EV's - Self Charge as Wheel turns

[maconjt]

Why can't this be a thing?

The battery puts the vehicle in motion. While in motion, why can't the wheel generate electricity and recharge the battery?

I've got a radio at home that can charge by the sun as well as charge by turning the hand crank.

Advertisement

 

[keyhere]

They do.

 

[Newton]

Maconjt.
Evs and hybrids have regenerated braking. Basically when u get off the accelerator pedal the electric motors in work in reverse as generators to make (convert, not make) energy to charge the battery. So if going down a hill, the motors work as generators, using the cars mass, and gravity as the energy, converting that into electricity to charge the battery.

But it cant do what you think because of physics. That's like saying, in a dark room you have a small solar panel powering a light bulb.

 

[ajdelange]

And where does the energy that turns the gnerator/motor come from? The energy of the car of course. It slows down.

The motors in the car are used as generators when one wishes to slow the car thus salvaging much of the kinnetic and/or potential energy that would be wasted in warming brake components.

 

[azjohn]

Laws of Thermal Dynamics can be a bitch....there is no free lunch

 

[Ehninger1212]

I wonder why Tesla didnt think of that!?!? Must be the same reason why everyone doesn't drive ICE cars on water.

 

[ajdelange]

Laws of Thermal Dynamics can be a bitch....there is no free lunch

As I recall them from my student days
Zeroeth Law: You just can't win
First Law: You can't even break even
Second Law: Things are going to get worse.

Actually I take that back. Those were from my first boss.

 

[Cyberman]

Why can't this be a thing?

The battery puts the vehicle in motion. While in motion, why can't the wheel generate electricity and recharge the battery?

I've got a radio at home that can charge by the sun as well as charge by turning the hand crank.

It's because a dynamo or motor that produces electricity causes a tremendous drag, slowing the motor. The energy you get back is slightly less than what was put into it. You can drive a BEV up a mountain, then use regenerative braking on the way down, for a huge net loss on your battery level (from when you started uphill). You can't produce electricity driving uphill, the second you apply regenerative power, it'd cause you to grind to a halt. As said by azjohn, no free lunch.

 

[ajdelange]

You don't mean that. If you drive down a mountain with regen enabled your battery level will increase by a few percent. I've had this happen a couple of times. It is always a noteworthy event when it does.

The simplest answer to the OP question is "Because there is no such thing as perpetual motion." or "Because energy is conserved per the First Law of thermodynamics." Even so there are lots of people on YouTube who are happy to show you their perpetual motion machines,

 

[Frankenblob]

It is NOT the idea of "perpetual motion" machines - sighhhhh that seems to be the default logic/go to insult mode sometimes, SMH.
Certain things and actions have much more energy capability than what we can see or even currently understand.
But I do understand that there are 3 groups of people 1) those who do not know that a box exists 2) those that are stuck thinking inside the box 3) those that can travel freely and think freely inside, outside and ignore the box if they cognizantly choose.
Progress by free-thinkers, ahhhh what a FUN TIME!

 

[ajdelange]

It is NOT the idea of "perpetual motion" machines - sighhhhh that seems to be the default logic/go to insult mode sometimes, SMH.

As posed in OP's statement it surely looks as if he is suggesting one but perhaps it can be interpreted in some way such that "over unity" is not implied. I can't. Want to give it a shot?

Certain things and actions have much more energy capability than what we can see or even currently understand.

When one sees a phrase like that it is often accompanied by an investment opportunity offer or an invitation to send in $20 bucks for plans for a machine that runs your ICE car on water or ends your need to ever pay an electric bill.

Given where we are (CT forum) I'll point out that it is often said that Tesla (Nikola - not the company) understood these mystic principles and had J. P. Morgan not been so short sighted as to cut off funding for Wardenclyffe we would be driving around in vehicles that never have to be fueled (No. 5). This is not in fact the case. He understood conservation of energy but erroneously (the poor man was mad - what a great tragedy) than he could focus its flow through the ionosphere.

But I do understand that there are 3 groups of people 1) those who do not know that a box exists 2) those that are stuck thinking inside the box 3) those that can travel freely and think freely inside, outside and ignore the box if they cognizantly choose.

The problem is that the part of the Venn diagram which contains the group 3 thinkers who pursue over unity do not overlap with the portion of the general population considered sane.

BTW just love the argument that says of course I think what I do because I was taught physics at a university and all the universities are forced to teach that physics because they are controlled by the oil companies and if they were allowed to teach "certain things and actions have much more energy capability than what we can see or even currently understand" the oil companies would be put out of business.

The USPO will not accept patent applications for over unity devices.

What does "SMH" mean?

 

[Newton]

I'm all for different types of energy capture... and even though I'm an engineering major
Im still going to look into it very deeply, infact it's one of the reasons I choose this major.

But @Frankenblob ...the original post had nothing to do with that... why even bring it up?

When I was younger I thought you can put a wind turbine on an electric train and be able to drive nearly forever...You simple cannot... this is how we have seen our worlds, galaxy's, Universes? systems to work.

 

[Cyberman]

As posed in OP's statement it surely looks as if he is suggesting one but perhaps it can be interpreted in some way such that "over unity" is not implied. I can't. Want to give it a shot?
When one sees a phrase like that it is often accompanied by an investment opportunity offer or an invitation to send in $20 bucks for plans for a machine that runs your ICE car on water or ends your need to ever pay an electric bill.

Given where we are (CT forum) I'll point out that it is often said that Tesla (Nikola - not the company) understood these mystic principles and had J. P. Morgan not been so short sighted as to cut off funding for Wardenclyffe we would be driving around in vehicles that never have to be fueled (No. 5). This is not in fact the case. He understood conservation of energy but erroneously (the poor man was mad - what a great tragedy) than he could focus its flow through the ionosphere.


The problem is that the part of the Venn diagram which contains the group 3 thinkers who pursue over unity do not overlap with the portion of the general population considered sane.

BTW just love the argument that says of course I think what I do because I was taught physics at a university and all the universities are forced to teach that physics because they are controlled by the oil companies and if they were allowed to teach "certain things and actions have much more energy capability than what we can see or even currently understand" the oil companies would be put out of business.

The USPO will not accept patent applications for over unity devices.

What does "SMH" mean?

It's Shaking My Head or, alternatively, Shutyo Mouth Ho

 

[Cyberman]

You don't mean that. If you drive down a mountain with regen enabled your battery level will increase by a few percent. I've had this happen a couple of times. It is always a noteworthy event when it does.

The simplest answer to the OP question is "Because there is no such thing as perpetual motion." or "Because energy is conserved per the First Law of thermodynamics." Even so there are lots of people on YouTube who are happy to show you their perpetual motion machines,

I'm referring to a huge net loss from when you start up the mountain, not from the top o' the hill. You'll use up more energy going up than you can recoup from regenning down. Can we agree on that?

 

[Crissa]

I'm referring to a huge net loss from when you start up the mountain, not from the top o' the hill. You'll use up more energy going up than you can recoup from regenning down. Can we agree on that?

Well, that 'huge' loss is usually mostly just the miles you traveled. Take away the miles as a base level and you get back most of your up-the-hill deficit on the way down.

-Crissa