off topic.. but...

they this is off topic.. but im just hearing alot about electrical and hybrid vehicles lately.

i know they are a good thing

and I have seen a few differn't kinds at the tech school..

im just wondering why there couldn't be a car that is self suffencient.. true it would ruinthe economy somewhat.. but


I think you would use a windmil style electric generator to produce more power then is being used to charge some mega beef electro magantic kinda battery or something.. i dunno.. windmills make all in of electricity just form wind.. a car has penty if wind and uses a fan to cool the motor.. I wonder why anyone hasn't though about making a windmil style fan that turns to produce power and to cool the engine.

or even just put a small windmil fan in an air dam somewhere to produce extra electricty.

And anouther wierd idea.. why not put a kinda alternator attached to each wheel... instead of to a turning gas powered motor... you could put it on say a cv axle... and your original bater could be used to get the car rolling then once moving the 2 or 3 alternators could be used to produce enough power to power the vehicle and to keep the batteries always charged... why are automotive makers settling for vehicle tha tyou have to plug in... or rely still on a gasoline engine..

I duno... I've always htought about this becuase it was a project to design a hybrid or electric car... in theroy and that was both of my theories way back when.. most people were tlaking solar and dumb unpracticle shit... what do you all think about my ideas... or do you all have any?

just wondering.. sorry to type so much and all..


Re: off topic.. but...

as far as building a self-sufficient car (which would be a perpetual motion machine), the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, being that it must produce as much or more energy than it uses, but heat energy is always lost due to friction. Although, turbines and wheel-mounted alternators may help to conserve energy. On the other hand, they may produce so much drag and friction that the vehicle requires more energy.

My $0,000,000.02

Re: off topic.. but...

Well, it’s a good idea except for something my father said once, "You can't make what you don’t have". A windmill system that you described could partially charge the battery as you drive, but you will always lose more power than you gain. Basically, what you are describing a perpetual motion type machine, one that once started could conceivably continue to run forever, this is impossibility. I once actually had a very similar idea; I took a high powered electric remote control car and attached a fairly efficient windmill type generator to the top. It did indeed extend battery life somewhat, but not by much and it certainly could never fully charge the battery.

Even IF it was a windy day thus adding to the power created by the wind created by the car, you will still never achieve the desired results. This is because you lose power when you make the conversion of "wind" energy to electrical power, through the wiring that connects the windmill to the battery, and the battery itself as it sits.

It actually is a good idea to add a windmill type generator to the car, so that while in motion, the windmill could assist the plug, motor, or whatever other device is charging the battery, thus extending battery life.

That’s all, Chucky D

Re: off topic.. but...


I think you'd do better by covering all the exposed surfaces with solar cells to gererate your extra power. They wouldn't add that much mass and could be accounted for in other areas. As well, instead of alternators on the wheels, adding flywheels that would act as brakes (when you DO decide you want to stop) to capture the engery of the spinning wheels and convert that motion into electricity. Combine this with a high temperature, ceramic, hydrogen burning engine, and there would be virually no pollution from this vehicle, not counting the pollution from its manufacture.

I read about a man from the southern US that had a car which theoretically ran off of water. He filled his "gas tank" with water, had battery packs and solar cells to electrolize the water into H and O2. They were then both pumped into two different cylinders and mixed and burned in a regular engine. It took a few days to get enough fuel and it would only run for a few minutes until it ran out. Not very efficient if you ask me, but a hell-of-an idea.


Re: off topic.. but...

Ron Brown /


You need to get out more. : )

At least Honda and Toyota have a hybrid with many of the features you mention, even if a slightly different implementation.

The big 3 are ready to sell them, if they have not started yet.

Look around the web for info, they are cool vehicles. The Honda gets about 70 mpg I think.


Re: off topic.. but...

the honda uses a motor to spin an alternator which charges the batter and provides extra power in heavy acceleration ron.

that cool but im thinking what if you want to eliminate the engine...

i htink say you have two batteries right.. and say it takea litle form one batter to start the vhicle into motion from a start and it takes the other bit of that first battery to run the accesories... now a regular alternator produces about 14 volts to keep the battery charged to run thing.. if you had some 24 volt battiers and say 2 alternators.. instead of just one..

you might use one for the batter that is mostly used to keep it xcharged then you have an extra battery incase the first gets low and you also have a whole nouther charging system to insure that the second battery is never low and always there for back up..... with 2 alternator... while one gets low they both will charge it up and then finish charging the secondary battery... it would seem like this would be a real solution. I know there is alot of other things that produce heat and fricition which is energy loss.. I understand that..

but it also sseems like if you produce more engery then you use you shouldn't ever be short.

It's just like say.. i dunno.. a windmill makkes a whole hell of alot of enegery right.. well sure it loses some but it makes so much more then is used.

also the common alternator.. it makes 14 volts if it is working correctly and is charging a 12 volt system.. so as long as your alternator is working right and producing more energy then whats being used.. then youll never have any problems.

im syure like everyone says a purpetual motion car is impossible... well i don;t think what im talking about is purpetual motion...

your just producing more power then being used.. and that compensates for the power you need and the lost power...

it wont last forever.. eventualy the batteries will die.. or need water.... and every time you stop will use twice as much battery power then to keep you in motion... and the alternators should do this. I would think the battery power plus alternator power should be enough to luanch a car... then once the car is cruising the power strain is relived the alternators can charge in order to get ready fo rhte next stop and go.

I dunno.. i guess if it was doable someone would have done it.

Re: off topic.. but...

Spike Bachman /

I've thought about that stuff as well. especially when I'm choking down fumes stuck in rush hour. Unfortunately, There is no MACHINE that can generate more energy than it uses.

On a very practical note - It's sad that we can't get cars like the Volkswagen Lupo over here (America). Instead the Europeans get to benefit from the small VW diesel which gets over 80mpg. And that's old technology - not even hybrid.

Some other favorites:


Corbin Sparrow

Re: off topic.. but...

i just don't agree.... an alternator uses no fucking energy... but it makes tons.. a windmill uses wind.. not its own energy.. but it makes tons. the alternator wouldn't have to produce enrergy to run it.... the simple starting battery would do that.

the battery wouldn't produce but 12 volts. the alternator would produce 14... but it doesn't take 14 volts to operate it.

all it takes is something to turn it at a semi steady speed.

and know it isn't going to run and produce extra power.. but there has to be a way to produce enough to sustain it.

your not producing enrgy here your just converting it..

say like you put two more magnetos on your moped run from the wheel hubs.. your first engine and magneeto would turn enough to keep your moped runing.. the other two would be turning still producing extra potential power right?

that would /could run other stuff ..

if you used pedal power to start it off and to get the magneetos/engine producing power... you just converted pedal power to electric/combustion power... right.. and that power is turning the wheels.. if the wheels then both have a gizmo to just sit there and turn and produce power.. wouldnt that be sustaining it? Or producing more power? It is taking momentum fromt he wheels and turning it into electricity which can be stored via a battery and used for other things.

sure the extra magneeto or alternator will add weight and a little friction..... but the turning force already being created by the normal engine/magento is more power.

i don't know.. i understand that it suppoesed to be incorect to think yuou can gain power.. i don't htink your ganing any.. i think your just salvaging more power from sources we don't normaly think of as such.

i just don't understna i guess... I don't know.

it just makes since.. say like on a diesel truck that has 2 batteries and a huge alternator.

I can look at that engine and see that it is just a big old motor only used to turn the alternator.

Sure that isn't effiecient.. but it would produce over 12 volts to keep a batter that doesn't sue more then 12 volts charged.

like you listen to the radio in the diesel vehicle witht he motor running.. you'll never run out of battery power..

why becuase the alternator is constantly supplying more power then what is being used to the battery.

the radio is using battery power right.. but the alternator is keeping batter power always constant.. by producing more then the 12 volts. Sure your using a motor and gas to keep that alternator turning......

but isn't that alot like using in my plan the one batter to start the intial turing of the wheels... that would then start almost imediatly th recharge of the little batter power used to turn the wheel on start up?

How could this not be possible.

Re: off topic.. but...

don't tell me what the laws are... try to explain why my plan is fualty or how it wouldn't work... .. not by theories or laws.. but by real explainations... I want to try and understand this.. not just hear that it is impossible.. beucase the law says it is..

prove that law to me in my plan or something..

not becuase im right.. or think im right.. becuase i odn't know why my plan is wrong.. which it probly is. and I want to understand it so I can work on anouther plan.. :0)

we can do anything, if we had the $$

InfectedBootSector /

The problem here is not the lack of technology, or ideas... its all in the lack of venture capital to get the projects going. Americans don't like "low powered" cars, and want to waste money on cages that weight tons and tons and eat fuel like mad. Look at all the EXTRA corn we grow every year. The government ends up buying the extra from the farmers and destroys it to keep the price up. We could be using this corn to make alcohol based fuels ( like gasahol) or even bio-diesel.... we are very crazy here in the states with all the stuff we waste. Just eat at McDonald's one day...imagine how much crap we would be buried in if everyone ate there with all the packaging and crap. I used to work there, and we could have used all that old up oil we tossed out for bio-diesel....

There is a mechanic here in Cumberland, MD that uses old dirty motor oil to fuel his furnace in his garage... he pumps it through a filter to clean it out first..

Why can't everyone think like us?

Function OVER Form!!!!

Re: off topic.. but...

You guys are right about heat and friction and loss, but forgot one thing . The concept that energy is NEVER "created" or even lost, it is just transformed into another form, ex gas has energy in chemical form and your ped changes it into mechanical enery and heat energy. The alternators on Duck's "car" can only transform the mechanical energy of the cars motion into electrical energy which is then stored in the batteries as chemical energy, it cannot create new energy, so you would have to use more power to keep the car rolling than if you didn't use the alternators at all. Now if you used a system to recapture some of the energy while braking you could help extend the battery life somewhat. I think this is called regenerative braking (or something close to that). If you want to hear my $.02 I think the key to the whole electric car thing is FUEL CELLS. All electric with no recharging time just replace the fuel in the cell and off you go again. I even saw where you can get a crude mini fuel cell to power your cell phone.


Re: off topic.. but...

I think, but I might be mistaken , Duck, that you might not be grasping the idea that an alternator is only converting mechanical energy into electrical energy and that energy has to come from the gasoline you filled your tank with. Now someone brought up solar power.....that would work great! But I read one time, Duck, that if you were running a common 100 watt bulb off a car alternator,that the average person would be unable to twist the pulley on the alternator with his bare hand because of the force of resistance the alternator kicks back at you. I hope you're catching my meaning..........ANYWAY, have a great week Duck,and get that Peugeot smokin' up the road! See ya! Don

Re: off topic.. but...

hey andy... we have cars with fuel cells at the tech scool.. that is mroe what im tlkaing about when i use a genric bettery term.

we have hydro something fuled cell powered car.

I know i have to plug it into some kind of gas tank.. looks like a mini oxygen tank and i have to plug it into a water hose everynight that is really really small in diamter that just kinda does a few drops at a time.. its not like it just fillup the battery real fast.. I don't understand it yet.. it is on a new 2002 astrovan that ford donated to us.

what about brakeing power.. sure it can gain some electricty.. but braking also produces heat which is lost energy.

The cv joins on a car are already turning... making a electro magnetic alternator from one sems like an easy place to pick up some extra enrgy that would normaly just be wasting.

I mean the thing already turns.. your just harnessing the turning force to produce some extra energy.

isn't that how the honda works.. it has a motor that turns the alternators which charge the batter when it gets low during rapid accleration and startinf off? Im just saying instead of an engine that turns via gas... why not just utilize something else thats already turning. the cv axels.

im going to try it

I wish i had an old wagon around. I am ging to try and find a wagon.. and on the waggon set a battery.. maybe a 24 volt marine battery. and then im going to find a small motor.. and conect a belt to one the back wheels.. maybe weld a small sproket to a metal dowl to make a sorta back axel on the wagon... this would liknk my little motor to the wagon.. i think will put a alternato from one of the old trucks around here conencted to the front wheel.. maybe just weld the damn turning part that normal uses a belt to turn it straight to a front wheel. maybe even to both sides.. then link them to the battery that is controling the electric motor.

and just see what happens.. I know the battery power will start the wheels turning... and once the wheels start turning the two alternators will be producing power back to the battery.. a long as its not to heavy the engie should turn fast enough for the speed to make the alternators produce enought o keep the battery charging.

Probly have to use a capacitor to keep everything in check.

On topic..,Question, Ideas.

Why are there no 4 cyl SUV's?

Or, are there?

You don't need a HUGE engine to produce a lot of power---

gearing and efficiency is what matters, right?

I wouldn't mind owning a "Living room on wheels" if it had a 4cyl engine and was good on gas. What am I...? Mario Andretti in a ford Bronco? jeez.

Did anyone see the cadillac ad for the "most powerful SUV class vehicle

EVER....." man, I had to laugh

Anyone remember ROBOCOP (the original) they had a vehicle called the SUX 6000--- it was a luxury car, that was horrible on fuel . My impression was that (in this robocop skit) you drove one to show people that you could afford to waste money---by blatent fuel consumption.

I know a lot of people at my work drive 'empty' SUV's to work. I hope their spouses aren't doing the same "Honey, could you take the Suburban to work today...? I want to drive the Cadillac's the worlds most powerful SUV!!....."

Don-Ohio made a great point about "vehicle capacity" vs. "fuel consumption" if you have 8 people to move, riding 8 mopeds would not be a "green enviro-friendly" choice. Riding in an SUV would make more sense, in many ways.

Oh, a final rant, brief, though. There's nothing "off topic" here. This is to you, Duck. Unless you're a moron causing trouble, you can start a thread about anything. The consistant popularity of Non-Moped threads (getting 20-30 posts) means that we're not just about Mopeds---

Man, some of the political and religious threads would get 25 posts in a day--- then, for 2 weeks straight, nothing but moped posts. Man cannot live by "Moped" alone-- although it should always be the focus of this forum (in the time I've been visiting the forum, it has ALWAYS been about mopeds--with a few interesting arguments popping up from time to time etc.

I can't remember if Simon posted his 'official' position on this, but I think he'd encourage any intelligent discussion about anything.

Makes me wonder where Miguel's been. On a trip, maybe?

I think the moronic posts are the only thing 'off topic' . Goobers who come here just to start trouble. Haysodumb, and his clan.


Re: On topic..,Question, Ideas.

Dead on the money,Wayne! In other words,Duck,we like your posts! Keep `em comin', Valdosta Duck! (:^)

Patent office (On topic) Free Energy

Anyone who has been around, knows that the Patent office does NOT issue bullshit patents for products that don't work. They will NOT accept patents for "Free Energy" devices that claim more "Output" than "Input"

There is no such thing as free energy, they say.

Well, the patent office has issued a patent for a "FREE ENERGY" device. It's really is a "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator" (get this, it gets power from the compression of the 4th dimension (time))!!!

Like I said, the patent office, for years has had a strict policy of refusing "overunity" devices. That said, and understood, read the following article, and let me know what you think.




MEG Scalar Energy Device

Patented - Production Starts Next Year

From Bill Morgan


A patent was granted on March 26, 2002 for "The Motionless Magnetic Generator," MEG) US Patent 6,362,718, which is likely to become the first commercially available free energy device in history in about one year from now. The machine will provide free electricity from the vacuum, for the life of the device, which should be a very long life since it has no moving parts. You can see a picture of scientist Jean Louis Naudin's MEG replication model at:

Re: im going to try it

Ron Brown /


More power to you if you want to play, but here are a couple of thoughts for you.

You mention that when you brake a car, the brakes get hot. With dynamic braking, the alternator is used to slow the wheels instead of the brakes. The energy of the rolling car is converted by the alternator into battery charging current. Does this sound like alternators don't require any power to turn them.

Have you ever jump started a car? If you have the engine idling on the donor car when you hook up the battery cable, you can hear the donor car's engine "grunt" when you hook up the dead battery. The alternator is applying this load to the engine as it tries to charge the dead battery. Does this sound like alternators don't require any power to turn them.

Motorcycle racers remove the magneto/alternator from thier bikes and switch to a "total loss" battery powered igniyion system, just to eliminate the drag of the alternator and get a little more speed.

I am sure you will be able to rationalize this and go ahead with your project so good luck to you.


Re: off topic.. but...

Jeremy Hay-Draude /

I'm a little late on the discussion here, and as a moped newby my opinion may not be worth as much as Don's or Fred's, but as an electrical engineer, I have some expertise here.

An an alternator works on the principle that when a conductive material moves through a magnetic field, it induces current flow. (the coils spinning in a magnetic shell)

A motor works on a similar premise where when a current flows through a magnetic field, it produced a physical force on the conductive material. (charged coils wrapped around a shaft)

These two premises counteract each other.

The current generated by the alternator creates a force which acts in the opposite direction of the force that is driving the alternator (in essence, the alternator turns itself into a motor which wants to turn the opposite direction of the mechanical force that is spinning the alternator).

Because of this, the more current being produced by the alternator, the more physical force is required to turn the alternator (similarly, the more power that is required from an electrical motor, the more current must be supplied to it). If we were dealing with a 100% lossless system (no friction, no electrial resistance, perfect magnetic flux) we would get exactly as much power out (electrical) as is put in (mechanical). But, since this is the real world, you will ALWAYS need to put more mechanical energy into the system than you get out as electrical energy.

I'm not sure how much sense that makes, but it's the result of the first law of thermodynamics (if we want to get really picky, we can throw the 2nd law in as well but it isn't needed at this point)

Re: off topic.. but...

No, I'm not saying that this free energy device is bullshit; I'm not a scientist, though I know enough to be seriously doubtful of it actually working. I mean you probably COULD create electricity from the friction created by quantum particles, but I doubt it would be efficient enough to be put into practice. And that I think is going to be the key to this. Any thing that the common man could think of won’t work; while anything that MAY work would produce so little electricity to be practical. Chucky

Re: off topic.. but...

Yes, Chuck, the inventors probably tricked the patent office into thinking it's 'overunity'/


I understand what your saying.. I said energy meaning electricty rather.. it does take mechanical energy to turn an alternator.. thats why it is hooked to a belt on the engine... hehe...

but i am saying it doesn't require electricty to operate it.. just a turning force. If the front wheels are free spining already.. well theres your turning force just ready to be exploited

for the making of more Electric energy.

blah.. a good conversation though..

Re: ron

Ron Brown /


Go for it and let us know what happens.


« Go to Topic — end of thread

Want to post in this forum? We'd love to have you join the discussion, but first:

Login or Create Account