechPaul

No Im not offended take alot more than that, was just saying how I think some people have been a little too hard on someone that they say already is a nut job almost like picking on people because they can. I think picking on special needs people isn't cool.

I do not know how you read I am feeling bad by everyone saying negative things to me, by far the opposite you guys are my motivation to finish and to see alot of people eat some crow on here. but picking on people who are as some have said nut jobs isn't very nice.

cant get a complete set of new batteries until monday then it ZEN time if close to first observations and the 2500 less pounds mass doesn't skew much. then I stand behind my first testing. but we will see. 

that's my take on it, and no Major not sharing my voltage and amp output at this time.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

For the seventh time, what was the measured power from the alternators during your test? You perform the test and claim my prediction (calculation) was way off yet you won't give us the data to substantiate your claim.

major


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> 
> that's my take on it, and no Major not sharing my voltage and amp output at this time.


That's just being mean.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> For the seventh time, what was the measured power from the alternators during your test? You perform the test and claim my prediction (calculation) was way off yet you won't give us the data to substantiate your claim.
> 
> major


major your not believing anyways already. Will share all with ZENN not now yet though until ZENN just wait for the 8th time. thanks though for your advice on series wired and parallel charging. No batteries until monday afternoon 8/21/17. Then rewiring and changing things on trailer a little when done Im done.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

It is obvious to me, and I suspect everybody else following this discussion, or reading it in the future, that your test was a complete failure, as we knew it would be. You won't man-up to it like you promised. 

major


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> It is obvious to me, and I suspect everybody else following this discussion, or reading it in the future, that your test was a complete failure, as we knew it would be. You won't man-up to it like you promised.
> 
> major


I remeber also as I wrote people wouldn't admit it worked no matter the data with it even when data showed it did get what I theorized -- dont know why you keep hashing this out . But will show when done and when done it will be what I wrote a few weeks ago.

And I said it was a fair test and success I think anything above 20 miles captured in my aux batteries for every 35 miles driven.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> I remeber also as I wrote people wouldn't admit it worked no matter the data with it even when data showed it did get what I theorized -- dont know why you keep hashing this out . But will show when done and when done it will be what I wrote a few weeks ago.
> 
> And I said it was a fair test and success I think anything above 20 miles captured in my aux batteries for every 35 miles driven.


Show us the data. You did take data didn't you? Let's look at it. Then we can judge success or failure from the numbers and rational analysis.

major


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ...
> And I said it was a fair test and success I think anything above 20 miles captured in my aux batteries for every 35 miles driven.


That totally depends on how much energy was used to drive the 35 miles and the measured energy put into the aux battery. So show us that data.

major


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Show us the data. You did take data didn't you? Let's look at it. Then we can judge success or failure from the numbers and rational analysis.
> 
> major


I never said it was up to your analysis in the first place go back to 1st message here where I said 1 of 5 things would happen.

For me to see what a good test is, not for you to decide I said over 20 or 22 miles for every 35 driven was successful. 

Its going to be a week yet for sure. Zenn testing will be done charging while driving. if dc/dc convert 4% loss charging.

ttyl

be back when I have new things to share nothing to share until ZENN. NOT ARGUING STUPID HYPOTHETICALS UNTIL THEN. AND NOT SHARING MY FOCUS DATA THAT'S MINE FREE AND CLEAR NO LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION AT ALL TO DO SO SORRY major if you feel different,.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> I never said it was up to your analysis in the first place go back to 1st message here where I said 1 of 5 things would happen.
> 
> For me to see what a good test is, not for you to decide I said over 20 or 22 miles for every 35 driven was successful.
> 
> ...


Only conclusion: Failure.

A few days ago it 34.07 miles for 35 miles driven. Now you say 20 or 22. We've seen how horrendous your math skills are. That's why we want the data.

major


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

i'm willing to wait--get your new batteries and then proceed with testing.

If possible, weigh the Zenn by itself, then later get the combined total weight of Zenn plus alternator trailer.

Also if possible, charge up and drive the Zenn by itself on a little 30-mile loop or so, holding fairly constant speed, and try to get a reading on the consumption, using either the guessometer or with some actual voltage, current or power readings.

Then re-charge the Zenn and record the time and kWh to get it back to full, then make the same loop towing the trailer without using the alternators--just carrying the load of the trailer, etc, and get those same consumption readings.

Now for the test, re-charge the Zenn and record the time and kWh to full, then make the loop towing with the alternators energized and doing their thing to charge the batteries and record the same consumption data. Bonus points if you can also record the alternator voltage and current data during the test. 

Finally, re-charge the Zenn at the end of the test and record time and kWh to full.

It's a lot of work to make the measurements and keep a good log, but it will be very educational for everyone.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> Only conclusion: Failure.
> 
> A few days ago it 34.07 miles for 35 miles driven. Now you say 20 or 22. We've seen how horrendous your math skills are. That's why we want the data.
> 
> major


major , for the 1,000th time , not sure what Zenn will get but in my response where I said I would admit Im wrong , said successful tests would be 20-22 miles equivalent or greater for every 35 miles EV was driven. 

If you think I'm wrong look back 15-20 pages you will see my post. enough said.

I do like kennybobby's approach almost like brian and oneev for testing.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> major , for the 1,000th time , not sure what Zenn will get but in my response where I said I would admit Im wrong , said successful tests would be 20-22 miles equivalent or greater for every 35 miles EV was driven.
> ...





major said:


> That totally depends on how much energy was used to drive the 35 miles and the measured energy put into the aux battery. So show us that data.
> 
> major


It's like this. You don't have a clue as to what you're doing. So why would you be the one to determine the success of the test? We've already established you're a fraud. The only way to prove anything to us is with data. 

major


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Like the tragic characters Vladimir and Estragon in Beckett's' play "Waiting For Godot" we're waiting for something that'll never come. Welcome to the Theatre of the Absurd.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> I remeber also as I wrote people wouldn't admit it worked no matter the data with it even when data showed it did get what I theorized -- dont know why you keep hashing this out . But will show when done and when done it will be what I wrote a few weeks ago.
> 
> And I said it was a fair test and success I think anything above 20 miles captured in my aux batteries for every 35 miles driven.


You do have to show the data and since you are further along at doing something I suggest you finish. It matters not that the test is successful or not. But you have to go into the test with no expectations of success or failure. The base test of driving with the main battery with nothing else attached is to provide a base for all else tested. 

We are not here to just disbelieve you but when there is no solid data to back up claims then we get a bit grumpy. I say don't make claims. Make tests to see if the idea holds up to what it seems like it should. If you were an electronics engineer you would more than likely just do the number crunching and bypass the actual physical testing. But since you are going that route you still need to provide data. The is what testing is all about.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> You do have to show the data and since you are further along at doing something I suggest you finish. It matters not that the test is successful or not. But you have to go into the test with no expectations of success or failure. The base test of driving with the main battery with nothing else attached is to provide a base for all else tested.
> 
> We are not here to just disbelieve you but when there is no solid data to back up claims then we get a bit grumpy. I say don't make claims. Make tests to see if the idea holds up to what it seems like it should. If you were an electronics engineer you would more than likely just do the number crunching and bypass the actual physical testing. But since you are going that route you still need to provide data. The is what testing is all about.


gett ya but will be on my terms when I choose like said earlier. with comments like major and others, I owe him and others nothing , nothing at all, he can call me a fraud don't really care. I never came here to get my invention accepted by anyone , like major and others have the audacity to claim to be exerts and think I need to run anything pasts them is just plain dumb and prideful lofty thinking on their parts. He still not getting this until Zenn.

And as I said a few posts back no question no debate, no answers until Zenn. enough already.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> gett ya but will be on my terms when I choose like said earlier. with comments like major and others, I owe him and others nothing , nothing at all, he can call me a fraud don't really care. I never came here to get my invention accepted by anyone , like major and others have the audacity to claim to be exerts and think I need to run anything pasts them is just plain dumb and prideful lofty thinking on their parts. He still not getting this until Zenn.
> 
> And as I said a few posts back no question no debate, no answers until Zenn. enough already.


Well on that side of all this, you did come here with some rather lofty claims what we already know can't work. It would however be a good thing to actually see someone finish a project. Nothing wrong with a project like this if you are not out to dupe someone but with these types of claims its hard to not think you are out to dupe people. The attitude is key. Major is an expert in his field. I think from what I have heard all along that there is too much lofty prideful thinking and its not from Major or anyone else. We only want those that come here with claims of ......... to be sure that they are aware of our collective knowledge. We are not a bunch of hooligans out to get anyone. We are here to help educate others who want to do Electric Car stuff and we tend to be open and forthright and don't pussy foot around. Be clear. Physics has nothing against you. Understand it and you will SEE. 

I think you should finish the project. I don't expect you will get out of it what you think you will get. The biggest problem is coming at something knowing full well you are right but have not actually done the testing and we have all told you what you should do to get the data we'd like to see. And yes, those making claims are the ones responsible to show the data.


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

onegreenev said:


> Well on that side of all this, you did come here with some rather lofty claims what we already know can't work. It would however be a good thing to actually see someone finish a project. Nothing wrong with a project like this if you are not out to dupe someone but with these types of claims its hard to not think you are out to dupe people. The attitude is key. Major is an expert in his field. I think from what I have heard all along that there is too much lofty prideful thinking and its not from Major or anyone else. We only want those that come here with claims of ......... to be sure that they are aware of our collective knowledge. We are not a bunch of hooligans out to get anyone. We are here to help educate others who want to do Electric Car stuff and we tend to be open and forthright and don't pussy foot around. Be clear. Physics has nothing against you. Understand it and you will SEE.
> 
> I think you should finish the project. I don't expect you will get out of it what you think you will get. The biggest problem is coming at something knowing full well you are right but have not actually done the testing and we have all told you what you should do to get the data we'd like to see. And yes, those making claims are the ones responsible to show the data.


gotcha again, not out to dupe nobody out of my own pocket side project 

The other product L-Loop(TM) is where we are ready to go to market, however I do that one, charging out of onboard batteries with charging out of bumper cord to 1772 slot on car, far better than finding limited charging station and having to drive to them. And with the patent pending 14-50 amp plug adapter opens up charging to many more places 300,000 plus RV slip plugins to charge at after first charge of vsla is gone charge both up drive on. 

But with what I said of I get enough wattage to go 20-22 extra miles in Zen charging in real time would that be a winner ? Onegreenev, what do you actually think I will get when you say much lower than I expect. 

You said major is an expert in his field? What field major?? I never though came here to have anyone here evaluate my product invention. that being said I will share results of Zenn. And will admit if I failed, but 99.9999999 % sure that isn't happening. 

And in the end will share watt hr/mile and voltages when trailer generating --- but then the only thing that matters for me is dynamic charging if I get 35 miles on Zenn with trailer and no power generation, and when dynamic charging 20 miles so 55-57 miles before batteries dead a winner. If could do more even better.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

fuck you iainventor, go see a therapist. midastouch was just a troll who got out-trolled, you need help. And no, it isn't on your terms here. you made claims, ridiculous claims, and are still trying to manipulate every aspect of this monstrosity by not having the consideration to answer the most simple questions. There is no excuse for that, and no excuse for you not to get the mental help you so obviously need. You are stuck in your own "loop" here.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... And will admit if I failed, but 99.9999999 % sure that isn't happening. ...


That's what you said about the test you ran last week. Didn't happen.




iainventor said:


> ...
> And in the end will share watt hr/mile and voltages when trailer generating --- but then the only thing that matters for me is dynamic charging if I get 35 miles on Zenn with trailer and no power generation, and when dynamic charging 20 miles so 55-57 miles before batteries dead a winner.


You'll get less range with the trailer "charging". It won't go as far. Less than 35 miles. The concept is a loser. 

Truth sucks,

major

{edit of 9/1/17}

It has been 2 weeks since iainventor's last post which follows this post but I will copy and paste it to save or gem it as he says. Two weeks is certainly time enough for him to do his test. The fact that we haven't heard from him leads to the conclusion that he has failed and, contrary to his promises, will not report back here. 

So I need to add this to our cumulative scoreboard: 

Us = 100%

Free Energy Nutjobs = 0



iainventor said:


> major,
> 
> just so I understand what you are saying, are you saying that even feeding back any power that is collected while pulling trailer generating power, that if I got 35 miles without generator on? That with on generating power that is directly backfed into my Zenn battery bank that will be less than original 35?? Just making sure once and for all?
> 
> Major how do you gem these post again?


----------



## iainventor (May 25, 2017)

major said:


> That's what you said about the test you ran last week. Didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


major, 

just so I understand what you are saying, are you saying that even feeding back any power that is collected while pulling trailer generating power, that if I got 35 miles without generator on? That with on generating power that is directly backfed into my Zenn battery bank that will be less than original 35?? Just making sure once and for all?

Major how do you gem these post again?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

iainventor said:


> major,
> 
> just so I understand what you are saying, are you saying that even feeding back any power that is collected while pulling trailer generating power, that if I got 35 miles without generator on? That with on generating power that is directly backfed into my Zenn battery bank that will be less than original 35?? Just making sure once and for all?


once and for all, it is what we all have been saying from the very beginning... powering the trailer alternators full time from the wheels just takes power from somewhere else, the battery (or batteries), and it always comes with losses, which means less range than just using the battery or batteries directly. the only thing a full time regen system does is make heat, it is only useful for deceleration (kinetic energy), and you already have regen.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> major,
> 
> just so I understand what you are saying, are you saying that even feeding back any power that is collected while pulling trailer generating power, that if I got 35 miles without generator on? That with on generating power that is directly backfed into my Zenn battery bank that will be less than original 35?? Just making sure once and for all?


Yes.



iainventor said:


> Major how do you gem these post again?


What?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

major said:


> What?


He doesn't believe you, or any of us. Or he thinks whatever trick/stunt he has planned will be sufficient to "prove" that he was right.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> onegreenev, what do you actually think I will get when you say much lower than I expect.


In short if the main distance you can drive with two packs is 70 miles you will not go further than 70 miles even with the the device turned on. That is over unity.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

The way I understand is there is only the one pack on the Zenn. That consists of six 12V batteries. The trailer has only six 14.5V alternators.

{edit} I wonder if it will go 35 miles at 35mph pulling the trailer without charging. But however far it goes, it will go less distance when the alternators are "charging".

{2nd edit} Quick google on Zenn range: as low as 30 miles at 25mph and one mention of 20 miles. I think one "marketing" figure was 50 miles (25mph?).

{3rd edit} http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78826 

Here is test data from the six 12V lead-acid batteries which I installed in a friend's Gem. Since the Zenn will have similar batteries this is a reference.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

iainventor said:


> And in the end will share watt hr/mile and voltages when trailer generating --- but then the only thing that matters for me is dynamic charging if I get 35 miles on Zenn with trailer and no power generation, and when dynamic charging 20 miles so 55-57 miles before batteries dead a winner. If could do more even better.


This can't happen. If it was possible it would it would be used. You are not the first to think this. You won't be the last either. We are just letting you know. Its not a conspiracy against anyone. It just can't happen. Physics Rock.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> The way I understand is there is only the one pack on the Zenn. That consists of six 12V batteries. The trailer has only six 14.5V alternators.


Well if he did use two packs. But the result will still remain the same. Net loss in distance.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

he is hoping you won't notice the second battery in the trailer box. It's all secret stuff ya know.

edit, and it is probably rigged to explode if you open it.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> he is hoping you won't notice the second battery in the trailer box. It's all secret stuff ya know.
> 
> edit, and it is probably rigged to explode if you open it.


Or batteries designed to fit within the frame work of the trailer. Totally hidden.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I'd be really surprised. if he can muster that, after looking at all his other work, he is the best con-man ever.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

iainventor said:


> gett ya but will be on my terms when I choose like said earlier. with comments like major and others, I owe him and others nothing , nothing at all, he can call me a fraud don't really care. I never came here to get my invention accepted by anyone , like major and others have the audacity to claim to be exerts and think I need to run anything pasts them is just plain dumb and prideful lofty thinking on their parts. He still not getting this until Zenn.
> 
> And as I said a few posts back no question no debate, no answers until Zenn. enough already.


iainventor, You are partly right here. You owed us nothing at the start. But as soon as you start promising certain results then you owe us to deliver against those results. But at the end of the day we aren't the judges of your success or failure. Physics will be the judge. We are just relaying to you the well established and accepted rules of physics. I feel for you as you are obviously invested in the idea and the potential misdirection of that investiment is confronting. But a theoretical idea can never disprove an established Rule of physics. Only a well tested and documented experiment has any hope of doing that.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> Brian though 1 question for you that can possibly save me some problems i trust you that you will give me the right answer.
> 
> When wiring Zenn can i charge each battery in parallel and wire in series at same time?
> So each battery all 6 in my nominal 72 volt systems could wire 6 batteries series for that voltage?
> ...


Sorry for the lack of a response... I did compose a response, but the post did not appear - I must have closed the wrong window and lost it. No loss, because major and Paul had already answered before I tried... and they both clearly have more relevant experience than I have, anyway. 

So here's my contribution...

James, you have commented that you are good at seeing designs in your mind, and I would say that I like to do the same thing. Unfortunately, a mental image is much like a dream... in a dream things can be pretty clear and make sense, without containing any fine detail. An explicit drawing is more like reality, where problems become visible as the details need to be represented. I think a few informal drawings would help solidify some plans, and make issues more apparent.

In this case, it's easy to draw a set of six 12 V batteries (I would just use rectangular boxes) and a set of six alternators (I would just use circles), each with a "+" and a "-" to represent the terminals. If the batteries are drawn in a vertical column (with space between them for wiring to come) and the alternators are drawn beside them, higher voltages appear higher on the page, which makes it easier to understand what is going on... but any placement can work. Then it's easy to draw

one chain of lines connecting the batteries in series (the wiring for motor operation), or
a pair of lines between each battery and its partner alternator (the charging wiring), or
a set of lines joining all of the alternator "-"s to a frame (the grounding of the alternator frames/grounds terminals)
... but although you can do the first two or the first and third at the same time, if you draw all three of them at the same time, the short circuits should be obvious. If you can picture this in your mind and think there is no problem, I suggest actually drawing it. If you realize this now but didn't before asking your wiring question... wouldn't doing the drawing avoid the need to ask?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... with comments like major and others, I owe him and others nothing , nothing at all, he can call me a fraud don't really care.





major said:


> ... The refrigeration power didn't come from kinetic energy and when you tell (sell) people (customers) that it does, that is fraud. ...





iainventor said:


> ... like major and others have the audacity to claim to be exerts and think I need to run anything pasts them is just plain dumb ...


Show me where I said I was an "exert". 

And there you go again telling everybody what I think.

Then calling me dumb. Who's audacious?

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

iainventor said:


> ...
> And I said it was a fair test and success I think anything above 20 miles captured in my aux batteries for every 35 miles driven.


I decided to stop correcting every misuse of units and wait for progress, but this one is driving me nuts...

A mile is a distance, not an amount of energy. Express this in terms of energy, and a constructive discussion becomes possible.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

major said:


> Show me where I said I was an "exert".
> 
> And there you go again telling everybody what I think.
> 
> ...


I said you were an expert in your field. 

I suppose you are. I have listened well over the years. My experience had and has been rather lacking but then again my expertise is taking photos of peoples bones and running the CT scanner. Saving lives one day at a time giving the doctors a view from within. All else for me is a hobby and a rather fun one learning all this electronic stuff.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

A mile of range is a useful unit of energy, actually more easily understood than kW-h. W-h/mile is a useful measure of efficiency, and easily converted to range. But the assertion that he might get 20 miles of range for 35 miles driven is just wrong. The vehicle may have a range of 35 miles on its own battery pack, presumably 6 x 12V batteries for 72V and 100 A-h or 7200 W-h. That is a little over 200 W-h/mile, which is believable for the little Zenn. It would also mean the Zenn was using 7200 watts or 9.6 HP, also reasonable at 35 MPH.

If the trailer has 6 alternators and another set of six batteries, fully charged, the range would be doubled, but the additional weight and drag would result in less. If the extra batteries are depleted and charged at 100 amps each by the alternators while being driven, that would be 7200 watts, added to the 7200 watts needed for just the Zenn itself. So now it would consume 14400 watts, or about 400 W-h/mile. This would deplete the batteries twice as fast, resulting in a range of 17 miles until main batteries are depleted (1/2 hour drive time at 35 MPH). Now if the alternator trailer is 100% efficient, the auxiliary batteries will have 7200 watts * 0.5 hrs = 3600 watt-hours of energy. If they are then used to power the vehicle, without the trailer engaged, it might be possible to get 18 miles of range at 200 W-h/mile. So we still have 35 miles of range, assuming 100% efficiency. But since that is impossible, the result will be a net loss of range.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I am far from an expert. I am an absolute novice. But the principle is a fundamental one. I recall understanding it as a teenager. Energy in = Energy out but to be complete the equation must include all the external influences wind resistance, friction, inefficiencies. 

How about we try it like this: 
If you are able to turn your alternators on or off you could try driving with them off on a level piece of road at a steady pace. Note your accelerator pedel position and/or current draw.
Then without changing anything else turn the alternators on.
I garuntee the extra load introduced by the alternators would begin slowing the vehicle.

To maintain the previous speed you would need to put more power into the car's controller and motor. To maintain the same speed on the same piece of road you will need to increase the accelerator and current draw.

On top of that you would have to add even more power to compensate for the additional friction introduced by the alternators. And you would need to add even more power to allow for the inefficiencies of the alternators (including energy transformed into heat, noise and wind from the fans).


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

onegreenev said:


> I said you were an expert in your field.


Yes Pete, thank you. But I was talking about his statement that I claimed to be an exert (I suppose he meant expert). I did no such thing. He continues to "project" and has lost grip on reality. He just imagines and makes things up. I'm trying to force him to show actual quotes when he accuses me of making statements. I'm very careful about what I say unlike him. And beyond that, he continues to tell us what I think! 

major


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> A mile of range is a useful unit of energy, actually more easily understood than kW-h. W-h/mile is a useful measure of efficiency, and easily converted to range...



As you go on to explain, Paul, neither of these is true. Range only corresponds to energy if energy required per unit distance of operation is a constant, and the fact that it is not constant is a fundamental problem in any "make free energy with an alternator" scheme. It's fine to say "I can make 10 kW-h of stored energy while driving for an hour, which I expect to be sufficient for 30 miles of driving later", but just "I can make 30 miles of energy" is the kind of nonsense which leads to false hopes.

Range (such as in miles), consumption per unit distance (such as in W-h per mile), and stored energy (such as in kW-h) are three parts of an equation. None are useful without the context of the others.

EV displays often show remaining range, just as gasoline-engined cars show remaining range on what was originally called a "trip computer". It is not an amount of energy - it is a calculation resulting from the stored energy and an assumed rate of consumption.

IAinventor doesn't just expect near-perfect efficiency; he expects to consume the same amount of energy per unit distance while running the alternators as without them (or at least less increase than will be required to run the alternators). That's very wrong - as we have all been trying to explain - and equating range to energy without recognizing that feeds the delusion.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PStechPaul said:


> W-h/mile is a useful measure of efficiency...


Calling consumption per unit distance "efficiency" is understandable, but also not true in any rigorous technical sense, and it can only confuse people who don't already have a good grip on the concepts. It is only a measure of rate of energy consumption on a distance basis (as clearly and correctly used in the rest of the post); the reciprocal is often called "economy", but either way up it's not efficiency.

Efficiency is a ratio of output to input. In this case, the input is energy and output is not energy at all, but distance travelled.

For fuel-driven vehicles, the consumption (in "metric" countries) is usually expressed in litres per 100 kilometres (L/100 km), which is amount of fuel per distance, which is directly proportional to energy per distance, based on a fixed energy content per unit volume of gasoline... just like W-h/mile. The reciprocal of "fuel economy" in the U.S. is miles per gallon... distance per volume.

Trying to be helpful, the auto industry and regulators in the U.S. have introduced the most confusing and misleading measure of consumption yet: the "MPGe" or "miles per gallon equivalent". It is simply the consumption (energy per unit distance) multiplied by a conversion factor which consumers do not understand, intended to make EVs look desirable compared to gasoline- or diesel-fueled cars. 

None of these are efficiency. There are many efficiency factors involved in the processes which result in consumption: battery charging efficiency (charge in to stored result), battery discharge efficiency (stored energy to electrical output), controller/converter/inverter conversion efficiency, motor efficiency, transmission and tire efficiency. The power dissipated to rolling drag is not a measure of efficiency - it would ideally be zero. The power dissipated to aero drag is not a measure of efficiency - lower is more desirable but there is no "correct" or perfectly efficient level.

Thinking that consumption is efficiency can lead people to think that by more diligent refinement of their design and construction, they can reach near perfection, and their schemes will work. That just isn't the case.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

brian_ said:


> Calling consumption per unit distance "efficiency" is understandable, but also not true in any rigorous technical sense, and it can only confuse people who don't already have a good grip on the concepts.


In this case the member in question is already confused, and has a poor grip on the concepts. I tried to explain his concept of "miles" (range) in the correct terms of energy (W-h or kW-h), and consumption (W-h/mile), which is dependent upon speed, weight, drag, and conversion losses. Maybe he will "get" the fallacy of his assertions by explaining the concept in a different way. Looking forward to some real data, but that will probably be as forthcoming as someone's tax returns, and will likely be composed of "alternative facts" and a well-tossed word salad of misused technical terms.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

That dog don't hunt.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

For a while i have been unable to get a password to login and was getting real pissed, about that....
... but having caught up, i see i was well off out of this and much less pissed than some of you guys on this thread ! 
But i would just suggest you all let this particular mad dog lie (lay) quietly and hope it skulks off to crap on some other doorstep.
You know you are wasting your time, and forum data space, on this.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Karter2 said:


> .
> You know you are wasting your time, and forum data space, on this.


We know. Got bored mostly. Site needed some action. A good distraction. Good while it lasted.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

iainventor said:


> ... that being said I will share results of Zenn. And will admit if I failed, ...


You think we'll ever hear from him?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Still my favorite is the guy who put a bunch of fan powered alternators all over his car. here is a chinese single fan version, still doomed to waste more than the non version, but more likes than dislikes, because ??? and the poster still thinks it works...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAJz2zJ7Jw4&feature=share

no you will never see a retraction, and proof positive will be nonsense.

Same one with 49 likes....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqOHYIBocn8

"but he wants to help people", by having them waste MORE energy...

meanwhile something like the aerocivic (very well tested and documented and effective) gets literally shat on in the public forums.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> Still my favorite is the guy who put a bunch of fan powered alternators all over his car. here is a chinese single fan version, still doomed to waste more than the non version, but more likes than dislikes, because ??? and the poster still thinks it works...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAJz2zJ7Jw4&feature=share
> 
> ...



Ahhh, yes. I do remember. That ugly looking thing. But it is a well documented item. No bull shit there. Just looks like crap.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> Just looks like crap.


Form follows function. Sorry folks we can't have efficient cheap aero that triples your MPG for next to nothing, because onegreene will think your car is ugly... WTF is that?!?

Seriously, that is really an ugly way to look at it. One that will NEVER lead to more optimal solutions, only pandering to idiotic "tastes".


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> Form follows function. Sorry folks we can't have efficient cheap aero that triples your MPG for next to nothing, because onegreene will think your car is ugly... WTF is that?!?
> 
> Seriously, that is really an ugly way to look at it. One that will NEVER lead to more optimal solutions, only pandering to idiotic "tastes".


I said it because that is what the public in general says and why its bashed all the time. Like going to the farmers market and finding a blemish on your fruit and allowing it to be tossed in the garbage. Its perfectly fine but looks like crap. That is our society in general and that is the answer to YOUR WTF is that comeback. You do know that I'm not the only one that thinks its ugly. So is my Leaf. Butt ugly. But I love the car. 


The concept and proof is great. If he does not mind driving around with all that on the car thats his business. I frankly don't give a damn. 

Lastly, do you have something personal against me for some reason?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

nothing personal, just the general attitude since a completely subjective criteria "it is ugly" is as nonsensical as overunity.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

But looks has nothing to do with utility or function. And it does look ugly. Yes many peoples personal view. Just a comment. One I could have left out but chose not to leave out.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

It is a pointless and even disparaging comment, it serves no purpose but to reinforce your worldview of what is ugly and what is not. Why not just appreciate it for what it is? Or do you endorse shitting on things that work for no good reason?


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> It is a pointless and even disparaging comment, it serves no purpose but to reinforce your worldview of what is ugly and what is not. Why not just appreciate it for what it is? Or do you endorse shitting on things that work for no good reason?


I would have hoped that the person would have taken it beyond this point. I have appreciated it but its a rather moot point because we have all known that vehicles do better if they are designed with good aerodynamics and a back yard hack is all it is. Not that it does not work. Not that it does not prove the point and not that it can't continue to provide this owner with years of cheap driving. We know everyones ugly view of those that come here with outlandish claims. 

We could like most just ignore them but we chose to make our ugly views known. 


So enough of going down this road.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

"ugly" is a word used by petty schoolgirls, not folks solving real problems.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> "ugly" is a word used by petty schoolgirls, not folks solving real problems.



Sounds like you are being rather petty at my remark. Don't take it personal. The world is not going to end and the problem had already been solved long before they built the vehicle. Nothing new. Stuff on the car makes it look ugly. If the project is to actually continue maybe they can finally refine the parts used. Or just keep driving as is. Either way it's still ugly. Car looked just fine before the modifications. Plain and utilitarian. Congrats to those that can reduce the consumption of fuels. Like I said, the comment is true and I'm not very politically correct with what I say. Won't change that aspect either. 

Road Closed.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> the comment is true


%100 incorrect. You may find it ugly, and be unable to contain your repulsion, but that in no way whatsoever makes it true. That isn't what "true" means.

end of discussion!


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> "ugly" is a word used by petty schoolgirls, not folks solving real problems.


Solving real problems, Johannes and Damien come to mind.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

yep, no argument there, and not to leave anyone out either.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> yep, no argument there, and not to leave anyone out either.


Anyone else involved in these projects are included. These just happen to be the most visible of those working on this.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> %100 incorrect. You may find it ugly, and be unable to contain your repulsion, but that in no way whatsoever makes it true. That isn't what "true" means.
> 
> end of discussion!


It is true it's a personal observation but by no means my own personal observation. 

"Of course, this is a DIY project it isn't quite polished esthetically (after all, it only cost $400 total in materials). No doubt a car company could make a very good-looking car with a drag coefficient below 0.20 (see for example VW's 1-liter car which gets 282 MPG)."

No doubt.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

just curious, last time I brought up streamlining you gave me crap. Do you think your personal styling taste should outweigh solid principles? Do you think you lose blog views or something? Maybe you don't see the lack of streamlining in modern vehicles to be the same catastrophe that I do. I'm just wondering why it is important for you, personally, to have a completely subjective opinion on such matters, because the costs of not streamlining have been tremendous (as demonstrated by folks like aerocivic).


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> just curious, last time I brought up streamlining you gave me crap. Do you think your personal styling taste should outweigh solid principles? Do you think you lose blog views or something? Maybe you don't see the lack of streamlining in modern vehicles to be the same catastrophe that I do. I'm just wondering why it is important for you, personally, to have a completely subjective opinion on such matters, because the costs of not streamlining have been tremendous (as demonstrated by folks like aerocivic).


The problem is not building aerodynamic vehicles that get excellent mileage but getting people and companies to build and sell them. You have to get the people excited to buy them and get them to believe that these are what they need. That is a huge problem and things like these vehicles won't win over any hearts or awards because the problem isn't getting your vehicle to get super excellent mileage. 

Well the costs are to us not them. They are making money by NOT doing that. Its all about money. No project moves forward unless making money in the end is the result. 

We are all subjective. Everyone basis their purchases pretty much on subjective influences and will continue. I'd love for those issues to actually happen. Im not holding my breath. 

Electric cars have finally gotten into the main stream in a pretty big way but guess what. They are all like what we already have. Yes they are electric but they could build them for excellent mileage but do you really think people will want to drive slow or small vehicles? Well, no. We have big electric car and a few medium ones. but nothing really small. Nothing really aerodynamic. 

We already know what needs to be done. Now we need to sell it to the public. This and others like will not do that. Refined is what is needed. 

It is not just personal opinion. Public opinion matters. Im quite sure I could drum up many such responses off the cuff about this and other vehicles like this even if I told them what it can do.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

onegreenev said:


> Ahhh, yes. I do remember. That ugly looking thing. But it is a well documented item. No bull shit there. Just looks like crap.


 
Sorry but I am with onegreenev on this one. It is certainly subjective to say it is ugly. But subjective views do have value. I certainly wouldn't drive it in public. I just couldn't live with all the finger pointing and laughing as you drive by. 

But also it could have been significantly improved by better execution. In other words take the same design principles but implement them in a more refined way so they don't look like they are just slapped on.

But its not all or nothing. Just because some of us don't like this design doesn't mean there are other designs that are a better compromise or even more effective plus more attractive. I know its a totally different concept/niche/budget etc etc and I also don't know the figures to provide a scientific assessment. But take a look at the latest Ford GT. My perception is that it is aerodynamic yet it is still attractive (in my opinion). I don't think we should give up striving for both form and function.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I just don't see any value in emulating the fashion police.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

"You really believe that claim? I truly hope not." 

Is this statement what you call, me giving you crap? 

According to the post the claim of this guys was pretty high. My experience with electric cars and using crappy batteries has lead me to pretty much question claims like this when they say freeway speeds. On a track and at some pretty slow speeds I see that it could pull that off. This one is far better and much higher on the fashion police list than the other one. Both done on a budget. Im sure his results were pretty impressive but ...........


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

dcb said:


> I just don't see any value in emulating the fashion police.


Not emulating but at least something decent. 

You decide. 










VS


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

chasing fashion is akin to chasing overunity is my point. Lots of people have "feelings" about how things look, and it varies from person to person. And it is manipulated by those with the resources to manipulate those things.

Making an emotional statement like "it is ugly" is just more manipulation. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you.

It is completely pointless from an objective point of view. And here you are being pointlessly judgmental, again... Who died and made you fashion king anyway?!?

I think the dolphin is more streamlined, and the civic has more utility, and no statement of emotion is relevant beyond that.

You say other people do it, and you do it, and it is ok because other people do it, and that is just circular reasoning. You want me to pay manufacturers for your version of "beauty"?!?


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

dcb said:


> chasing fashion is akin to chasing overunity is my point. Lots of people have "feelings" about how things look, and it varies from person to person. And it is manipulated by those with the resources to manipulate those things.
> 
> Making an emotional statement like "it is ugly" is just more manipulation. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you.
> 
> ...


 
Terms like Fashion King and Fashion Police imply the person is applying some level of control over the subject. I don't think that is the case here. People are free to drive what ever they want and don't I don't have to like it. I for one applaud both these people for giving it a go. Quite probably they had specific goals and form may not be one of them. In which case these outcomes could be considered successful. 

Saying there is no point in striving for form is why many past electric cars have not made the main stream. You may not value form and that's your choice. But most people do value form. I agree it is impossible to satisfy everyone's tastes. But I think it is worth at least striving for a 50/50 split on the approval scale rather than 99% disapproval. Again though there are exceptions and if these are experiments, or seeking certain attention more than serious attempts at a road car then good on them for achieving their goals. 

The red car is still not my cup of tea, but at least it is executed well and I wouldn't be embarrassed to be in it.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Oooops, stepped on someones toes. This whole argument is as pointless as the latest alternator trailer project. 

"You want me to pay manufacturers for your version of "beauty" No, you pay for their version of beauty. If you like it for what ever reason it is those people that you buy from. Im not selling anything. Your decision is based upon your version of utility and looks. Sometimes looks play little part in a decision but it is a personal preference from what is available. Personal preference is subjective. 

I applauded them both for what they did. Does not change my view of the white one being rather ratty looking and ugly. I have others to compare so my decision is not totally emotional.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

galderdi said:


> You may not value form


Pretty inaccurate. Does the form serve a function? Then I value it, objectively, and tangibly. How does it perform? That is a valid question and observation. How its appearance makes me "feel"? gimmie a break, what an irrelevant question. Ugly is a response to a question nobody asked.

You even said yourself you couldn't handle finger pointing and laughing, isn't that kind of a ridiculous state of affairs? Well it seems like pete is one of those people who want you to feel bad for driving it. For whatever reason YOU want yourself to feel bad about driving it.

Of course you are "free" to make such subjective assertions, and I'm free to point out how dumb it is to have to listen to it. Of course I would grant the marketing department some leeway, but this is the "free energy" section, and streamlining can be so cheap it might as well be free and can save a ton of energy.

Except for the circle jerks who just point and laugh, screw them. What do you think I owe them except an attitude adjustment?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

As somebody who does drive an ugly car

I have got to say I agree with Pete - there is Ugly - then there is UGLY!


----------



## zsnemeth (Jan 4, 2012)

You too are very very offtopic! Go to the chit-chat section with this.

Here, only have room for serious perp.motion and over unity discussion!


Ehhhhh.....


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> - there is Ugly - then there is UGLY!


 Where i come from , that is spelt ...F'UGLY ! 

I would hazard a guess that more than 50% of all car sales are mostly influenced by "Style" or appearance......which can be many different things to different people.
(Some folk think a Hummer is "stylish" , whilst others prefer a DB9 )


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

There is a video on "IAinventor's" Facebook page that may help to explain what he's trying to do (but it's already being done at Chrysler's Area 51 facility):

https://www.facebook.com/505402872831692/videos/744256855612958/


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

I just took a huge leap of faith and checked this thread again for the first time in a few weeks !
Fortunately, ..all quiet, with new crazy new ideas ?
But,..a great video Paul..
..im sure my local VW dealer is using the 2nd part of that to train its Service Techs !


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

James is going to give a presentation at an upcoming EV show, and says he is getting interest in his L-Loop thing so his testing will be delayed until Nov-Dec. Sounds like a good show, and it would be interesting to see what sort of reception he will get in the company of some pretty serious players. 

It looks like he will be giving his presentation 10:15 AM on Wednesday Sept 13. 

*Me2EV L-Loop(TM) xEV Range Extender*



L-Loop(TM) L-Loop = " Local Lithium Ion -- Lead Acid Power Loop"
Using Hybrid Battery Technologies as Range Extender
L-Loop Solving the 80 Mile Commute Issue
Level 2 & CCS DC/DC Fast Charging Mobile In EV













* James Dierickx * , Founder, Me2EV Charging Systems


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

PStechPaul said:


> James is going to give a presentation at an upcoming EV show, and says he is getting interest in his L-Loop thing so his testing will be delayed until Nov-Dec. Sounds like a good show, and it would be interesting to see what sort of reception he will get in the company of some pretty serious players.
> 
> It looks like he will be giving his presentation 10:15 AM on Wednesday Sept 13.
> 
> ...


One more excuse to not test his device. He already knows it's BS so I'm not surprised he has put it off once again. The web page looks pretty sketchy as well. Trying to make himself look important. A BS site.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

http://www.evtechexpo.com/resources...irst-consumer-direct-kev-conversion-for-gctt/ 




> September 12 – 14, 2017
> Novi, Michigan, USA
> First Consumer Direct KeV Conversion for GCTT
> Global Clean Transportation Technologies (GCTT) Inc has just announced the very first consumer direct sale of its ICE–KeV conversion system. This week, GCTT’s CEO James Dierickx told us: “We will hopefully by the end of August have a Cadillac DeVille converted to kinetic electric. With our revolutionary KeV technology, there will be a major shift on how BEV and HEV will operate beyond 2016.”
> ...


Still using those kW/hr.

{edit}



> GCTT Inc./ DBA Me2EV Charging Systems
> (GCTT), Inc./ DBA Me2EV(tm) Charging Systems Mfg. of Aftermarket EV Range Extenders. The product line consists of the L-Loop(tm). L-Loop is our international patent pending L-Loop = "Local - Lithium Lead power Loop". And EV Charging Hardware 5x-8x less costly factor over Public Level 2 chargers.


From exhibition description.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Yup, out to sell his BS and still no testing.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

major said:


> http://www.evtechexpo.com/resources...irst-consumer-direct-kev-conversion-for-gctt/ ...


Good searching... but that's the 2016 exhibitor list entry (despite the 2017 date at the beginning from the current web page for the show).


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

brian_ said:


> Good searching... but that's the 2016 exhibitor list entry (despite the 2017 date at the beginning from the current web page for the show).


So will he be there this week? I might attend. Did a few years ago. Pretty good show.

major


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

bri didn't search pauls source.

go here http://www.evtechexpo.com/exhibitor-list (2017!)

hit ctrl+f
search for Range Extender.

surely there are more interesting things to see there for a $2000 ticket though...


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

dcb said:


> bri didn't search pauls source.
> 
> go here http://www.evtechexpo.com/exhibitor-list (2017!)
> 
> ...


Expo pass is free. Conference and workshop has fees. Can you imagine paying to hear that free-energy nutjob present his BS? The fact that he is on the agenda disappoints me about the integrity of the organization.

major


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Maybe they will use a "Gong Show" format, and allow the audience to "fact check" the presentations.










Or the olde tyme Vaudeville "hook":


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

major said:


> So will he be there this week? I might attend. Did a few years ago. Pretty good show.


Well, he is in the exhibitor list (I found the same entry as dcb), so I assume that he'll be in the booth (#632) that he paid for.

His presentation is in the Open Tech Forum, which is apparently free, not the paid conference. The other presenters in this forum do at least superficially generally appear to be legitimate. It would be interesting to see how the "GCTT / Me2EV L-Loop(TM) xEV Range Extender" presentation is received. 

It does look like a good show.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

brian_ said:


> Well, he is in the exhibitor list (I found the same entry as dcb), so I assume that he'll be in the booth (#632) that he paid for.
> 
> His presentation is in the Open Tech Forum, which is apparently free, not the paid conference. The other presenters in this forum do at least superficially generally appear to be legitimate. It would be interesting to see how the "GCTT / Me2EV L-Loop(TM) xEV Range Extender" presentation is received.
> 
> It does look like a good show.


His presentation is at 10:15 Wednesday morning. It does appear I can register for free. If I can get through, or around, Detroit traffic I'll attend. Here is the presenter's bio from that link. 



> Speaker Bio
> 
> James is a serial entrepreneur who has started three businesses, the first of which morphed out of the University of Iowa under-grad New Venture Class when he was 26 years old. The business started with $23 and a dream to succeed, and within two years James had raised $1.5m in capital to get the business off the ground.
> 
> After exiting his first business venture through an acquisition, James had the idea for a wheel generator to meet mobile power needs on vehicles. This eventually became the patented Kinetic Electric Vehicle (KeV) system for range-enhancing BEV/HEV capabilities. It began as a system to power mobile refrigeration equipment, and is now a complete electric drivetrain, including three-phase VFD power generation, kinetic energy harvesting and all the necessary controls.


So it would be legit to ask him about his KeV system, don't you think?

major


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Don't forget, we all could be some of the first one hundred to put down $4000 for the system and get free software upgrades, according to what I read in his literature somewhere!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

why are you all still on about this nutjob?

007: James Dierickx on Angels, Demons, Free Energy & Interdimensional Time Travel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzlWWn_0fXI

you'll have to rewind for the full scope of crazy. I would be wary of any "demonstration".


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

dcb said:


> ...
> 
> 007: James Dierickx on Angels, Demons, Free Energy & Interdimensional Time Travel
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzlWWn_0fXI
> ...


OK. I get it now. If, or because, Jim believes in something with total conviction, then it is true and real, for him. That's why his alternator charger contraption works for him. Unfortunately it doesn't work for anybody else. But that is because others don't truly believe. This is not a technical problem. It is all a matter of faith. How blinded we have been by science and physics. I shall journey tomorrow to the north of here to become enlightened. 

Thank God for BS. Life would be dull without it.

major


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

well he is no J Frank Parnell, but probably amusing anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VKzqAefBVY


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Found this story on Facebook:

http://insideevs.com/me2-loop-self-charging-ev/

My response:

If you have a battery pack with 8 x 12V deep cycle 100 A-h lead-acid batteries, it will add about 500 pounds to the vehicle, which will adversely affect the handling, reduce cargo capacity, and make the car use more energy to accelerate and climb hills. Some of that might be recovered with regenerative braking going downhill. The batteries may give you 9600 W-h of energy but for a 2 hour charge at 50 amps the Peukert effect reduces that to about 6 kWh, which will provide about 24 miles of range at 250 Wh/mile. Instead, you could carry a 4 kW gas or propane generator that weighs about 100 pounds and can give you 6 kWh in just 1.5 hours. And you can get a few gallons of gas or a propane tank almost anywhere. Total cost: under $400 http://www.homedepot.com/.../Sportsman-4-000.../202222977



Sportsman 4,000-Watt Clean Burning LPG Propane Gas Powered Portable Generator…
homedepot.com


----------



## john61ct (Feb 25, 2017)

Are any of the 3-4 kW gennies as quiet as the little suitcase Honda, or could be made to be so in an under-chassis box?


----------



## john61ct (Feb 25, 2017)

For hybrids like Prius, are there OTS options for charging a large external bank while driving? 

I understand this may void warranty. 

What vehicles common in the US market can also do this besides the Prius?


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

john61ct said:


> For hybrids like Prius, are there OTS options for charging a large external bank while driving?
> 
> I understand this may void warranty.
> 
> What vehicles common in the US market can also do this besides the Prius?


Not sure what you mean with "OTS". On The Spot?

Also, what do you mean by "charging a large external bank while driving"? This makes little sense. Do you mean a large battery pack on a tag-along trailer? The only significant charging that can be accomplished while driving a hybrid would be by using the on-board gas engine, or regenerative braking, neither of which require an "external" battery pack. It is practical to carry an auxiliary battery pack as a range extender, but lead-acid is far too heavy and inefficient. Adding a gas or propane generator to a BEV essentially makes it a "poor man's hybrid", and not as efficient as a well-designed hybrid. 

Other options for extending range and reducing "range anxiety" have been discussed. People with an EV parked in the garage, or having a solar battery bank, could provide charging stations where commercial facilities are too far apart. There could be a network of people with EVs, or having a truck with a high capacity battery bank or propane/gas/diesel generator that could be called (like Uber) from a smart phone app for emergency charging. These would be practical and immediately implemented, and not a "pie in the sky" fantasy as proposed by "IAinventor".


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> Found this story on Facebook:
> 
> http://insideevs.com/me2-loop-self-charging-ev/
> 
> ...


Thanks Paul,

I attended the expo and saw his booth as well as listened to his presentation. His verbal claim was 60 miles from the OE Lithium 600lb battery and then another 60 miles after recharging it from the 600lb lead-acid battery on board. About the only thing I said to him was that wasn't possible. He said he didn't care. He didn't know who I was.

He is your typical con artist fraud. Like the article you linked from insideevs said, he claims to be supporting veterans and anti-terrorism with he "EV" efforts. Verbally he throws in anti human trafficking. He uses these buzz word causes with no verifiable link or certificate of funding flow. But he uses it in such a way that should anyone question him on anything they would be seen as opposing his noble efforts. His presentation and sales pitch are loaded with his usual technical BS.

I had much more interesting things to do at this great show. Across the aisle from his booth was an outfit doing Formula E motor-gearboxes for example.

His booth sucked big time. Just a used car which didn't appear to have been washed recently. And look at the quality of that plug in the rear panel. What do you expect for $5k?



















Photos taken from: http://insideevs.com/me2-loop-self-charging-ev/ 

major


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vQ7t3A9oc&feature=youtu.be Another lovely EV related over-unity scam for your viewing pleasure. Magic "regen-ex coils"...


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/2013/09/20/in-this-town-we-still-obey-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/ ...for a little debunking enjoyment. Yet this guy just refuses to disappear- he's been running the same claim, with variations, for over a decade.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Here's my own contribution to the over-unity scam universe:

https://youtu.be/htUBXkqgkr4

I promise- no zero point energy was harmed, nor were any laws of thermodynamics violated, by my duplication of a similar scammy device that I came across recently on LinkedIn - I just figured out the scam, duplicated the device and parrotted back their "claims" in the video (as well as making fun of the tone and tropes of the whole over-unity world of "suppressed free energy technology" etc.)

The big reveal will be later this week- but you guys are likely more than quick enough to realize how this works! If you do, feel free to contribute some impressive sounding pseudophysics technobabble to the YouTube comments to feed the trolls...but no guesses until the big reveal comes out, OK?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

This isn't actually over-unity, but to the casual observer it would appear to be. A new lab test has created a way to generate electricity continuously without recharging. I suspect it runs off latent heat in the environment - so one could make an argument that it IS perpetual motion - at least until we reach the heat-death of the universe.

https://newatlas.com/battery-breakthroughs-2017/52559/


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PhantomPholly said:


> This isn't actually over-unity, but to the casual observer it would appear to be. A new lab test has created a way to generate electricity continuously without recharging. I suspect it runs off latent heat in the environment - so one could make an argument that it IS perpetual motion - at least until we reach the heat-death of the universe.
> 
> https://newatlas.com/battery-breakthroughs-2017/52559/


The first indication that an item is a pile of bull is that it is on NewAtlas  I've followed links to their content a few times, and have been consistently impressed... by the lack of understanding displayed by their authors, and the lack of credibility of their information. This article is actually quite good, especially by NewAtlas standards.

This is the relevant section:


> And graphene features prominently in another of 2017's promising energy advances. The material's ability to conduct energy is well established and has prompted countless research projects around that capability, but in November scientists at the University of Arkansas discovered that it could actually generate its own.
> 
> The team came up with a way of tapping into the minute energy generated by what they called graphene ripples. This is when the carbon atoms on a sheet of graphene rise and fall like waves in the ocean in response to the ambient temperature.
> 
> ...


The key term is "Vibration Energy Harvester": skip the NewAtlas article and do a web search for that, and be prepared for hours of reading about perfectly legitimate devices to collect energy (not create it) by various techniques and in various scenarios, mostly on a very small scale.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

brian_ said:


> The key term is "Vibration Energy Harvester": skip the NewAtlas article and do a web search for that, and be prepared for hours of reading about perfectly legitimate devices to collect energy (not create it) by various techniques and in various scenarios, mostly on a very small scale.


Hey now - I DID post this in the over-unity section!  Yes, I thought it was well written but also have no real opinion at all about the validity science it purports. It was simply "yet another contribution to the theoretical..."

When I was a very small kid in the 1960s, the "next big thing" was supposed to be a harvester of the energy in Brownian Motion - pretty much the same thing as "Vibration Energy Harvester."

The closest other thing I've seen that, unlike others, actually made sense was a while back when they were reporting on the potential of nano antenna arrays. They freely admitted that they couldn't actually harvest the energy theoretically captured by the arrays yet, for the simple reason that since each antenna was likely out of phase with the others then they would statistically cancel each other out without in-line diodes. On the other hand, if they DO manage to figure out how to print the diodes along with the antennas, that technology is likely to be close to 80% efficient and around 5% of the cost of manufacturing current solar panels. However, a search on Steven Novak reveals that he is no longer engaged in that sort of research which I find puzzling - if you can print the antennas, why not the diodes?


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

As promised, here's the solution- obvious, in hindsight.

Two crackpots, a guy named Nigel Cheese who seems to exist only on LinkedIn right now, and his little munchkin name Jamie Pannarelo, are hawking this as some kind of major new "zero point energy" discovery. The use of a damp paper towel in many of their videos tipped me off:

https://youtu.be/4LDqYBmjrxc

Amazing how people don't see the obvious sometimes, and how quick they are to reach for magical explanations!


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

My first thought was a battery. You can also make one from a grapefruit, lemon, or potato:

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

About 15 years ago Microchip was advertising their nano-power PICs as being able to run on a grapefruit, but it actually required two or three to work. 

Here's another demonstration of the use of free energy from the cosmos to perform a magic trick:


----------



## Vinyasi (Apr 9, 2017)

*Summation of my study of electrodynamic theory, plus lots of links to choose from...*



> Is it correct to say that you are presenting theoretical material and have not yet built a physical "proof of concept" device which provides electrical power without any major input power provided by the user?


No build; no money; and no technical building expertise; just a simulation.
But I'll qualify that.

Simply answered would be Yes: "without any major input power provided by the user".
But that would be catering to our collective ignorance.

Remember the Vedic expression of "Sat-Chit-Ananda"?
It's a three in one expression in which none of the three elements may be taken out of context from its entirety.
This means that Chit (Intelligence) is just as significant as is Energy (Sat).
The consequence is that we harp too much upon the need for more energy when we could do just as well (or even better) if we had more intelligence.

As I've stated before (somewhere in the text), there's no difference between free energy and energy.
If you're the Almighty and need to make use of more energy in Your Creation by comparison to what is already there, then wouldn't it be effortless to access that?
And are we not co-creators in our own right capable of becoming Almighty beings once we drop this mortal shell upon full enlightenment of our consciousness?

So, it is the eternal now, this present moment of nil duration, which is the source for energy.

We harp too much upon spatial locations, such as: batteries, hydroelectric dams, etc.
Yet, time is a source for energy since time supersedes space.

The study of physics loves to turn spirituality around on its head by misrepresenting the dependency by which space depends upon time by making time subservient to space as an added "fourth" dimension to space. Oy, gevalt!

Put into more technical terms...
A zero bandwidth allows for an infinite Q (more energy IN than OUT). This becomes the case whenever two actual parent waves of opposing orientation of zero power factor cross-interfere.
One parent has her current ahead of voltage by 90 degrees while the other parent wave has his current behind his voltage by the same duration.
This creates a standing wave of no duration bypassing the limitations of finite Quality factor.

All that is needed is for a single phase, induction motor's creative winding of current dominated coils (formerly its starter coils and in one direction, ie. CW, for instance) versus voltage dominated coils (its main motor coils and in the opposite direction, ie. CCW, for instance) to fail to cancel their standing wave of negative power factor and -instead- rectify it, plus an electrically rectified set of starter coils mounted upon the customized squirrel cage rotor (wound in the same direction as the current coils, ie. CW, for instance) to tip the rotor forward in one direction of spin.

And if this negative power factor can be produced more efficiently than do opamps, than -yes- there is no significant power source. In fact, someone (a critique) helped me to become aware of the fact that my low voltage sine wave generator (of a mere 3V) was inputting a current wave form indicating it was noise and not a sine wave (except within its voltage context). So, I'm powering this simulation on almost a nano watt of a blended wave incorporating both noise and sine waves!

video and audio files...

Pitch Deck

alternate URL...
Downsizing Renewables -- Pitch Deck on Vimeo

http://vinyasi.info/energy/shorted-transforming-generator.mp3

from...
Fundamentals of the Transforming Generator by Jim Murray

cancellation of magnetic fields is corrected by rewiring the coils...
https://i.stack.imgur.com/WzGHp.jpg

http://vinyasi.info/energy/standing-wave.mp4

http://vinyasi.info/energy/standing-wave-v3.gif

http://vinyasi.info/energy/2019-06-30_20-39-48.mp3

https://vimeo.com/vinyasi/pleaseask

Beat Frequency to Solve Rotation Challenges of a Motor Operating at a Negative Power Factor...
https://vimeo.com/vinyasi/beatfrequency

Solving Drive-Shaft Rotation Challenges...
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=uBYnJAAAAEAJ&pg=GBS.PA101

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/beatfrequency

************************************

If you would like to pay me for the work which I've performed, then here are some options....

http://paypal.me/vinyasi

http://amazon.com/author/vinyasi

http://payhip.com/vinyasi

payhip sample...
https://web.archive.org/web/2019070...ew.pdf"&response-content-type=application/pdf

shortcut URL...
http://is.gd/archivedsample

http://leanpub.com/exev

leanpub sample...
http://samples.leanpub.com/exev-sample.pdf

shortcut URL...
http://is.gd/leanpubsample

************************************

read on Google Play Books...
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=uBYnJAAAAEAJ

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/gpbookv9

download epub...
https://books.google.com/books/down...ut=uploaded_content&source=gbs_api&authuser=0

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/gpbookepubv9

************************************

read....
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dP0TJAAAAEAJ&pg=GBS.PA1

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/theorygplay

download epub...
https://books.google.com/books/down...ut=uploaded_content&source=gbs_api&authuser=0

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/theorygdown

************************************

read on Scribd...
https://www.scribd.com/document/414...ectric-Vehicles-by-Maximizing-Their-Amp-Hours

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/ouscribd

read on Scribd...
https://www.scribd.com/document/414...n-of-How-Free-Energy-Operates-in-Our-Universe

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/gkQfVw

*************************************

Or, try these alternate locations...
http://vinyasi.info/patent/Extendin...c Vehicles by Maximizing their Amp-Hours.epub

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/ouepub

Or, as a MOBI...

http://vinyasi.info/patent/Extendin...c Vehicles by Maximizing their Amp-Hours.mobi

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/oumobi

Or, as a PDF...

http://vinyasi.info/patent/Extendin...ic Vehicles by Maximizing their Amp-Hours.pdf

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/ouebook

And its companion text on theory...

http://vinyasi.info/patent/A Theore...How Free Energy Operates in our Universe.epub

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/outheory

Or, as a MOBI...

http://vinyasi.info/patent/A Theore...How Free Energy Operates in our Universe.mobi

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/outheorymobi

Or, as a PDF...

http://vinyasi.info/patent/A Theoretical Explanation of How Free Energy Operates in our Universe.pdf

shortened URL...
http://is.gd/outheorypdf

************************************

I simplified my presentation on stack-exchange (by comparison to the eBook), plus I updated that question to become a rhetorical question in which I answer myself using knowledge gained from other questions on that site plus Quora.

In that question is the shortened version of my device in that I give everything about it without talking too much.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/445771/151041

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/dWuw13

************************************

I saved that question onto my website in case it gets deleted (again)...

http://q.vinyasi.info/May oscillati... - Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange.htm

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/VhyhZx

************************************

And archived an earlier version of this new rewrite (the saved version on my website is more up to date)...

https://web.archive.org/web/2019062...illations-approximate-infinite-quality-factor

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/t2lyho

************************************

Well, someone at AllAboutCircuits helped me to better appreciate a more likely answer...
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...s-approximate-infinite-quality-factor.161115/

shortened URL...
https://is.gd/qD4Oq9


----------



## Vinyasi (Apr 9, 2017)

*Re: Summation of my study of electrodynamic theory, plus lots of links to choose from*

continuing...


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I watched some of the first (Borderlands) video and found it interesting, although I think some of his assumptions about the models are wrong, which is why he seems to think longitudinal waves exceed the speed of light. Also his demonstration of multiple connected L-C networks as a model of a transmission line is not surprising. Here is a simulation I did for a similar network, and it predictably shows an increasing voltage at the end due to resonance. The resonant frequency of a simple parallel tank circuit with 10 mH and 0.047 uF is 7.3 kHz, and this simulation is for 20 kHz:










Higher frequencies produce much higher output voltages. Here is 4x 7.3 kHz, or 29.2 kHz:


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

"Sweet spot" seems to be around 32 kHz. The output reaches 1 kV peak after 5 seconds, and continues to rise:


----------



## Vinyasi (Apr 9, 2017)

*Cool. But since I don't have a frequency generator, nor the patience to look for ...*



PStechPaul said:


> I watched some of the first (Borderlands) video and found it interesting, although I think some of his assumptions about the models are wrong, which is why he seems to think longitudinal waves exceed the speed of light. Also his demonstration of multiple connected L-C networks as a model of a transmission line is not surprising. Here is a simulation I did for a similar network, and it predictably shows an increasing voltage at the end due to resonance. The resonant frequency of a simple parallel tank circuit with 10 mH and 0.047 uF is 7.3 kHz, and this simulation is for 20 kHz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


... its sweet spot of resonance, I chose to go a different route such as: isolate each module with magnetic transference in between each using a shared magnetizable core between the two coils. Either way, we both get infinite gain ...



... with a shortened duration to zoom in and exhibit its beat frequency pattern ...



From ...
http://spicysurges.blogspot.com/2017/05/infinity-mirrors-escalate-surges-in.html

But now for the best part: detach the voltage source early on; use it only for a moment to get things started and allow for escalation to avoid imposing an infinite drain on the voltage source ...

http://spicysurges.blogspot.com/2017/06/


----------



## Oliver Heaviside (Sep 8, 2019)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

*Using Reactance to Boost Power*​
Working along the line of the original research and development for hybrids known back in 2001 by its developer Alan Cocconi (the man behind the success of the General Motors EV-1 and silent partner to Elon Musk) and commissioned by Toyota and executed upon a 2001 RAV4EV using a motorcycle engine coupled to a generator and towed behind a first generation RAV4EV inside a mini-trailer...

http://www.tzev.com/2001_rxt-g_library.html

I propose this concept, simulated only in theory, concerning reactant power modification as an intermediate step towards range extension of an EV or hybrid....

We know reactance is unlimited from its formulae...

Capacitive Reactance = 1 divided by (2Pi x Frequency x Equivalent Series Resistance x Capacitance)

Inductive Reactance = 2Pi x Frequency x Series Resistance x Inductance

... in so far as it is oblivious to current and voltage while focusing exclusively upon its frequency, plus either: the series resistance of inductance, plus inductance, or else the equivalent series resistance of capacitance, plus capacitance. And we know it is useless unless corrected for its power factor. And we know we may invert the polarity of voltage to effect a condition of negative power factor whereby the frequency varies directly with amplitude unlike electrical energy of usable power factor (of zero degrees divergent phase relation between current and voltage) and whose amplitude varies inversely to its frequency. And we know that a simple resistive load, such as: a battery, or a resistor, or a spark gap, or a light bulb, will correct a deficient power factor and bring the components of electricity, namely: the electric and magnetic fields, back into synchronous phase relation. Given these facts, it is possible to devise a simple arrangement of electronic components to effect these known relations in sequential steps, namely...



Invert voltage by 180 degrees separating voltage from current by one half cycle of an A/C cycle.
Amplify its frequency through a loosely coupled coil of 10% mutual inductance which will also serve as the primary loading coil in parallel to the actual load.
Make the actual load the battery pack of a plugin EV, or hybrid.

Here is the circuit simulated in Micro-Cap analog software along with a few more screenshots of its output and input attached, below.

PS. You may notice that Alan Cocconi calibrated his genset to output 345 volts to overwhelm the 288 volt battery pack and, thus, make charging possible at a 50 amp rate while cruising along at freeway speeds on level ground. This is why the twin motors of the RAV4EV from 1998 to 2003 require a voltage which is slightly elevated above that of a full battery pack of 24 NiMH modules so that, during regenerative mode, the twin motors will be capable of having a voltage slightly greater than that of the battery pack and make regenerative charging of the pack's batteries possible in the car's "B Gear". Yet, I've downgraded the output of my simulation to match whatever voltage it is displaying at any moment in time due to its uncanny ability to send a negative direction of current back into the batteries and recharge them regardless of their voltage. The only stipulation is that the tuning coil has to be constantly adjusted upwards to reduce the quantity of current sent into the battery pack as its voltage continues to rise. Or, perform the opposite compensation: adjust this tuning coil downwards if the battery pack should suddenly have a drop in its voltage, let's say: immediately after performing a steep drive up an incline.

PPS. The four coils: VC1, VC2, CC1, and CC2 must be mutually coupled at 99%. A 98% coupling coefficience won't do. This might be achievable by surrounding each copper strand of the windings of these four coils with iron windings - electrically connected in parallel to these copper windings - in order to capture the magnetic field of each copper strand and reclaim it. This is what I affectionately like to call: the Oliver Heaviside Solution to the Ferranti Effect. This latter effect was a prevalent notion among: Ferranti of Italy, and Dr Wildman Whitehouse of the United States, and the Royal Society of London, on how to go about resolving the problems they were having with sending a lossless signal across the trans-Atlantic Telegraph cable in the late 1800s. It was Heaviside who devised his "Telegraphers Equations" and deduced the problem was not to be solved by throwing massive quantities of voltage at the problem, but to boost the lagging magnetism along the entire length of the cable by wrapping the inner insulated copper core with iron wire or ribbon. This coaxial cable solution did the job before repeaters were invented in 1956. We like to think that more amp-hours inside the battery pack will solve all our range anxieties. That's nice if you like to use the brute force technique of Ferranti and the others who thought similarly.

Cheers!


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*

Don't the node voltages in chart #6 indicate current out of the battery, -49 Amps across the .15R?


----------



## Oliver Heaviside (Sep 8, 2019)

*Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)*



kennybobby said:


> Don't the node voltages in chart #6 indicate current out of the battery, -49 Amps across the .15R?


My mistake. I tuned it wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.

If we compare a test case, we see that the same current polarity and node voltages occur. So, I had the tuning coil set to high blocking the power coming from the left-hand side.

Yet, if I reduce the inductance of this coil to be more similar to all of the other versions of this circuit, then I get a transference across it resulting in an overwhelming influence upon the battery requiring some throttling by raising the resistance of the resistor at the top of this loop.

This is what I have to show, so far. I'm in the midst of making adjustments to fine tune it. I want to believe that all I have to do is: reduce the self-inductance of the tuning coil and increase the resistance of the resistor at the top of this loop to get exactly, or nearly so, the results I want to achieve. But it may take a whole day to see if I can achieve it since my computer is very slow. So, I thought I'd post these preliminary results so as to answer your question right away.

Thanks!


----------



## Oliver Heaviside (Sep 8, 2019)

Sorry for the delay. It took a while to iron out all the "kinks".

Increasing the self-induction of VC1 & VC2 decreases the gaps in the duty cycle of the 1.81 Ohm resistor (which represents the dead battery pack of 182.5 milli Ohms of resistance - derived from 24 count NiMH batteries as read from a chart given to me by Toyota of Carlsbad who inspected my defunct RAV4EV from 2002) plus a small resistor placed in series with these dead batteries to reduce the amperage and increase the voltage to just the right amount. But there is a cost to increasing the self-induction of VC1 & VC2. The cost is an increase of nodal voltage throughout the circuit. So, I settled on this configuration, instead.

I forgot to mention that it is common knowledge that resistance corrects power factor, ergo: puts the current and voltage wave components of electricity back together again. This is why reactive power heats up a circuit. So, other than bringing back steam locomotives running on reactive power, my approach has been to see if I can simulate a process whereby electricity is stretched almost to the point of complete breakdown so as to take advantage of the ease with which reactive power may be manipulated to increase its amplitude, and then put its pieces back together again through a resistive load, such as: a spark gap, an arc lamp, or a chemical resistive load such as a dead pack of batteries. Ossie Callanan spoke of this last possibility in his treatise entitled...

A Working Radiant Free Energy System...
http://fluxite.com/WorkingRadiantEnergy.pdf

and

https://vdocuments.site/working-radiant-energy.html

and

https://archive.org/details/workingradiantenergyossiecallanan

What he calls "radiant" I call reactive 'cuz I think they're equivalent terms for the same phenomenon. But that's my opinion.

The funny looking step-wise surges of the input wattage at the sine wave generator are due to momentary spikes of amperage occurring there which warp their RMS average. But I hold these spikes to be of little consequence since they're very quick and immediately fall back to their nominal level which is very small -- far less than their peaks.


----------



## Oliver Heaviside (Sep 8, 2019)

*Reactance is our Friend*​
Someone's gonna wanna complain that "You can't get more from less", or worse: "You can't get something from nothing".

Well, to forestall their complaints, I'm gonna answer them right now and save them a bit of trouble going to the bother....

That last one is true. But I don't go there.

The first one is true for energy, but not true for reactance of energy. Here's why...

We use a couple of relations: the continuity of electricity (which is closely similar to conservation of energy) and current division.

The continuity of electricity is something we're familiar with: if frequency goes up, amplitude goes down. Or, if voltage goes up, current goes down. So that, overall, the entirety of electricity remains consistent with itself over time despite any changes to any of its particulars. So far, so good...

With current division, we know that if we add another branch load in parallel to any other branch loads, the current demanded of the lone voltage source goes up. In fact, we drain away the amp-hours of the voltage source that much faster with every additional parallel load of current branch added to a circuit supplied by a single voltage source. This is true for energy, but not true for reactance.

The opposite is true for reactance. Here's why...

As I cited in a previous post, reactance formulates a relationship among several factors: frequency, two times pi, and either capacitance paired with negative resistance or inductance paired with positive resistance. And negative resistance is derived from Mho's Law in which resistance divided by voltage gives negative current while positive resistance is derived from Ohm's Law in which voltage is divided by resistance giving a relationship with current which we are familiar with.

Hence, if I fly into a head-wind, this positive resistance slows me down. But if I fly a plane with a tail-wind, the opposite happens: I speed up. I suspect it's a little different with electricity in that it's not a tail-wind so much as it may be a vacuum appearing ahead of the current. So, I suspect there are two varieties of voltage: one related to pressure and positive resistance and another related to a vacuum and negative resistance.

Anyway...

The continuity of electricity demands a consistency to the overall result of reactance despite any changes to any of its individual factors. So, if frequency should go up, then resistance must go down, or else inductance or capacitance must reduce so that the total reactance is conserved. See how continuity is indelibly linked to conservation?

But this works in our favor if we are attempting to magnify electricity through a step-wise procedure of nearly splitting electricity (without splitting the atomic matter which is hosting electricity), increasing this lossless power, and then converting reactance back into usable electricity.

This is due to the law of continuity and its implication of conservation of all things! We get conservation to make possible the increase of energy OUT compared to what goes IN to a circuit! What a concept!!

In order to maintain continuity of reactance, if frequency should go up, then resistance must go down. If this is positive resistance inside a coil, then the consequence will be that current must go up. But since reactance is lossless due to its exclusive quality of recycling, more current is not drained from the source. Instead, more current recirculates in the circuit since it's not going anywhere, nor is it being drained from anywhere. It can't drain anything, because it's lossless. Only energy could drain a source. Reactance can't drain any voltage source of its amp-hours. All it can do is zip around like light beams bouncing around inside of a laser device.

So, the current keeps going up along with its frequency and the voltage will go down as a consequence of the lowering of resistance and also to keep consistent with the increase of current -- everything being conserved, overall.

Meanwhile...

In order to maintain continuity of reactance, if frequency should go up, then negative resistance must go down resulting in a rise of voltage (since a decrease of negative resistance is equivalent to an increase of positive resistance). If this is negative resistance inside a capacitor, then the consequence will be that current must go down and voltage must go up. But since reactance is lossless due to its recycling, less current is not drained from the source. Instead, less current recirculates in the circuit since it's not going anywhere, nor is it being drained from anywhere. Instead, voltage goes up with the increase of frequency.

I suspect a condition of reactant inductance occurs within each self-looped set of two or more current coils since their current goes up while their voltage goes down due to their lack of windings giving far less surface area and less capacitance among their windings allowing their weak self-induction to flourish without being superseded by what would otherwise have been the capacitance of a massively wound coil.

And I also suspect a condition of capacitant reactance occurs among the two or more parallel-connected voltage coils since their voltage goes up while their current goes down. I suspect this capacitant reactance is due to the voltage coils possessing a significant level of capacitance among their windings.

We consider this to be standard behavior on either side of a step-up, or step-down, transformer. But this circuit exclusively possesses neither a step-up transformer, nor does it exclusively possess a step-down transformer, since we're not dealing with energy transfer moving in merely one direction from a source to a load. Instead, reactance is constantly being fed back and forth in both directions in a condition of the recycling of lossless power.

The weak ten percent coupling between the transfer coil and the voltage coils seems to favor the relationships described above along with the overall reversal of voltage polarity also contributing to this situation.

The reversal of voltage polarity seems to occur at the bottom of this circuit at the pair of capacitors being force-fed D/C current without any opportunity to discharge their buildup of voltage. What I think happens is that these capacitors (and the weak capacitance of the transformer sandwiched between them) retaliates by discharging a current-free signal of voltage whenever the four diodes are forcing them to accept voltage when they've already become saturated. This currentless discharge of a mere signal of voltage is in direct opposition to the phase relation of voltage being force-fed into them and at a slightly higher frequency. This is what instigates a rise of frequency in this circuit while the five coils at the top of the circuit amplify this "stressed" condition giving an eventual abundance of reactance stretching towards infinity if not cutoff by the periodic firing of the spark gap.

Whenever I zoom in for a closer look at the waveforms, I see a triangular wave appearing riding piggy back on top of the sine wave input. This triangular wave grows in amplitude -- and in frequency as well -- quickly dwarfing the amplitude of its carrier sine wave. So, instead of a wavy sine wave whose peaks and troughs are stable, we get a smooth hyperbolic arch bending upwards towards infinity as the oscilloscope tracing of the simulator stands further and further away from this in order to "take it all in".

At some point, the spark gap on the left kicks in acting as a resistive load for a split second putting back together the fragmented reactant waves of current and voltage which this circuit has been separating by 180 degrees of phase relation amounting to a one-half cycle of an A/C cycle of separation. This momentary departure from reactance serves to collapse this hyperbolic surge to a very low value of nano- or femto- units of measurement of power only to be superseded by another rising surge quickly escalating towards infinity. And this cycle of repetitive surges and collapses occurs 6k times a second in this particular circuit. Every variation of this circuit modifies the frequency of this cyclic occurrence to one degree or another.

So, for a 20% to 30% duty cycle of D/C output, I don't think a D/C to A/C sine wave inverter would mind too much, do you? Since it's accustomed to outputting a sine wave of 60 Hz while mine is hiccuping a D/C input at a rate of 100 times faster! This is what would happen if I position an actual build of this circuit simulation behind the battery pack of an EV sending this through, or partly in parallel across, a pack of dead batteries and then onward to the car's sine wave inverter before it reaches the twin A/C motors of a RAV4EV from 2002.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

This seems to be a "Bunch of Malarkey", but there are several obvious fallacies that have apparently not been taken into consideration or accurately simulated. In the separate text you say that the inductor will be 200 pounds per HP, so with 27.5 kW (37 HP) output, it would be 7400 pounds - obviously impractical even if it had any chance of working.

You specify 40 AWG for a 100 mH coil, 30 AWG for a 20 mH coil, and 70 AWG for a 1 uH coil. These windings will have significant resistance, and maximum RMS current well below 1 ampere. You show an output of 346 volts at 191 amps P-P, which is 23.3 kW, assuming a sine wave.

You show several diodes, which apparently must handle currents of over 100 amps, and require PIV of 400 volts or more. That eliminates Schottky devices, and silicon diodes will have a forward voltage drop of at least 1 volt at 100 amps, which is 100 watts per device. Has this been included in the simulation?

Do a simulation which accounts for these real-world parameters, including the material you will use for the magnetic core (hysteresis and saturation losses), and show your results. Better yet, build it, test it, and show your results.


----------



## stevensrd1 (Jun 25, 2020)

*Built a water battery.*

Got a motor powered by a water battery. I dont use any salts, acids or toxic chemicals in my water batteries. Made mostly for powering low current devices. Even got a live cam up showing the water powered motor, have a look. http://watermotor.ddns.net/


----------



## john61ct (Feb 25, 2017)

*Re: Built a water battery.*

A motor powering a battery, hmm.

Shouldn't that be the other way round?


----------



## stevensrd1 (Jun 25, 2020)

*Re: Built a water battery.*

indeed, thanks made a boo boo, but fixed now.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*Re: Built a water battery.*

Thread moved to the appropriate location


----------

