Make:

• Mini-me Nautilus
• Skippy racer
• Bring back the airships!
• The Toyota station wagon "recreational vehicle" that never happened
• Guitar-boat
• Mask tells others which subway stop you need to get off and prompts them to wake you up

You could possibly use it to aux charge ala regenerative braking, but the problem arises that you will always lose power in the system to drag, friction, system friction, etc... I'm sure the additional drag of having a turbine on top would not be close to evening out the power generated by said turbine. In essence it would be running at a loss.

Think of it this way, if you connect the output shaft of a motor to the input shaft of a generator and wire the outputs of the generator to the inputs of the motor then introduce current to the motor to start the process, the motor will immediately die because the power generated is insufficient to power the motor at the power level it needs to generate the same amount of power from the generator, drivetrain friction will kill it.

The only way you could harness additional power from the car would be to utilize something that is wasted like heat from the motor, or from braking. Thats the closest to free power you will get. Like turbocharging for example uses the byproduct of exhaust gases to pressurise the air going into the engine. Energy that would otherwise be wasted.

Can't be done.

Assuming that there is no wind, here is the problem. Your car is driving X MPH down the highway and you turn this system on. Now your little turbine is generating Y watts of power. You must now use this Y watts of power to push you car enough so that it stays at X MPH. The problem is that turbine is going to cause drag. The faster you go, the more power you get, but the more drag you get. You would have to be able to use 1 MPH of wind speed to move your car at 1 MPH or faster. I don't think that's possible.

Now if you are driving into the wind, you'll get more power, but you'll also get tons more drag.

If you are driving away from the wind, you'll have less drag but generate much less power.

If the wide is a side-wind, you get all the fun of the drag, and none of the added power.

If you were in a windy area and wanted to use wind to power your car, I think the best thing to do you be to set up a little windmill that you can raise. When you are driving, it is in the car (thus, no drag). When you are parked, you extend it (thus, the power). Just recharge your batteries this way. Throw in solar while you're at it.

I recently saw something about flexible solar cells that generate less power in peak sun, but generate tons more than normal cells when not in peak sun (rainy days, clouds, morning, etc).

You're fighting thermodynamics with your idea, and I you should never even break even (my understanding).

this is, as mentioned above, simple high-school thermodynamics: the loss of energy from drag means you'll never harness enough energy from the turbine to keep the car moving. otherwise, you'd have found free energy.

Why not just hook up a wheel with a generator attached to the back of the car?
No it will not work. I got asked the same question by a fellow student way back in high school. I really expected better from Make.
If it could work you could drive forever.

A company called SunWind Ltd. created a wind-electric hybrid vehicle we called the Windmobile. It was the cover story for Popular Science in November, 1976.

When the windspeed was 9 mph or more across the highway, it would cruise under windpower at 4.3 times the windspeed.

The electric drive was physically limited, as the vehicle was originally a "land yacht". It could only go 42 mph with no wind at full throttle.

But, it cruised on the freeways of Michigan, on windy days, at more than the then legal maximum speed of 55 mph.

If you put the word Windmobile into google, you can bring up pictures on a memorial website. The land yacht was invented by James Amick, a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the University of Michigan.

SunWind Ltd. designed the electric system and sent it to Jim and his sons to install. He knew it might be possible but did not have the electrical engineering knowledge needed. We supplied the propulsion kit.

For our current work, see www.magneticpowerinc.com

lwatcdr - of course, but not many people know that you can't get any energy for free, so i posted this question *from a reader*. the responses are great and i suspect a lot of people learned how things work (and don't).

Oh please. Not a perpetual motion machine in the make blog.

Repeat after me, "There ain't no free lunch".

Loss of energy from the wind turbine drag would far, far outweigh any usefull electrical output from the generator. The overall effect of this idea if built would be to really reduce the driving range of the electric car.

High school physics can come in handy.

asailer - i posted this question from a make reader so make readers can talk with other readers on how things work. of course these isn't perpetual motion machines...but i think it's -good- for readers to ask these questions and friendly makers explain how and why it doesn't work.

Just play with a child's pinwheel. As you pull it through the air by its stick, you feel the pinwheel stick press back against your hand as the whole assembly tilts back. That's the drag of the surface area of the pinwheel's spinning disc Pi*R^2 against the air it's attempting to push out of its way. In other words, once the turbine fan starts spinning, any air it can't process pushes against it and flows around it like a kitchen funnel pulled against a flowing creek.

It can work, but you can't have the windmill on the car while driving (see the "no free lunch"/"what a drag" comments above).

You could generate the power you need for at least some of the trip by putting a windmill in the trunk while driving, then put it up into the wind when it is parked. Then, while the car is not using electricity, it is being charged up by the windmill. Solar could be used similarly, but the sun is a bit more fussy and expensive to capture.

If you have a house with good wind access, you could have a windmill charging a bank of batteries all day and night, then you could charge the car off those batts when you get home.

Another idea is to follow Noel Perrin's lead in his book Solo. He had an electric car, which he tried to drive across the continent to get back to vermont. He couldn't cross the rockies, but when he got back home, he had installed a bank of solar panels on his barn.

The panels were grid tied, and the car was charged from the grid as well. So even though he was not using the exact electrons he had harnessed through the solar array, his car did use roughly the amount of solar electricity gotten from the photovoltaics on the barn.

Yes, but if you used BOTH a windmill on top of the car AND a power-generating wheel BEHIND the car, you'd generate TWICE as much power as you use, right? :)

philliptorrone - You have just depressed me deeply. The very idea that many people don't know that know that putting a wind mill on top of a car will not work makes me weep.
Even if this was supposed to be educational wouldn't it have been better to start off with why this can't work and not put this fellows letter up for mass ridicule? I would bet everybody on this board had come up with this very idea. The difference is they tended to do it at 10 or 12 years old. It is a GREAT way to explain entropy to a kid.
Hook up a motor flywheel and generator and spin it up. See how long it takes to spin down.
Take just the flywheel and spin it up and see how long it takes to spin down.
Sounds like a good elementary school science project to me.

lwatcdr - i don't think it's bad for someone to ask a question that might seem obvious to other folks, a lot of kids read this site too. many of the comments here are great and anyone reading it will know how things work a bit more.

Of course it can be done. Red Green did it on his TV show.

Quando omni flunkus moritati!

Of course it can be done. Red Green did it on his TV show.

Quando omni flunkus moritati.

There has been a bit of self-aggrandisement going here on at the cost of other people's dignity. How entropy works in the real world is sublte, and a lot of smart people, of all ages, may not understand why this idea might not work.

Personally, I like the fact that people are still dreaming up perpetual motion machines. The people behind these ideas are trying to come up with novel solutions to age old problems, and if that isn't a major component of the DIY ethos, I don't know what is.

Take Bob for an example. He's digested the information in the two articles, and found inspiration in what he's read. He's looking for the next logical step. He's thinking creatively by looking for a way to associate two technologies together. But I think his most laudible action was to post his proposal here. He took the idea to his peers.

When I read Bob's letter I cringed. I knew that as soon as I scrolled down there would be post after post of mock incredulity, excoriation, and lament over the state of high school physics. Perpetal motion machines constantly appear in new forms because new batches of inventors are introducing themselves homebuilt technologies. Proposals like Bob's deserve respect because they carry the spirit of homebrew science.

There has been a bit of self-aggrandisement going here on at the cost of other people's dignity. How entropy works in the real world is sublte, and a lot of smart people, of all ages, may not understand why this idea might not work.

Personally, I like the fact that people are still dreaming up perpetual motion machines. The people behind these ideas are trying to come up with novel solutions to age old problems, and if that isn't a major component of the DIY ethos, I don't know what is.

Take Bob for an example. He's digested the information in the two articles, and found inspiration in what he's read. He's looking for the next logical step. He's thinking creatively by looking for a way to associate two technologies together. But I think his most laudible action was to post his proposal here. He took the idea to his peers.

When I read Bob's letter I cringed. I knew that as soon as I scrolled down there would be post after post of mock incredulity, excoriation, and lament over the state of high school physics. Perpetal motion machines constantly appear in new forms because new batches of inventors are introducing themselves homebuilt technologies. Proposals like Bob's deserve respect because they carry the spirit of homebrew science.

Perhaps the perpetual motion machine that is asked for it a bit much. But how about a motorcycle with a side car full of batteries that when parked all day has a wind powered generator on it. Even at night when parked it can have the wind generator in the up position and be charging the battery. Get a forklift motor to run the thing and you have a machine that is free to drive around. This would be a vehicle for getting around town.
In the midwest we have wind everyday and about every night. So I don't see not having wind being a problem. I would think that a distance of 40 miles would not be out of line to ask for on this type of set up. Plus if it were a windy day and you were parked outside you could soak up tons of free energy just being parked. For an added kick put a solar panel on it.
If anyone wants to send me a URAL motorcycle with side car I will get a nice prototype out in a few months (maybe a year).
--Chris

Peter Perkins put a wind generator on his electric van. Of course he only deploys it while parked and as a means to help top up the batteries.

I'm sure it helps, but it won't provide as much electricity as you might think.

To put this in perspective, my first electric car typically drew 75amps @ 150vdc to maintain 35mph on a level road. One of these small wind generators has a theoretical maximum power of 600watts (in ~30mph winds), which comes out to around 40 amps @ 15 volts.

To scale this up to the voltage needed to charge my EV, around 160vdc, we'd only be getting 3.75 amps and that's assuming perfect efficiency.

-Jerry

I like chisturvey's post. A deployable wind turbine is a great idea. Plus it wouldn't take much space aboard the vehicle once stowed. You know, that would make a great cross-country race. You only get one charge on your batteries prior to the race start, but once on the road you have to generate all the rest of the power you'll need with equipnment you must carry with you to the finish. What a great test of technology that would be! If the race took place over the course of several days, a la Tour De France, you'd seriously put the reliability and practicality of your rig to the test. Any takers?

Now, the perpetual motion machine idea is obviously not going work without circumventing the laws of the universe and the law of conservation of energy. (Granted, such a device might be possible with higher-dimensional physics, such as the source of the big-bang... but I doubt we're going to figure out how to make our own big-bangs anytime soon, and doubt even less they're going to end up in cars)

That said...

This idea has potential that I can see. You won't make any gain from the highway wind you generate because as far as physics go, the drag your car would gain from a wind-generator will outweigh the energy produced by the wind-generator. HOWEVER, that's JUST if you're using the windmill to catch wind you're causing by driving. As we all know, many cars have spoilers. A spoiler makes a car go faster for its energy despite adding drag. Why? The drag it adds breaks up turbulance that would slow down the car. If you could add the wind generator as a kind of spoiler, not only would it break down damaging currents, but also provide you the extra energy while preventing damage to the energy cost. It wouldn't be enough to keep the car going indefinately, but it would definately extend battery life, as well as being able to just let it sit and build up energy while the car just sits there. In THIS method, you have all gain, and no loss.

Now, the perpetual motion machine idea is obviously not going work without circumventing the laws of the universe and the law of conservation of energy. (Granted, such a device might be possible with higher-dimensional physics, such as the source of the big-bang... but I doubt we're going to figure out how to make our own big-bangs anytime soon, and doubt even less they're going to end up in cars)

That said...

This idea has potential that I can see. You won't make any gain from the highway wind you generate because as far as physics go, the drag your car would gain from a wind-generator will outweigh the energy produced by the wind-generator. HOWEVER, that's JUST if you're using the windmill to catch wind you're causing by driving. As we all know, many cars have spoilers. A spoiler makes a car go faster for its energy despite adding drag. Why? The drag it adds breaks up turbulance that would slow down the car. If you could add the wind generator as a kind of spoiler, not only would it break down damaging currents, but also provide you the extra energy while preventing damage to the energy cost. It wouldn't be enough to keep the car going indefinately, but it would definately extend battery life, as well as being able to just let it sit and build up energy while the car just sits there. In THIS method, you have all gain, and no loss. (Though instead of one big "windmill" on the back, probably should think about a dozen tiny windmills all lined up, probably where the spoiler would be.)

You are all missing the point. Very little imagination. Don't think of a large pinwheel type turbine, think of one that hides inside the roof of the car! When decelerating, you open a cover in front of the turbine and allow wind to funnel into the turbine generator. You are now not only generating power to help extend the battery charge, but you are also helping to slow the car by creating increased drag! And the car is designed to be aerodynamic when the turbine is covered.
It is the same type of method that regenerative braking works on. Regenerative braking does not create perpetual motion, it gives you more distance per charge. Maybe not a huge difference, but neither does regenerative braking.
I think this is a great idea!

What if your 'windmill' was mounted sideways to be more like a 'tumbler'. Sort of like the paddles on an old paddle boat. It wouldn't cause quite as much drag and if coupled with a gas/electric auto?? It might generate enough electricity to recharge or at least partially recharge the batteries extending gas mileage. At 70mph thats quite a stiff wind rolling tumberlers which could be mounted in several areas.

As I understadn it, one of the biggest problems facing electric cars is their effective range. The biggest problem with an electric-wind hybrid is the added drag from mounting a turbine on the car. What if a turbine was mounted under the front hood. Use it to recharge the batteries, not power the drive train. The grill could be structured to best direct the airflow and the only drag involved would be the added weight (and not too much at that.) This could be possible with a darrieus type generator. The car's aerodynamics wouldn't be changed and the only drawback would be a slightly decreased payload. It will never achieve oner unity, but it may be a step toward making an electric car slightly more practical.

As I understand it, one of the biggest problems facing electric cars is their effective range. The biggest problem with an electric-wind hybrid is the added drag from mounting a turbine on the car. What if a turbine was mounted under the front hood. Use it to recharge the batteries, not power the drive train. The grill could be structured to best direct the airflow and the only drag involved would be the added weight (and not too much at that.) This could be possible with a darrieus type generator. The car's aerodynamics wouldn't be changed and the only drawback would be a slightly decreased payload. It will never achieve over unity, but it may be a step toward making an electric car slightly more practical.

My late father also had the idea of a dual powered electric car. It would run on solar and a wind turbine, but his idea was based on the concept of an electric car with two battery banks, not one.

He suggested that as the car ran on one bank of batteries, the other bank would be charged by solar and by a wind turbine. As long as the car was going forward, both the sun and wind would be charging the battery not in use. Once the battery running the car ran down, the driver would switch the drained battery with the charged up battery and hook up the drained battery to the solar cells and turbine.

His idea was not a true solar or wind car, but a electric car that would not need to be recharged with house current.

I realize the idea would face certian hurdles but someone did claim to have built a solar/wind powered golfcart.

Here is the link
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/pvusers/2000-January/001075.html

My late father also had the idea of a dual powered electric car. It would run on solar and a wind turbine, but his idea was based on the concept of an electric car with two battery banks, not one.

He suggested that as the car ran on one bank of batteries, the other bank would be charged by solar and by a wind turbine. As long as the car was going forward, both the sun and wind would be charging the battery not in use. Once the battery running the car ran down, the driver would switch the drained battery with the charged up battery and hook up the drained battery to the solar cells and turbine.

His idea was not a true solar or wind car, but a electric car that would not need to be recharged with house current.

I realize the idea would face certian hurdles but someone did claim to have built a solar/wind powered golfcart.

Here is the link
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/pvusers/2000-January/001075.html

My late father also had the idea of a dual powered electric car. It would run on solar and a wind turbine, but his idea was based on the concept of an electric car with two battery banks, not one.

He suggested that as the car ran on one bank of batteries, the other bank would be charged by solar and by a wind turbine. As long as the car was going forward, both the sun and wind would be charging the battery not in use. Once the battery running the car ran down, the driver would switch the drained battery with the charged up battery and hook up the drained battery to the solar cells and turbine.

His idea was not a true solar or wind car, but a electric car that would not need to be recharged with house current.

I realize the idea would face certian hurdles but someone did claim to have built a solar/wind powered golfcart.

Here is the link
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/pvusers/2000-January/001075.html

Sorry about the multiple posting, the system didn't pick up my posting the first time.

Again, sorry about that.

Ok, I know practically nothing about physics other than what I observe so dont get mad if I say something scientifically stupid. Ok, so Its obvious that a turbine would generate way too much drag. But I think you people commenting on this fact and saying that its high school physics are thinking of the turbine as this giant thing on the car. Like Shamus 523 said, why cant they be mounted behind the grill, on the hood like a hood scoop, on the roof, as a spoiler, and on and angle or even completely sideways like what Weezel said? In fact, if they were completey sideways, wouldnt this propell the car? Otherwise, sure they would still cause drag but not nearly as much as one huge turbine, and because they would be smaller there could be more of them and they would spin at more rpm. If anyone has a reason why this wont work, please write, because this seems possible.

Ok, I know practically nothing about physics other than what I observe so dont get mad if I say something scientifically stupid. Ok, so Its obvious that a turbine would generate way too much drag. But I think you people commenting on this fact and saying that its high school physics are thinking of the turbine as this giant thing on the car. Like Shamus 523 said, why cant they be mounted behind the grill, on the hood like a hood scoop, on the roof, as a spoiler, and on and angle or even completely sideways like what Weezel said? In fact, if they were completey sideways, wouldnt this propell the car? Otherwise, sure they would still cause drag but not nearly as much as one huge turbine, and because they would be smaller there could be more of them and they would spin at more rpm. If anyone has a reason why this wont work, please write, because this seems possible.

I think the idea is great harnessing expended wind energy. The poster has a great idea and it's not one that violates Newton's law. The drag aka Force is there on any object moving through a fluid and does increase proportionately to the speed of the moving object through the fluid( In this case a car through air). The question is rather can we design a fan system (e.g. a horizontal [NOT vertical] fan on the the hood where there is always going to be plenty of drag) that generates energy that is greater than the same aerodynamic design energy loss. The person who posted was looking at total net energy loss from aerodynamics not CREATION of energy and I know it can be done.

Can be done. Look at the net drag after strategically located fan systems that convert energy loss from drag that would always be in the aerodynamicacs of a car shape.

How come nobody has mentioned Ram Air? If you've ever seen what appears to be a horn funnel at the base of some peoples front car bumpers, that's a Ram Air intake(few people actually use these-I saw one on a mustang).

With an external intake, that leads to the turbine, you wouldn't have quite as much negative drag as you would have with an external turbine, and the faster you move, the more air you'll take in, which means more pressure, which means more rpms coming from the turbine, which means etc......!!!!!!!

Why not make the wind tunnel internal? Ferthermore why not have it in the front with the air shooting out the sides? Even ferthermore why not have it on all the time when you are driving? I know that the wind dosent have to be very fast to turn a terbine.

Curtis Burson asked me Bob's question about 7 years ago while we were working together in Austin, TX. I commented to him then if it worked, it would revolutionize travel. Being a former physical science teacher, I told him I would research the idea to see if it were feasible. Having a Missourian's kindred spirit, I like to be shown conclusively whether I am thinking in or out of the box. We even kidded about the possibility, if successful, of naming the new concept "the Burson Wind Tunnel with the Chic design". Consequently, I have done intermitent research on the subject matter via the internet. Here are a few of my findings I think might interest those who have ventured out to explore this idea, not novel and surely thought of by many, but an idea I think worth exploring to the nth detail, if, for no other reason, than to give some high school science class an opportunity for learning.

If this is a viable solution that does not violate the II Law of Thermodynamics (will go outside the box on this one later) here are some observations:
All technology already exists to make it happen
The technology data needed to make it happen is found in several industries that makes the data hard to obtain
The idea must be scientifically tested
The time required for making a prototype could be really short compared to most prototypes
The cost for making a prototype is relatively inexpensive (ie. under $100k)
The U.S. Government is not very open to this concept because of what happened to California, the EV1, and Chevron. (Very sad, see "Who killed the electric car" www.hollywoodvideo.com/Search/results.aspx?t=who+killed+the+electric+car)
The Wind tunnel suggested must be internally installed as the september blogger suggested, but it is really not a wind tunnel. The correct terminology, as learned from an aerodynamics engineer, is Inversion Tunnel. The idea is to collect the wind and focus it's full force on the propellar that drives the wind generator. (I designed an inversion tunnel for this very purpose to be tested in a college labratory for feasibility)
Because of the current political environment, IF the concept works, it would be very difficult to get a patent on the idea. Our whole system of life is dependent right now at present on fossil fuels for system balance. If this concept is possible, these cars could be massed produced inside a year changing the world and its politics overnight. In my opinion, if workable, this is too important an event to give to anyone other than all of mankind. If not workable, this has been a great exercise in learning and should continue to be in hopes of igniting a fresh new thought. We do need to solve our energy and warming crisis.

I am missing some pieces of data (out of my area of knowledge) that would satisfy the questions raised by the II Law of Thermodynamics. So, I am thinking outside the box. Maybe others will have the answers to my questions. If we cannot gain more energy than we expend (II Law and I agree with this), when we generate electricity, are we acually expending more energy than is released? To light up an entire city and to use electrical power tools etc., is the energy expended to make the energy used greater or less? If it is greater, the idea will not work, but if it is less, then electicity has properties that have been released that make it possible (and in my opinion, still do not violate the II Law). Another way of wording my question is, just how does the II Law apply to the idea of the Inversion tunnel. One of the bloggers alluded to the Law when he so elloquently expounded on drag and friction. He was right about the something for nothing concept and perpetual motion. But is this really perpetual motion? You use stored energy to move a vehicle a certain speed to kick in a generator that produces more KW than the car's electric motor is using. (The Toyota RAV4 EV uses 17.1 KW at 60 mph and an ABB induction wind turbine with variable speeds can generate up to 55KW of electricity with wind speeds up to 60mph) Now, I know this appears to be workable and may very well be flawed. Like I said, I have a kindred spirit with the Missourian, so, please show me. To some of you I may be missing more than just links. Nevertheless, show me.

Chic,
Are there "Inversion Tunnels" for sale currently or do you have to build your own?

Bushman, you would have to build your own tunnel. Solid sturdy ones are easily built out of aluminum, or you can build cheap test units out of sheet metal. Make the front opening fit the front of your car. Taper the box to where your "squirrel cage" (blades for the wind turbine) will be sticking up at the narrowest point and re taper box making a larger outlet to the rear (looks sort of like a laid down hour glass). Should be straight line but doesnt have to be. You can use electric dampers to control air speed if you need to. They make automatic electric switches that will switch from the battery pack to the turbine and vise versa. Hope this helped, and good luck if you are going to build a proto type.

I believe and have design on paper a more practical design to this question. I haven't tested or built it but the design is very much worth talking about and explaining. I theorize that it is possible to install a wind generator on a car to produce electricity, with miniscule or negligible drag on the vehicle. I am not sure if it is possible to patent this, or its application in the automotive industry but i am having a lawyer look into the possibility of patent, if any. I am reserving the rights to it.
Lets examine the concept of the generator itself.
It is some type of turbine, propeller, or fan prop with the intention of spinning some type of electrical generator to produce energy. In my design, If we were to modify the propeller design, we would be in essence making a horizontal axis propeller, with the generator connected to either the right or left of the prop. It's difficult to explain in words, but kind of like the paddles on the back of a steamboat; or a bio-wheel on a small aquarium filter (without the borders on the sides). 3 prongs or blades on this prop should be more than sufficient, with the generator attached to one side of it, and recessed. The position and mounting of this horizontal axis wind generator is just as important. This entire wind generator should be mounted in the engine compartment, or trunk where the gas tank used to be. In the engine compartment, or wherever, the only piece that should be visible, and in contact to the wind from the bottom of the vehicle is about one inch of an entire single blade across. Its kind of difficult to explain, but here is an example. On many cars, like a late 80's camaro, or the new monte carlo, there is a long black piece on the bottom front of the car. It's like an undercarriage air dam. It sticks out 2 inches down and redirects air into the engine compartment, this itself has minimal drag on the car. Well anyways, one blade of the propeller will hang down 1 inch in the same fashion. The reason that this has barely any drag on the car is because the exposed blade spins, and isn't a permanent fixture like the undercarriage air dam. As you drive, the wind that is under the vehicle will spin the propeller in and out of exposure. Very fast at that. Because it will be spinning pretty fast, it will need sturdy construction, and will need to be fastened to the engine compartment very well. Now I am assuming that the reason this is being discussed is because there is thought on either buying, or converting an electric car. In an electric car, there would be sufficient space in the engine compartment for such a generator. If you still believe there is drag on the vehicle, then perhaps you haven't thoroughly understood my design.

Well anyways, let me know what you think?

I believe and have design on paper a more practical design to this question. I haven't tested or built it but the design is very much worth talking about and explaining. I theorize that it is possible to install a wind generator on a car to produce electricity, with miniscule or negligible drag on the vehicle. I am not sure if it is possible to patent this, or its application in the automotive industry but i am having a lawyer look into the possibility of patent, if any. I am reserving the rights to it.
Lets examine the concept of the generator itself.
It is some type of turbine, propeller, or fan prop with the intention of spinning some type of electrical generator to produce energy. In my design, If we were to modify the propeller design, we would be in essence making a horizontal axis propeller, with the generator connected to either the right or left of the prop. It's difficult to explain in words, but kind of like the paddles on the back of a steamboat; or a bio-wheel on a small aquarium filter (without the borders on the sides). 3 prongs or blades on this prop should be more than sufficient, with the generator attached to one side of it, and recessed. The position and mounting of this horizontal axis wind generator is just as important. This entire wind generator should be mounted in the engine compartment, or trunk where the gas tank used to be. In the engine compartment, or wherever, the only piece that should be visible, and in contact to the wind from the bottom of the vehicle is about one inch of an entire single blade across. Its kind of difficult to explain, but here is an example. On many cars, like a late 80's camaro, or the new monte carlo, there is a long black piece on the bottom front of the car. It's like an undercarriage air dam. It sticks out 2 inches down and redirects air into the engine compartment, this itself has minimal drag on the car. Well anyways, one blade of the propeller will hang down 1 inch in the same fashion. The reason that this has barely any drag on the car is because the exposed blade spins, and isn't a permanent fixture like the undercarriage air dam. As you drive, the wind that is under the vehicle will spin the propeller in and out of exposure. Very fast at that. Because it will be spinning pretty fast, it will need sturdy construction, and will need to be fastened to the engine compartment very well. Now I am assuming that the reason this is being discussed is because there is thought on either buying, or converting an electric car. In an electric car, there would be sufficient space in the engine compartment for such a generator. If you still believe there is drag on the vehicle, then perhaps you haven't thoroughly understood my design.

Well anyways, let me know what you think?

I believe and have design on paper a more practical design to this question. I haven't tested or built it but the design is very much worth talking about and explaining. I theorize that it is possible to install a wind generator on a car to produce electricity, with miniscule or negligible drag on the vehicle. I am not sure if it is possible to patent this, or its application in the automotive industry but i am having a lawyer look into the possibility of patent, if any. I am reserving the rights to it.
Lets examine the concept of the generator itself.
It is some type of turbine, propeller, or fan prop with the intention of spinning some type of electrical generator to produce energy. In my design, If we were to modify the propeller design, we would be in essence making a horizontal axis propeller, with the generator connected to either the right or left of the prop. It's difficult to explain in words, but kind of like the paddles on the back of a steamboat; or a bio-wheel on a small aquarium filter (without the borders on the sides). 3 prongs or blades on this prop should be more than sufficient, with the generator attached to one side of it, and recessed. The position and mounting of this horizontal axis wind generator is just as important. This entire wind generator should be mounted in the engine compartment, or trunk where the gas tank used to be. In the engine compartment, or wherever, the only piece that should be visible, and in contact to the wind from the bottom of the vehicle is about one inch of an entire single blade across. Its kind of difficult to explain, but here is an example. On many cars, like a late 80's camaro, or the new monte carlo, there is a long black piece on the bottom front of the car. It's like an undercarriage air dam. It sticks out 2 inches down and redirects air into the engine compartment, this itself has minimal drag on the car. Well anyways, one blade of the propeller will hang down 1 inch in the same fashion. The reason that this has barely any drag on the car is because the exposed blade spins, and isn't a permanent fixture like the undercarriage air dam. As you drive, the wind that is under the vehicle will spin the propeller in and out of exposure. Very fast at that. Because it will be spinning pretty fast, it will need sturdy construction, and will need to be fastened to the engine compartment very well. Now I am assuming that the reason this is being discussed is because there is thought on either buying, or converting an electric car. In an electric car, there would be sufficient space in the engine compartment for such a generator. If you still believe there is drag on the vehicle, then perhaps you haven't thoroughly understood my design.

Well anyways, let me know what you think?

Wow, sorry, computer kind of froze and somehow posted that comment 3 times. Sorry.

Just pointing out, everyone is suggesting turbines will be limited to directly correlate to speed. what if you sent electricity gained from the turbine straight into the battery, and use the battery to power the car? above a certain speed, the turbine is certain to produce more electricity than the car needs to drive, so it's really what is that speed? I would also point out that few people would want a car with a turbine sticking out of the top of the car, or a wind tunnel just to power a car.

Any car without a wind turbine already has a drag coefficient. Would it be possible to add a turbine to the existing profile of a car, such that the drag coefficient did not increase (i.e. where the radiator is on most cars)? I'm not suggesting a perpetual motion machine or energy for free, but simply a way to recoup some of the wasted energy of pushing a car through air. Wouldn't it be possible to effectively reduce (not eliminate) the drag coefficient by adding a turbine? Or by adding a turbine, do you always also have to increase drag?

here is a thought one could create a fan type car (they have been built in the past one I think was actulaly part boat ski sled and car (cause all the power was comming from the prop like a swamp boat) if one were sitting or using regen breaking one could in theory save energy to a battery etc... now if one could find a parking lot etc with the requirements of space and wind to alow a close to the ground vehicle to gen enough electricity to be worth while while you were at work... I don't know maby if ya live in the gorge up in washington parts of wyoming, montana... plus one of the reason we arnt riding around on prop driven cars is 1 they are hard to control compared to power coming from wheels, 2 LOUD, 3 Fail in crashes spectacularly. Now could one use solar to work with an air compressor (in place of batery) for an air powered piston (turbine?) motor?

Hey guys,

I found this blog because I've been thinking about this idea for a while. I'm not a perpetual-motion-freak, but recylcing spent energy (like those braking systems), or catching side-effect energy (like the created airflow [drag] by objects that are in motion) is something that seems worthy of persuit.

Now, as far as automoble design goes, necessary drag is already used to boost the performance of cars (spoilers, hood-vents, super/turbo chargers,) things to keep the car down on the road (as opposed to up in the air), and help keep the engine cool and to "charge" it for when increased horsepower is needed. Bottom line, there's no getting rid of drag, but drag isn't all that bad either. (Taking advantage of it is part of what helps aircraft land, and autos stay on the road.)

The bigger issue is how much power can a wind-turbine moving at a certian speed generate, and how much power a car needs to go a certian speed for a certain distance.

Wind turbines are generally designed with average windspeeds in mind, and that has generally made them favor lesser and more constant breeze-like windspeeds rather than the storm like airflow created at moving forward at 65 to 70 mph. (Racing cars travel at speeds equal to weaker huricanes.) And thus, off the shelf wind-tubines are actually designed to power-down by locking in place or by flapping to a degree that the wind just goes right thru; and they do this at around 50 mphs. So, engineering a turbine design that would take advantage of high-wind velocity (which is always coming from the same direction, in this case, forward) would be necessary.

Therotically at least, the huge plus about doing this is that as wind increases, the power-output of the turbine increases at an exponetial rate. The reasons traditional wind-turbines don't take advantage of this (at storm-like speeds), however, is for the turbines protection (usually seated on a high-tower, and designed to rotate 360 degrees, a big enough natural wind gust could litterally push them right off their towers if they were made without those safety features--but, properally mounted within the frame of a car fixed in one direction, the rotor designed properly, and the generator geared for higher-velocities there's no reason to expect the rotor-to-turbine componet of it would be in serious danger since prop-planes can go several hundreds of miles an hour, and helicopters turn their rotors with an incredible ammount of RPM.) Still, this may be the short-fall of the whole idea, because planes are pushing, or pulling themselves forward, and helicopters are generting lift by the similar rotation, while a wind-tubrine is only catching, and slowing wind down... creating a serious counter-force pushing back while the theorized car pushes forward.

The question becomes, is the counter-force less than, equal to, or greater than. If it's greater than, there's nothing to pursue. If it's equal to, it's something, but nothing worth pursuing, and if it's less than, than it needs to be much less to make it more desirable to pursue than the alternatives already within reach. Now, because the ammount of power generated by a wind-turbine is exopnetially greater as windspeed increases, it's possible, this counter-force (the drag) could be less than the energy it produces for the car relative to the ammount of energy the car expends--especially if the wind is caught first by something else, channeled to the wind-turbine (or turbines, as I think a few micro-turbines, at least 3 to 5 of them would be needed, likely with 8 blades rather than the traditional 3-blades per rotor of each, because none of them could be very long to fit a traditional car design) rather than just one larger one), and then exhausted in a way that benefits the cars handling. ... Sort of of the "Z" shape maybe, with the turbine mounted facing up, the wind taken in from the hood, channeled downward, and redirecting again once it's past the turbine, towards the aft of the car. (The push-back effect of this channeled air would then potentially even be in the cars favor creating both thrust and downward force.)

Such a system would likely generate 1 to 5 KW's per hour (depending on how well it was designed, even with the law that you can only make pratical use of 30 percent of the wind you catch factored in), and a EV crusing at 55mph, I think only consumes a few hundred per hour... (560w to 700w.) With all the other features put in a modern car (ac, media-devices, interior lights, exterior lights, and the burst of power needed to get to speed) It would hardly be perpetual motion, and you would likely still need to charge the car while parked, but if it's designed right, a EV car with a wind-turbine-power system could triple or quadruple it's range where it was allowed to cruise for long periods at freeway speeds.

The hurdles are: 1)You've really got to have a wind-turbine system built from scratch, and engineneered just for this purpose; because though wind-turbines are and explored area nothing on the shelf is adaquate because they've been evolving to make the most of gentle breezes, 2) Several expensive batteries are still a required to house the stored energy. and 3) All of these things together take a lot of "under the hood" space, and would make it neccesary to put int smaller independent electric motors for each of the wheels... (which isn't a bad thing, and can actually be a great thing, but, it's probably also expensive.)

The pluses are that it 1) can charge itself even at night-time, (unlike solar electric cars.) 2) Can charge itself on the go (unlike traditional electric vehicles, or the ones that will use hydrogen fuel-cells.) 3) can take advantage of these abilities to reduce the ammount of batteries it needs to carry with it (which could reduce the costs of an EV a great deal) 4) and can match if not surpass by far the ammount of miles you can cover in one stretch... the numbers I've play with give me a range of 400 to 700 miles before the wind-turbines need to be suplimented by external charging. (My petrol car averages no more than 300 and some change on one tank, with the average refueling occuring every 250 miles traveled.) The average ranges a wind-turbine powered car are equal and greater than to the highest range-performance EV's or solars (that are too expensive in their construction to be mass-produced) IF, of course, the push-back (or drag) is not a signifcant force against the cars forward movement... (but, since it can't be gotten rid-off, and is a huge factor especially at higher speeds, if it can be designed to channel air downward, and be used as a sort of internal front-rotating end-spoiler(s), it's a workable idea... it just requires a whole new-conept car with several existing, but uncombined disciplines and technologies--which means it needs a lot of money, and a lot of geniuses behind it... Sadly, I must admit I'm neither rich, nor brilliant.) ...hmm... I just hit on another thing... if the turbines are rotating downward, there would need to be a even-paring of them, and they would need to be geared to rotate counter to one another to allow the car to remain stable, and not significantly lean to the right or left once it started gettting up to speed! :-D

If it can be built, like I think it can, in the way I've described, than it would be the greatest use of wind-propulsion since the sails that got us around the ocean centuries before we could make use of the steam engine and other propulsion designs. Of course, this design is less about natural wind, and more about channeling and harvesting airflow created from motion thru our atmosphere (essentially the common force behind drag and lift.)

Anyways, that's my take on it.

Best Regards,

Benjamin Tidwell

I guess some of you missed my earlier posting. I designed the inversion tunnel almost seven years ago. The tunnel fits where the motor of a car will go. Look back up the list and read my comments. Catch up with us.
I appreciate your input, but I believe you are mistaken in the amount of electricity you can produce with a car driven inversion tunnel. I believe it is much more than is sufficient to run the EV and take care of all drag. It is enough to run the car and re-charge the battery pack. I did extensive research on this, but I could have made errors. I have asked anyone that is willing to make a prototype to prove or disprove the theory to do so. Get whatever patent you think you can. I do not have the money for either. If it works, I am giving my idea to the world. If not, we tried. The correct terminology for this technology is inversion tunnel in lieu of wind tunnel. The car collects wind instead of makes wind. The wind collected drives a squirrel type cage that turns the turbine located inside the engine compartment. If you have a better way to make a mouse trap, so be it, but please don't miss the obvious on this one. So, please get that patent right away and be sure to sell it if it works to the auto makers and oil companies. We won't ever hear of it again if you are successful. I plan on telling China and everyone in the world about it if it works. I want every Tom, Dick and Harry building one in his or her garage and driving them all over the planet. In the case the concept does not work, maybe it will help prolong the life of the vehicle. My name is Chic. Please read my story above. I can document every claim I made with internet dates going back 7 years. Good luck on being the first, and I really hope you build a prototype that works. The world needs it right now.

Chic

You guys don't get it. It doesn't matter where you put the turbine, what sort of wind tunnel you make, if you can incorporate a battery...none of it.

You cannot get energy for free. You can only convert existing energy of one form into another, and lose a ton of it in the process.

To put it another way, the car isn't "just" moving. There's an internal combustion engine causing that. But throwing a windmill up there, you're making more work for the engine. Makes no difference if it's an electric car, or solar, or powered by farts.

Regenerative brakes are not related, in fact what they do is the exact opposite of what a windmill would do. They capture the kinetic energy that you DON'T need (since you're stopping anyway). Anything wind powered would be capturing kinetic energy that you DO need (for example, to get to your destination). So you put it in a battery? Great! You were better off not wasting it to begin with since you got less than a quarter of it back, and most of THAT escaped as heat while you were trying to charge the battery!

A moving vehicle cannot make use of its own drag. End of story.

Again, you are trying to convert the energy from the car's motion into electricity and then back into motion. You can only lose energy that way. Once more: you will never, ever, ever gain energy that way. Does not matter where you put the blades, how large they are, any more than what color your car is.

What the world needs is not false hope. It is actual solutions to problems. Like this circle I just squared...

Sow what you are saying rokdcasbah is that air entering the front of a car either through its radiator grill or air dams will cause less drag upon hitting the radiator or other metal object in the automobile than if it were to hit the blade of a fan and create whatever amount of excess energy it was not creating previously? I am a bit confused by your statement.

Yes, but suppose we have our wind forced turbine along with generators on all four wheels, solar panels, and a kite and key tied to the car? Gee whiz. I'm all for pedal power. LMFAO!

Yes, but suppose we have our wind forced turbine along with generators on all four wheels, solar panels, and a kite and key tied to the car? Gee whiz. I'm all for pedal power. LMFAO!

I get sick and tired of people saying it can't be done. Just because you can't do it does not mean it is impossible.

Thank god Columbus didn't belive them when they told him it couldn't be done. Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is right. Just look at the "Honor" killings overseas.

Anyways back to the subject.

1. Yes perpetual motion machine does exist. Just because we can't re-create it doesn't mean it is impossible. First one created was our universe, second our solar system, thrid our planet. It will spin and will keep on spinning for billions of years.
2. Nano technology, has anyone thought about creating something to harniss the spin of the electron of an atom? Harniss the mechanical motion off that and you will have your infinite power.
3. Power is created/converted all the time all around us, how do you think you move around, or given the energy to say it can't be done.
4. Perpetual motion machine will be created, but it will use mulitple technologies, not just one, example, gyroscope and aerodynamics. Sorry won't let the cat further out of the bag.

Sorry, back on topic.
An Inversion tunnel is the way to go. The key factor is the exhaust of the tunnel. What is opposite of drag? Eliminate one force by another. Combine aerodynamics of a wing into the tunnel. You need the vacumm created to acheieve your results. Also poeple, start using gears, a simple transmission will help reduce the variable load on the electric motor. Another thing, variable flywheel, the faster it spins the bigger it becomes. The design will not create a car that will travel forever, but by my calculations with some of the current technologies we have today, I come up with a range of 500-600 miles for 2 people, average weight of 170.

Sorry I stumbled onto this site while looking something up. Math is what I am good at, not spelling, so I am sorry for any spelling errors. Share your ideas, one person's problem may have been fixed by another. Our society's problem is everyone wants in for themselfs, and not for each other. Exmaple, the 100 mpg carborator, yes one was designed, built and works, Exxon bought the rights and refuse to release it. One person got rich, the rest got the shaft.

do enjoy the conversation at heart but as an engineering student studying the underlying principals at play here, there are several things I felt the need to comment on. First off E in must equal E out. Energy must be conserved. E gen can come into play and reduce your energy loss, it can never exceed it. Pressure drag which is the dominent force at higher speeds does not have a linear relationship with velocity. Some stated at a very high speed a turbine would create more power than a car would need to run. In actuality your efficency decreases past a certain critical point. If anyone has bothered to look at a pressure/velocity profile of a car you would realize that a high pressure low velocity region of turbulent air exsists directly in front of the car. The efficiency of any non inductive generation system mounted inside the hood would be extremely low. Boundary layer anyone? As far as inventing an inversion tunnel, try Bernoulli's law. He has you beat by several hundred years. Look at the cooling system on a p-51 mustang. Also though the lifespan of the universe trumphs anything we can compare, it is not perpetual. Our sun just like any other body had a fuel source and a set life.

I meant to post this as well. Here is a perfect example of recapturing energy in a system that would have otherwise been lost rather than making things exceedingly inefficent. Cars as they stand are only 25 percent efficient. The most energy is lost in the drive train. Check this out, REAL HOPE not false.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=467

Wow. A lot of negative uncreative people on this list. Also a lot of people not thinking it through. So here are some not so hard numbers.
1) a battery powered car is about 95% efficient (ignoring the source of charging- i.e electricity from a powerplant).

2) A wind turbine will be lees efficient than that, regardless of where you place it. Conservatively let's say 40% (too tired to do the research and come up with a real number).

By adding a well placed aerodynamically designed turbine into your electric car your efficiency will go down, thus reducing the charge faster.

HOWEVER, if you use the turbine to recharge the batteries, then you will be pushing charge back into the batteries. So you're now expending a let's say 85% efficient battery system and recharging it back at 40%.
This may actually *increase* the mileage you get out of the vehicle, but you of course wind up with a net loss in energy. So no perpetual energy, and yes more drag. But you are probably producing more energy than drag at the cost of more energy from another source.

What many of you fail to see is that by adding the turbine you have added a new power source that can be used to partially charge the system while traveling. While not enough to allow you to drive from NY to CA on a single charge, it should allow you to drive father on a single charge. Adding solar sells on the surface of the vehicle would do the same. Would the expense of adding either or both pay for themselves over time?
The turbine possibly, but only an experiment, hard calculation (break out the differential equations lads), or simulation could say. In the mean time try to ber more imaginative and less judgmental. It's a good idea to explore, and could wind up in new and improved vehicle designs. After all turbines power most of our commercial and military aircraft. I don't see any one talking about them as impossible.

Celtic_hackr, though I admire your enthusiasm your lofic is inherently wrong. I hate to say it again but due to conservation of energy this concept will not work. Search other threads, the same argument I am presenting is always cited. No matter how aero dynamic or streamlined you make the turbine, the drag it adds to this system will always create a loss overall. The electricty that you create with the wind generator will not be greater than the electricty consumed by the electric engine(s) to overcome the extra drag of the turbine. Think about it. Every time you change energy from state to state at best you loose 10%. In an ideal system, we would change from electricty -> motion -> electricity. Having lost 20% of the inital energy, your better off just letting the battery power the car from the begining. In effect the cars mileage will not increase. Solar panels deal with an entirly different system. Since their energy source is not directly related to the car you can claim energy that would have otherwise gone unused. However, the power it takes to move the additional wegiht of these panels must be less than the output of the solar panels. This idea has the potential to yeild a positive output in the system. I advise you to pick up a Thermodynamics or Physics textbook and read the sections on conservation of energy. I was optimistic at one point to, but learning the inneficency of the world around us makes one quite cryptic as time progresses.

Ok, so its obvious that you can't use this type of wind generator to get free energy, because that defies the laws of physics. But what if you were to use this kind of thing as a supplement to say, a gasoline engine. It would work like hybrid car, with the energy created by the turbine feeding into a bank of battery which the car could periodically switch to and run off of. Does anyone think this would be feasible?

I sincerely hope you are joking. If your not, I pity you.

The problem with the wind/gas hybrid is that the gas engine is most efficient at powering the car at highway speeds, with the engine switching off for low-power, city driving. That's how current hybrids work.

The turbine as regenerative braking could work, if you could get it to pop out only during braking. But coupling to the wheels is much more efficient. Some airliners can pop a wind turbine out as a source of emergency power, but they travel very fast.

I say, how about just a sail-powered car? Aside from the need to convert every overpass into a drawbridge to accomodate your 50-foot-high rig, all the fun of sailing with none of the salt-water corrosion problems!

There are water pumps used in water features and ponds that have magnetic drives. The shaft of the pump is suspended by magnets instead of berrings. No friction
or berrings to wear out. Could this tecnology be used to make a better generator powered by wind or whatever?

Probably there is a way to store energy
of wind generator on a top of a car in
a acumulator, then use it (when needed)
to run a car.(sry-bad english)

like it was said earler, it will take a combination things to make it work, less friction and 2 or 3 things working togather to charge the battary. I have been look at heat conversion from the motor to recharge the battary. has anyone heard of this being done before?

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

Wow! Such intelegence here! All the physics and thermodynamics talk. Simple questions....
Which travels further, a 17" wheel rotating 3 full revolutions or a 1" wheel rotating 3 full revolutions?

Ok, easy enough, now let's reverse that....

Which will charge more, a 17" wheel attached to a generator moving along a 1 mile stretch or a 1" wheel attached to the same generator over the same 1 mile stretch.

Yes, the 1" wheel will require more power to turn, but if using a 70mph sustained headwind NOT being supplied by the cars power source.....

Think past your egos folks. It isn't just a matter of energy in to energy out.

And when someone gives a suggestion of a wind generator on a car, and the first thing you think of is a windmill on top? You might want to find another subject to follow and study.

Something like this is what I imagine. Capturing otherwise waste and converting it to stored energy via batteries.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/tigers_exhaust_.html

Yes, the 1" wheel will Think past your eggos folks now let's reverse that Which travels further, a 17" wheel rotating? or a 1" wheel attached to the eggos folks Wow! Such intelegence here

Ok, so its obvious that you can't use this type of wind generator to get free energy, because that defies the laws of physics. But what if you were to use this kind of thing as a supplement to say, a gasoline engine. It would work like hybrid car, with the energy created by the turbine feeding into a bank of battery which the car could periodically switch to and run off of. Does anyone think this would be feasible?

Posted by: jmatt632 on October 15, 2007 at 10:17 AM

I sincerely hope you are joking. If your not, I pity you.

Posted by: unionengineer on October 15, 2007 at 6:08 PM

The problem with the wind/gas hybrid is that the gas engine is most efficient at powering the car at highway speeds, with the engine switching off for low-power, city driving. That's how current hybrids work.

The turbine as regenerative braking could work, if you could get it to pop out only during braking. But coupling to the wheels is much more efficient. Some airliners can pop a wind turbine out as a source of emergency power, but they travel very fast.

I say, how about just a sail-powered car? Aside from the need to convert every overpass into a drawbridge to accomodate your 50-foot-high rig, all the fun of sailing with none of the salt-water corrosion problems!

Posted by: wsanders on October 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM

There are water pumps used in water features and ponds that have magnetic drives. The shaft of the pump is suspended by magnets instead of berrings. No friction
or berrings to wear out. Could this tecnology be used to make a better generator powered by wind or whatever?

Posted by: edrowe on November 25, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Probably there is a way to store energy
of wind generator on a top of a car in
a acumulator, then use it (when needed)
to run a car.(sry-bad english)

Posted by: tomina on December 12, 2007 at 4:06 AM

like it was said earler, it will take a combination things to make it work, less friction and 2 or 3 things working togather to charge the battary. I have been look at heat conversion from the motor to recharge the battary. has anyone heard of this being done before?

Posted by: ljolley on December 20, 2007 at 2:53 PM

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

Posted by: randomguy27 on December 22, 2007 at 5:28 PM

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

Posted by: randomguy27 on December 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

Posted by: randomguy27 on December 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM

What if the turbine were actually several small turbines that would sit in the grill of the car? Then the turbines are not adding drag since they would certainly not be less aerodynamic than the grill.

The goal here is to replace existing air resistive areas of the car with a similarly resistive turbine that can generate charge to be stored in a battery. This would be an increase in overall efficiency.

Posted by: randomguy27 on December 22, 2007 at 5:30 P

Why can you not use a wind generator as drag to stop the car like have a wind generator with flaps that open
up when you slow down like regertive braking. All brakes are are friction why not us drag to slow down.
Then they close when you accerate again.

Why can you not use a wind generator as drag to stop the car like have a wind generator with flaps that open
up when you slow down like regertive braking. All brakes are are friction why not us drag to slow down.
Then they close when you accerate again.

What about the wheel it has alot of drag also. Maybe
a hovercraft type vehical would get beter miliege with a friction wheel to limit friction the the road. like the hover scooter has.

How about a sail with a generator on the wheels.
The wind could push you down the street and charge
up the batteriers for when there was no wind. That way
the wind could push you and charge the battery for you all at the same time.

How about a two seat land yacht. The record speed is
around 116mph, and if you had a generator on one of the wheels you could charge up the batteries then turn the generator into a motor with no wind. Would that be a wind powered electric vehical?

I got a question what would happen if you put a windmill on a boat?

What would happen if you used a windmill to sail down the street and had a brake on it so you could stop and start. Like apply the brake to go and release it to stop. I don't now put up and down a sail wile going mite be a problem in town and brakes well wind gets kind of strong now and then. I think a stoped wind mill would have alot of drag as to one spining.

A land yacht would have problems going up hill or into the wind that is were the electric motor would come in.
rechable electric assited land yacht. I don't now much about sail a ship just another stuid idea I have. When the wind is behind you you can charge the batteries.
No wind for awaile or head wind you can let the wind mill spin freely and use the electric motor.

I did a little experiment with wind mill on a boat.
I stop the wind mill from spining and it harhly moved at all. While the wind mill was spining around it moved
with no little air it assided the ship. just the backwards of how I thought it would work. It is like a air plain prop that spins into the wind it helps push it.

A wind mill on a boat helps the boat go. Why can not a windmill help a car go. May if you turn it backwards or
something having the wind mill face tyhe oppised direction.

Im going to try on more thing with the wind mill boat
have the wind mill face to opposit direction. if it move towards thee air flow it will freck me out. By maybe that all the wind generator needs is turned around.

Im going to try on more thing with the wind mill boat
have the wind mill face to opposit direction. if it move towards thee air flow it will freck me out. By maybe that all the wind generator needs is turned around.

Will I tryed it and it still goes with the wind while it spining. But there is some funning going on with it just sits there anyway you turn the boat it the tube it drifs backwards what is with that. There is something going on I don't understand.

I tryed something differnt I laid the wind mill down
It goes faster backwards when it drifs. Does a BOAT
trift backwars or what but it still blow with the wind.

Something funnings going on I don't understand I took off the windmill and it sat stll in the water. There must be some air movement the windmill moved away from the wind if there is any wind. laying down it moved faster backwards I turn it around all over but it still goes backwards some is funny when I turn the windmill upside down on the boat laying down it moved forward I still think the is a little air coming from some place but why does it move forward upside down laying on the boat.

Some werd happen when the pin wheel was on backwards
or the pin wheel was facing the wroung way I blow into it and it move toward the wind it only did it once thow.
WEAD WERD WERD

I have reched a conculion a backward face wind mill
will suck the air if it is keeping the same rotation
as is it assited blow the oppoist direction spining the same way as turned around to do that it must be at a angled to the wind to assit the vehical to keep the same rotation sucking and blow forward moved into the wind.

My conculion was wroung you also have to have the wind coming from the other direction what is a wind dyeflactor I was look at a ship and they have sails bouching the wind a diferent direcntion like air coming from the frount now coms from the back. I think I was right about turning the prop around thow.

One other thing I noticed about a pin wheel it is one directal only spins on way. I wounder what a cealing
fan type wind mill would do? You turn the plates around and it blow the otherway it suck air. It is two way fan.

My first car I bought used wind power to charge my battery. At a certain speed the fan disengaged from the motor to cool the engine and recharge my 12 volt battery since the fan was connected to the alternator.
when that speed wasn't met, the motor again started to turn the fan and alternator, It was made that way to save gas and increase mileage. each one of you have great ideas. go out and make it work. but know that my little car did do such a thing to save on gas usege.

"1. Yes perpetual motion machine does exist. Just because we can't re-create it doesn't mean it is impossible. First one created was our universe, second our solar system, thrid our planet. It will spin and will keep on spinning for billions of years."
----
Dear God...

NO, NO, and NOOO.

Perpetual motion does -not- exist.
1) The Universe. Its cooling over time, creating new suns takes energy..the expansion of the universe is SLOWING, it will eventually stop doing that, and collapse again under its own mass.

2) The solar system. Gravity from many sources..the sun, other planets, asteroids..etc..all transfer energy from and to each other which affects orbits. Via Newton's first law of motion, the planets will stay in motion until another energy affects them. Albeit SLOWLY, the loss of that inertial orbital energy comes about as other bodies affect them. One passing body might speed UP another, but the other had to slow down to do that. And there -is- loss in that energy transfer. Its never 100% efficient. Measure this in terms of millennia, not decades.

3) Our planet. You know what, earth rotation is slowing every day. The tidal forces of the moon and sun acting upon the ocean ARE decelerating this planet. We used to have 8-10hr days..and the moon was close enough that it was 10x larger in view than it is today. Also..that demonstrates point #2. The earth exerts a positive drag on the moon, IT is accelerating away from the earth...again, at the cost of the earth rotating slower.

As to your other points, youre a fool. Turn off WWF and tune into a science channel sometime.

Thus far I have not seen a viable reason that a Ram Air Turbine (rat) could not be used to charge the batteries of an electric vehicle.

No, this is not an idea that will create a perpetual motion machine. That has been proven over and over again to be impossible.

However, using a RAT to increase the usable life of a bank of batteries makes sense. I do not see why a system designed to use high pressure areas on a car to spin a RAT would not increase the usable range of a battery powered car.

I agree. We're not talking about creating free energy. You nay sayers are acting like there is no wind being pushed out of the way of the car, and that it is perfectly aerodynamic without a wind-generator. No, it does have wasted energy. Hear this out. Instead of the wind that hits the front of the car and travels around to the sides, top, and bottom, how about it travels through a wind tunnel and exits out the sides or top of the front of the car driving a fan?? If you think about the squareness of the front of an SUV or a semi, and all the wind that hits the front of the grill, some of it cools the radiator, but alot of it is wasted. If it travels through a wind tunnel and back out, at high speeds it could be very useful.

For all the people who are laughing at this idea and making fun of us that are physics-ally challenged, I would just like to say that there have been MANY people throughout history that were laughed at because their ideas were "impossible". That is until someone figured out how to make them possible. What if the Wright Brothers let people laugh them out of making a plane? Or Christopher Columbus was laughed out of taking his voyage? Seriously, the only way that things get changed is if people can ignore the naysayers and keep trying to do the impossible!

For all the people who are laughing at this idea and making fun of us that are physics-ally challenged, I would just like to say that there have been MANY people throughout history that were laughed at because their ideas were "impossible". That is until someone figured out how to make them possible. What if the Wright Brothers let people laugh them out of making a plane? Or Christopher Columbus was laughed out of taking his voyage? Seriously, the only way that things get changed is if people can ignore the naysayers and keep trying to do the impossible!

Hi Kristen, there is a big difference between the Wright Brothers/Columbus situation and this discussion: here the laughers apply more logic than the dreamers, with Wright/Columbus this was the other way around... ;-)

Think flaps on an airplane. What are they for? Deploy
air turbines [like flaps] on moving hybrid vehicles to slow down and capture free energy [to the batteries] at the same time. Toyota are you listening?
This would work wonders on large trucks and high speed trains as well. Sorry Exxon.

While you are at it put a real rudder and elevator on car roofs instead of the current wimpy efforts for further efficiency gains.

Study nature to advance mankind.

Eveytime something moves eg.car, plane there is wind resistance even if we are going in the same direction as the wind,why not harness it.Car manufacturers could build in sleek designs that only slight openings are visible but underneath the hood are small like windmills that only operate once the vehicles sensors detect a drop in battery power.These turbines would be making power everytime the vehicle moved, and would be stored in storage batteries possibly along the wheel well.We need better effecient batteries possibly not as bulky maybe more on the look of say a thinner rad or furnace filter size.We have power equipment that runs totally on batteries why not energize those batteries using wind! It is a totally free resource,maybe that's the problem.

I believe we are striving in the right direction just putting our thoughts and ideas out there and yes some are OUT THERE!we will reach where we want to be,the little snowball starts to roll and before you know it it's a great earth moving avalanche.Without the ideas nothing gets done!

I think that it is time to think out of the box. A lot on energy can be derived from acoustics or a vortex tube. Why don't you expand your physics thinking. From a little research, no one seemed to actually research the idea for plausibility, the idea is not a bad one, for example,

Could we convert our present cars to wind power?

Not entirely and certainly not currently with the drawing board only theories and over all concept, however it is believed that we could retrofit them to use wind to increase the power efficiency and thus lower the fuel use by a wide margin. How would this be possible? Well the relative airflows of the air around the car would be sped up using a combination of sound or lasers and some aerodynamic principles of nature and this would increase the speed of the automobile.

Well at least in the theory of such technologies such as vortex airflows induced on modern fighter aircraft. But still it would take a little bit of work to get that air moving that fast and thus a laser induced vortex might do the trick and this would be mounted on the front of your car you see? Sound to Sci Fi; yes well today it is, but tomorrow, well that is a whole different story you see?

I think I jumped the gun a little. The first time I went through these comments I saw all