HankLloydRight
No Roads
What would you use to recharge the battery? Wind? Tire rotation? On-board batteries? We've heard it all, they're all perpetual motion machines that just won't work.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
On board generator
- Thread starter longshadows
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Technical
I guess it would be perpetual motion, as the engery would loop back. I would love to explain it more but to many smart folks in here and I haven't "protected" it yet.
I have tested the theory on a small scale earlier this year and it worked, I just need to get it on a larger scale. But I am not an engineer. I figured to ask here to see if I am not to late in this EV game and maybe get a team together.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
As the energy would "loop back" there are always energy losses somewhere... so the only way to recharge the battery while driving, and have it work, is to get the energy from somewhere else -- not the battery, or the motion of the car, or the wind, or wheels, or heat, etc. And since the car is in motion, the only way to do that is solar... and the energy you can get from a roof sized solar panel is negligible, would only work in the direct sun, and would likely add weight to the car negating any additional energy produced by the cells.
Nobody is going to help you unless you describe the method or process. And since the USPTO will not grant patents for perpetual motion machines, there's no way to "protect" your idea.
Your choice. I'm betting it won't actually work and provide a net gain in energy, but if it does you'd be a fool to tell us all how it works before you patent it.
Note that the Patent Office stopped taking Patents on perpetual motion machines without working prototypes a century or so ago.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
First I want to say thank you to you and everyone for the response. I appreciate any and all.
I agree on the lose of energy. that is why I don't think it can be fully regenerative but rather at the very least extending the range quite a but.
As far as patenting it wouldn't be for perpetual motion rather the mechanical way the transfer of energy is made.
Thank you, I will definitely have to see a patent lawyer to discuss this situation for sure.
Hmmm. Old women and worn shoes. Flubber is the answer...
I still didn't read anything at my level of understanding that would make it not possible.
This is good though. I need more reasons why it wont work, to make it work.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Ok, but where is this energy coming from? Just answer that, please.
Also, it will cost you more than $10k to take an idea all the way through to a patent. Assuming they grant it.
You will have to give me a couple weeks then I can tell you a bit more about it, even if I find out it just won't work.
I am going to do a provisional patent. Much less costly.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
It is time to point out again here that the Tesla's already have systems that recover all the car's kinetic and potential energy they possibly can and return it to the battery. There is no other source of energy to tap. That's the physics.
GLC76 has eluded to the fact that he is looking at more efficient ways to recover the available energy so we can't accuse him of claiming perpetual motion. And there are other ways. One could put a windmill with generator on top of the car. One could recover the energy from wires cutting the earth's magnetic field as the car moves through it. One could lower a fifth wheel coupled to a generator to the pavement but I think it is pretty clear that none of these would come close in efficiency to generators coupled directly to the existing wheels of the car and that's what we already have. Given that, about the only way to improve recovery is within the generators themselves or the rectifiers/conditioners that convert the A/C to DC. There are still a few percent available there but Tesla has squeezed the coconut pretty dry. Also the maximum recoverable energy is only a fraction of the energy expended (most of which goes to warming the air, the road bed, the gearboxes and the tires) is recoverable. This is enough to make an appreciable difference in range but increasing the efficiency of recovery by a couple of percent will not produce an appreciable additional increment.
GLC76 has eluded to the fact that he is looking at more efficient ways to recover the available energy so we can't accuse him of claiming perpetual motion. And there are other ways. One could put a windmill with generator on top of the car. One could recover the energy from wires cutting the earth's magnetic field as the car moves through it. One could lower a fifth wheel coupled to a generator to the pavement but I think it is pretty clear that none of these would come close in efficiency to generators coupled directly to the existing wheels of the car and that's what we already have. Given that, about the only way to improve recovery is within the generators themselves or the rectifiers/conditioners that convert the A/C to DC. There are still a few percent available there but Tesla has squeezed the coconut pretty dry. Also the maximum recoverable energy is only a fraction of the energy expended (most of which goes to warming the air, the road bed, the gearboxes and the tires) is recoverable. This is enough to make an appreciable difference in range but increasing the efficiency of recovery by a couple of percent will not produce an appreciable additional increment.
Agree in general.
There are places where the energy recovery is limited (full battery, cold battery,) and in situations where the car needs to be slowed sharply the peak recovery is limited because of the pack's capabilities, so there might be an opportunity for a capacitive recovery system or the like - save ~9% of the regen energy lost in the battery charge/discharge cycle and get the energy that's currently unrecoverable because of the battery limits.
But a capacitive system has to work at widely variable voltages, so you'd need a DC-DC converter to connect it to the rest of the system somewhere along the line (either battery to rest of system or capacitor to rest of system,) and the size of the converter will limit the output.
Whether the benefits can justify the cost/weight/volume is a good question, and there are safety issues with having large capacitors in a car as well.
Yes, super caps could be used to hold energy recovered when the battery can't be sink it.
Run some numbers for perspective. E.G. one can buy (Amazon) a 12 V 1000 F array for around $450. That can hold 1000*144/2 = 72 kJ which sounds like a lot (and is a lot for a capacitor) but is only 20 Wh.
Run some numbers for perspective. E.G. one can buy (Amazon) a 12 V 1000 F array for around $450. That can hold 1000*144/2 = 72 kJ which sounds like a lot (and is a lot for a capacitor) but is only 20 Wh.
But it gets you 1 year of coverage, then you must apply for a full patent thereafter.
This is something that I have thought about along with many, but does the kers system need capacitors? Or does it send recovery straight back to the battery?
The kers system? I'm not sure which one you're referring to; different ones work differently, including one with a flywheel for storage...
The current Tesla architecture sends energy from regen through the stock drive inverters and back to the battery pack. As discussed above, this isn't necessarily the optimal outcome, though it has the advantage of not needing any extra parts and does work very well in most circumstances.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Similar threads
- Article