Fully Electric car with wind generators

In summary, this electric-powered car would not work because the only energy the generators will produce is entirely offset by the drag on the fan plus systemic losses, such as friction and generator electromagnetic losses.
  • #1
gearhead
31
0
I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has already built one, I've gone over the concepts involved and it does seem both practical and possible. The idea is this: electric-powered car that is recharged by several wind-generators(essentially fans on the roof) that recharge the batteries once the car is driven up to speed. Yes i do realize that any energy that is being used for recharging the batteries by the generators is how much extra the motor will have to work to overcome the drag(and consequently using battery power), but as long as the generators are generating enough power to equal what the motor is using to sustain constant speed, then the car could in theory run almost forever, right? The only situations where you would be draining the battery and not recovering the charge are: accelerating and going up hills, and of course, any power lost through heat given off through the wires(no electrical system is 100% efficient). Yes the batteries would eventually die, but you could always recharge them and you'd probably get at least hundreds of miles before you ran out. Any ideas why these kinds of cars aren't being marketed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
gearhead said:
Any ideas why these kinds of cars aren't being marketed?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics?

(in before the lock!)
 
  • #3
Because it won't work, that's why. The only energy the generators will produce is entirely offset by the drag on the fan plus systemic losses, such as friction and generator electromagnetic losses. It's a net loss, overall.
 
  • #4
yes i realize that it's a net loss, but you'd still probably get at least 40 miles or so on it before batteries died, right?
 
  • #5
You don't understand. You will ultimately get FEWER miles out of your batteries with your fan/generator than you would without it, all else being equal.
 
  • #6
allright, thanks for clearing that up for me, another question: could a similar system work in a hybrid? For example, let's say that you have a generator that produces 5hp at highway speeds to recharge the batteries. 5hp to a 100hp engine is not that much extra power for it to output and therefore doesn't consume too much more gas. Would this be practical or is it subject to the same impracticality?
 
  • #7
Same problem. Ultimately, all the vehicle's forward motion comes from it's engine/motor and anything you do to try to recover that energy, be it a fifth wheel driving a generator or a wind turbine, places an additional drag on the vehicle and results in a net loss due to conversion losses
 
  • #8
Given the malicious perversity of mechanical systems, I suspect that any actual losses would be even greater than those which would be calculated mathematically. Machines are out to screw us any way they can think of. :wink:
 
  • #9
gearhead said:
I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has already built one, I've gone over the concepts involved and it does seem both practical and possible. The idea is this: electric-powered car that is recharged by several wind-generators(essentially fans on the roof) that recharge the batteries once the car is driven up to speed. Yes i do realize that any energy that is being used for recharging the batteries by the generators is how much extra the motor will have to work to overcome the drag(and consequently using battery power), but as long as the generators are generating enough power to equal what the motor is using to sustain constant speed, then the car could in theory run almost forever, right? The only situations where you would be draining the battery and not recovering the charge are: accelerating and going up hills, and of course, any power lost through heat given off through the wires(no electrical system is 100% efficient). Yes the batteries would eventually die, but you could always recharge them and you'd probably get at least hundreds of miles before you ran out. Any ideas why these kinds of cars aren't being marketed?

When I was about 11 years old, my dad found me cutting the bottom off of a coffee can for a project. He asked what I was doing, and I explained how I was going to mount two propellers on a shaft in the can, with the top propeller at one opening, and the bottom propeller at the bottom opening. I was going to put a harness on it so I could wear it like a backpack, and then when I spun up the propellers, the top one would provide the thrust, and the bottom one would recover the thrust and keep the top propeller spinning. I was looking forward to flying around like the jet-pack guy I'd seen on TV (dating myself here).

My dad sat me down and patiently explained why perpetual motion machines don't work, and how real jet engines do work, etc. I was disappointed, but it sure helped me understand the world better.

Does that help to answer your questions?
 
  • #10
yeah, thanks. funny story.
 
  • #12
Interestingly enough, I saw an picture in Sci-Am of a proposed ship that had 2 giant wind turbines mounted where sails normally would be, and these would supposedly power a motor directly that turned a propeller, but once the math was worked out it turned out that just using sails would make a much faster ship.
 
  • #13
Until just a few years after 1492 it was a well known fact that the Earth was flat.:rofl:

At some time in the near future, someone that doesn't know any better will likely have an idea that makes use of that mean old friction and law of motion. Behind some brick wall is a better idea.

I wonder what Columbus would think of the fancy sail boats moving around the ocean today.:rolleyes:
 
  • #14
Buckethead said:
a proposed ship that had 2 giant wind turbines mounted where sails normally would be, and these would supposedly power a motor directly that turned a propeller, but once the math was worked out it turned out that just using sails would make a much faster ship.
Sails are very efficent - assuming the wind was in the right direction.
The wind turbine ship doesn't have to tack to maintain a course, tacking a 400m container ship through the English channel would be interesting.

There is an intermediate solution that has been tried - a giant parafoil kite deployed in front of the ship.
 
  • #15
RonL said:
Until just a few years after 1492 it was a well known fact that the Earth was flat.:rofl:
No it wasn't, nobody thought the Earth was flat since they stopped hitting each other with rocks. The diameter of the spherical Earth was measured 2000 years before columbus.
The "they thought the Earth was flat" thing was made up by Washington Irvine to show how primitive and superstitious Europeans were compared to educated high tech scientific Americans (how times have changed).
 
  • #16
mgb_phys said:
No it wasn't, nobody thought the Earth was flat since they stopped hitting each other with rocks. The diameter of the spherical Earth was measured 2000 years before columbus.
The "they thought the Earth was flat" thing was made up by Washington Irvine to show how primitive and superstitious Europeans were compared to educated high tech scientific Americans (how times have changed).

Thanks, you might have saved my day, learned something not nascar related.:cool:
 
  • #17
berkeman said:
When I was about 11 years old, my dad found me cutting the bottom off of a coffee can for a project. He asked what I was doing, and I explained how I was going to mount two propellers on a shaft in the can, with the top propeller at one opening, and the bottom propeller at the bottom opening. I was going to put a harness on it so I could wear it like a backpack, and then when I spun up the propellers, the top one would provide the thrust, and the bottom one would recover the thrust and keep the top propeller spinning. I was looking forward to flying around like the jet-pack guy I'd seen on TV (dating myself here).

My dad sat me down and patiently explained why perpetual motion machines don't work, and how real jet engines do work, etc. I was disappointed, but it sure helped me understand the world better.

Does that help to answer your questions?

11 years old and you thought of that? Plus you could understand the concepts of energy that your dad was telling you? :bugeye:

I could barely tie my shoes at eleven years old!
 
  • #18
berkeman said:
I was disappointed, but it sure helped me understand the world better.

What a terrible experience ! Did you become a terrorist ? :biggrin:
 
  • #19
RonL said:
Until just a few years after 1492 it was a well known fact that the Earth was flat.:rofl:

At some time in the near future, someone that doesn't know any better will likely have an idea that makes use of that mean old friction and law of motion. Behind some brick wall is a better idea.

I wonder what Columbus would think of the fancy sail boats moving around the ocean today.:rolleyes:

Nearly two thousand years before 1492, the Greeks measured the radius of the Earth to within something like 16km.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth)

There have been plenty of "idea"s that ignore friction but have there been any proper theories or working inventions?
 
  • #20
mgb_phys said:
Sails are very efficent - assuming the wind was in the right direction.
The wind turbine ship doesn't have to tack to maintain a course, tacking a 400m container ship through the English channel would be interesting.

There is an intermediate solution that has been tried - a giant parafoil kite deployed in front of the ship.

The parafoil kite is a cool idea, especially since winds tend to be stronger at higher altitudes, but it seems one is limited to the direction of wind travel, or at least close to it. With sails, one can sail in any direction except for about 70 degrees into the wind. Yes, you have to tack to go in certain directions, but not all. A broad reach or a run don't require tacking. With the wind turbine, it doesn't seem likely one could move directly into the wind, as the wind resistance would be stronger than the propeller force so some kind of tacking even with a wind turbine would require tacking.
 
  • #21
"With the wind turbine, it doesn't seem likely one could move directly into the wind, as the wind resistance would be stronger than the propeller force"
That doesn't follow. It is true that you couldn't go forward faster than the wind is blowing towards you but there is no reason why you couldn't make forward progress to windward, albeit at a low speed. It's not a matter of force, it's a matter of power. As long as forward speed times water propeller / turbine thrust is designed to be less than wind speed times normal force on turbine you are ok. The design factors would be the areas and pitch of the two turbines (air and water).
There would, of course, be a component of drift backwards (as there is always leeway when a boat is close hauled) but the overall movement could be forwards.

"When the wind wouldn't blow and the wind wouldn't blow, we got carter the ****** to start 'er."
 
  • #22
sophiecentaur said:
Nearly two thousand years before 1492, the Greeks measured the radius of the Earth to within something like 16km.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth)

There have been plenty of "idea"s that ignore friction but have there been any proper theories or working inventions?

Might not be a proper theory, but consider how a boat gets on plane in the lake, it glides on top of the water much easier than plowing through it.
Think of a vehicle that moves forward at some velocity and forces most air under it and with side fairings the air is pretty well encapsulated. You have forward velocity and gravity applying a force to the volume of air as the vehicle in essence slides over it and if directed through some conversion mechanism that uses both frictional and thermal properties the air mass (or volume?) is reduced and dumped into the low pressure backdraft area of the forward moving vehicle.

Lots of physics and mechanics in what is described, lots of potential energy to move back into the power supply.

Someone in thermal engineering should have a good time with all of it.

Ron
 
Last edited:
  • #23
"Someone in thermal engineering" would know that certain 'Laws' Apply throughout our physical lives.
Your rather vague suggestions about "sliding over" a volume of air have been tried and used, successfully by hovercraft to reduce contact friction with the ground but there are still many losses from the fan and from turbulence. You may have noticed that hovercraft are no longer used as serious commercial carriers except over swamps and other odd surfaces. They are not used commercially (much: I may be proved wrong in some obscure example), even over the sea because boats and hydrofoils work better.
The "potential energy" to which you refer is only the equivalent of raising the vehicle by a meter or so and that, as well as being very hard to recover, is only the same as you'd get by rolling down a 1m high hill.
In all these issues of Energy, you have to do the actual SUMS before seriously proposing any novel system - which is why so few novel systems don't actually work. It's not a matter of ultra conservativism in the Scientific community.
 
  • #24
sophiecentaur said:
"Someone in thermal engineering" would know that certain 'Laws' Apply throughout our physical lives.
Your rather vague suggestions about "sliding over" a volume of air have been tried and used, successfully by hovercraft to reduce contact friction with the ground but there are still many losses from the fan and from turbulence. You may have noticed that hovercraft are no longer used as serious commercial carriers except over swamps and other odd surfaces. They are not used commercially (much: I may be proved wrong in some obscure example), even over the sea because boats and hydrofoils work better.
The "potential energy" to which you refer is only the equivalent of raising the vehicle by a meter or so and that, as well as being very hard to recover, is only the same as you'd get by rolling down a 1m high hill.
In all these issues of Energy, you have to do the actual SUMS before seriously proposing any novel system - which is why so few novel systems don't actually work. It's not a matter of ultra conservativism in the Scientific community.

You might have helped make my point. The hovercraft is almost the exact reverse of what I mentioned, a total waste of energy to lift a vehicle and make it move.

We are talking "energy recovery" and with the proper engineering to maintain operator control, you can have a method of making a 6,000 pound vehicle (electric) feel to it's power system as if it only weighs 1,500 pounds.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Buckethead said:
The parafoil kite is a cool idea, ...but it seems one is limited to the direction of wind travel, or at least close to it. With sails, one can sail in any direction except for about 70 degrees into the wind.
The makers (kiteship) claim that the winds work for a lot of trade routes.
The big advantage is that you don't need any changes to the ship, no masts and rigging to make loading difficult. And you don't need the crew to manage the sails
It's just a computer controlled winch at the pointy end where the current anchor winch is.
 
  • #26
RonL said:
You might have helped make my point. The hovercraft is almost the exact reverse of what I mentioned, a total waste of energy to lift a vehicle and make it move.

We are talking "energy recovery" and with the porper engineering to maintain operator control, you can have a method of making a 6,000 pound vehicle (electric) feel to it's power system as if it only weighs 1,500 pounds.
How does its mass appear to be less? Are you suggesting that it becomes easier to accelerate? How is its mass relevant?
Also, where does all this returned energy come from? If it is suspended above ground you can't even use regenerative braking.
The nearest thing that I can think of to what you seem to be describing may a 'ground effect' air transport - old news. It requires less energy to fly it but has the disadvantage that it will bump into trees and buildings because it is only a metre or two, max, above ground. Again, there is no "energy recovery" - just relatively low friction / drag forces.
 
  • #27
sophiecentaur said:
How does its mass appear to be less? Are you suggesting that it becomes easier to accelerate? How is its mass relevant?
Also, where does all this returned energy come from? If it is suspended above ground you can't even use regenerative braking.
The nearest thing that I can think of to what you seem to be describing may a 'ground effect' air transport - old news. It requires less energy to fly it but has the disadvantage that it will bump into trees and buildings because it is only a metre or two, max, above ground. Again, there is no "energy recovery" - just relatively low friction / drag forces.

Sorry to be so long giving an answer, what I'm suggesting is a weight being semi supported on a wedge of air, the reason for 1500 pounds of weight being in contact with the ground through 4 wheels, is for control purposes. In a real emergency the entire weight can be transferred to the wheels for braking and steering.

I would think anyone that understands scoops on race cars, should be able to form a little bit of a picture in their mind of what I'm suggesting.

The mechanical transfer of airflow into work or electrical power can go in many directions, that is why such a general and simple statement.

Ron
 
  • #28
RonL said:
Sorry to be so long giving an answer, what I'm suggesting is a weight being semi supported on a wedge of air, the reason for 1500 pounds of weight being in contact with the ground through 4 wheels, is for control purposes. In a real emergency the entire weight can be transferred to the wheels for braking and steering.
Can be done, and often is for moving very very large objects
But you are using a lot of power to run the air compressors to generate the air pressure, a lot more than you use in overcoming friction of the wheels/tires.
 
  • #29
Roni
You are confusing force with energy. The weight is always the weight (unless you go to a different planet) and the time it counts is only when going up / down hill. Mass is involved when gaining or losing speed. Efficiency in vehicles can be affected by reducing contact friction and drag. Railway trains do a very job of keeping friction to a reasonable value by using steel wheels and rails.
You haven't commented on my earlier mention of good old fashioned ground effect. You are only, in effect, introducing that in your suggestion.
You need to appreciate that there is no "energy return" involved in your idea.
 
  • #30
mgb_phys said:
No it wasn't, nobody thought the Earth was flat since they stopped hitting each other with rocks. The diameter of the spherical Earth was measured 2000 years before columbus.
The "they thought the Earth was flat" thing was made up by Washington Irvine to show how primitive and superstitious Europeans were compared to educated high tech scientific Americans (how times have changed).
Some superstitous primative Europeans still think it is flat .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
I nowtice there is the odd American in there too.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Buckethead said:
With the wind turbine, it doesn't seem likely one could move directly into the wind, as the wind resistance would be stronger than the propeller force

It can be done.

On water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNbNNSDljGI&NR=1

On land (currently record about 64% windspeed, directly upwind):


sophiecentaur said:
It is true that you couldn't go forward faster than the wind is blowing towards you

No, there is no hard theoretical limit on your speed. Neither for directly upwind, nor for directly downwind. The only limit is efficiency.

This lecture talks about both directions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUwZmUjjgn4#t=3m10s

And here a simple mechanical analogy:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
mgb_phys said:
Can be done, and often is for moving very very large objects
But you are using a lot of power to run the air compressors to generate the air pressure, a lot more than you use in overcoming friction of the wheels/tires.

I'm not suggesting a compressor to blow air under a car, the velocity and weight of the car as it moves forward represents energy that has been applied in a productive way. If the air that is being pushed aside in all directions is (as much as practicle) directed under the car, with controlable fairings, you then are sitting inside a moving linear air compressor.

The proper air motor type device built into the car can take advantage of this large mass of airflow, will produce some amount of work and dump it's discharge into the draft area in back of the forward moving vehicle.

Reducing the effect of low pressure vacuum in back of the car, would in it's own right, be a positive action as good as regen.
 
  • #33
sophiecentaur said:
Roni
You are confusing force with energy. The weight is always the weight (unless you go to a different planet) and the time it counts is only when going up / down hill. Mass is involved when gaining or losing speed. Efficiency in vehicles can be affected by reducing contact friction and drag. Railway trains do a very job of keeping friction to a reasonable value by using steel wheels and rails.
You haven't commented on my earlier mention of good old fashioned ground effect. You are only, in effect, introducing that in your suggestion.
You need to appreciate that there is no "energy return" involved in your idea.

I'm not sure what to say.
Anything set in motion offers a potential of "energy return".

Flying in ground effect involves (in general) fast speed and extensive flat and open areas.
Driving in ground effect will involve much slower speed and contact with the ground, for reasons of operator control.

Any work performed with any compression of air will produce a change of temperature. Making use of pressure changes around a moving object can produce big returns in how much overall energy is needed to keep the object in motion.
 
  • #34
Ya know if the wind was strong enough on the given day a car powered by wind power could work... NOT.
 
  • #35
You don't seemed to have grasped the fact that taking erergy from the air you're traveling through merely increases the energy required to drive you forward. No free lunch.
 
<h2>1. What is a fully electric car with wind generators?</h2><p>A fully electric car with wind generators is a type of electric vehicle that uses wind energy to power its battery. It combines the use of renewable energy and electric technology to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation.</p><h2>2. How does a fully electric car with wind generators work?</h2><p>The car is equipped with a wind turbine that is mounted on the roof or hood. As the car moves, the wind turbine rotates and generates electricity, which is stored in the car's battery. This electricity is then used to power the car's motor and propel it forward.</p><h2>3. What are the benefits of using a fully electric car with wind generators?</h2><p>There are several benefits to using this type of car. Firstly, it reduces the reliance on fossil fuels and promotes the use of renewable energy. It also reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, it can save money on fuel costs in the long run.</p><h2>4. Are there any limitations to using a fully electric car with wind generators?</h2><p>One limitation is that the car's range is dependent on the availability of wind. If there is no wind or very little wind, the car may not be able to generate enough electricity to power its battery. Another limitation is that the wind turbine may add extra weight to the car, which can affect its performance and efficiency.</p><h2>5. Is a fully electric car with wind generators a viable option for everyday use?</h2><p>While it may not be suitable for all locations and situations, a fully electric car with wind generators can be a viable option for everyday use in areas with consistent wind patterns. It can also be used in combination with other renewable energy sources, such as solar panels, to further reduce its reliance on traditional energy sources.</p>

1. What is a fully electric car with wind generators?

A fully electric car with wind generators is a type of electric vehicle that uses wind energy to power its battery. It combines the use of renewable energy and electric technology to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation.

2. How does a fully electric car with wind generators work?

The car is equipped with a wind turbine that is mounted on the roof or hood. As the car moves, the wind turbine rotates and generates electricity, which is stored in the car's battery. This electricity is then used to power the car's motor and propel it forward.

3. What are the benefits of using a fully electric car with wind generators?

There are several benefits to using this type of car. Firstly, it reduces the reliance on fossil fuels and promotes the use of renewable energy. It also reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, it can save money on fuel costs in the long run.

4. Are there any limitations to using a fully electric car with wind generators?

One limitation is that the car's range is dependent on the availability of wind. If there is no wind or very little wind, the car may not be able to generate enough electricity to power its battery. Another limitation is that the wind turbine may add extra weight to the car, which can affect its performance and efficiency.

5. Is a fully electric car with wind generators a viable option for everyday use?

While it may not be suitable for all locations and situations, a fully electric car with wind generators can be a viable option for everyday use in areas with consistent wind patterns. It can also be used in combination with other renewable energy sources, such as solar panels, to further reduce its reliance on traditional energy sources.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
768
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
938
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
856
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
Replies
7
Views
982
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top