# my idea for a car



## TsColin (May 6, 2009)

Well i got this idea for a car while i wasn't paying attention in class  and i wanted to ask you guys if you think its possible. Okay so the car runs on the energy that is created while the car is in motion (energy comes from the wheels), then it uses that energy to turn the wheels to keep the car moving. Its just a repeating process, but of course when you first buy the car it won't move because theres no energy in it . Sooo first you would give it a start-up charge and then it would generate its own electricity from there. Think its possible?


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 6, 2009)

umm, no,, i dont think thats how electric cars work


----------



## TsColin (May 6, 2009)

just an idea ;p


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

No.
Not unless it's supplemented by something else.
Technology hasn't progressed quite far enough for the kinetic energy to actually make a substantial difference in the amount of energy to move a car. Also, there's friction to wast energy


Are you talking about energy from the wheel rotation?


----------



## ConnorCuber (May 6, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> umm, no,, i dont think thats how electric cars work


----------



## jsh33 (May 6, 2009)

Cool, although you would have to keep start-up-charging it while you are driving or else it would run out quickly because of friction.

The Toyota prius already uses the shock from the brakes to recharge the battery, so yeah... still cool though 

*edit*, wow y'all are to fast


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 6, 2009)

oh lol,, hahaha sorry i was thinking about hydrogen fuel cell cars


----------



## Ellis (May 6, 2009)

You should check out the laws of thermodynamics before you get any 'new' ideas about cars.


----------



## ConnorCuber (May 6, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> oh lol,, hahaha sorry i was thinking about hydrogen fuel cell cars



Since you obviously do not understand why I posted that pic:


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

Could you please delete the other image?
It's screwing up the screen...


----------



## Ellis (May 6, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Could you please delete the other image?
> It's screwing up the screen...



No it isn't. You can't even delete a facepalm of that proportion if you tried anyway.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

I suppose... 
What class is this?
Maybe if we were indeed paying attention, such ideas would be eviscerated


----------



## shelley (May 6, 2009)

No, you can't make a perpetual motion machine. Learn2thermodynamics.


----------



## ConnorCuber (May 6, 2009)

shelley said:


> No, you can't make a perpetual motion machine. Learn2thermodynamics.



This.

And also, what happens when you hit the brakes? Do you just start the car back up?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

Is thermodynamics covered in basic (high school) level physics for you people?


----------



## TsColin (May 6, 2009)

lol thats a good thought about friction, hadn't thought about that, although that is what my science teacher said too


----------



## Ellis (May 6, 2009)

Thermodynamics is common sense. But yea, you should have learned it in High school.


----------



## jcuber (May 6, 2009)

I have had the same idea as the OP. It is basically like connecting a lightbulb to an electric motor and turning the motor to generate the light, but instead connecting the first motor to another one connected to the same gear. It would improve efficiency a bit, but it probably isn't worth it now.


----------



## Ellis (May 6, 2009)

jcuber said:


> I have had the same idea as the OP. It is basically like connecting a lightbulb to an electric motor and turning the motor to generate the light, but instead connecting the first motor to another one connected to the same gear. It would improve efficiency a bit, but it probably isn't worth it now.



wait.... what?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

Ellis said:


> Thermodynamics is common sense. But yea, you should have learned it in High school.



Yeah, I think I do understand the general idea, just not the specifics (if my first post made sense to you ). I'm in 9th grade, and at our school we split everything up (science) and do physics in 12th, so obviously I haven't done physics yet.


----------



## Kian (May 6, 2009)

Ellis said:


> jcuber said:
> 
> 
> > I have had the same idea as the OP. It is basically like connecting a lightbulb to an electric motor and turning the motor to generate the light, but instead connecting the first motor to another one connected to the same gear. It would improve efficiency a bit, but it probably isn't worth it now.
> ...



+1.


----------



## jcuber (May 6, 2009)

Have you ever seen those children's science kits where you connect an electric motor to a lightbulb? You turn the motor, and it acts as a generator. Instead of using a lightbulb on the other end, you connect it to a motor which is attached to the same gear (wich is connected to the drive shaft, then wheels). You would need a battery as well, to start the flow of electricity, and still use a regular car engine. This would only lift some of the load on the engine, without any extra pollution. The car engine would start the system. I hope that helps a bit, it is very hard to understand IMO.


----------



## Dene (May 6, 2009)

Hang on, you realise that it is the engine that is turning the wheels? So if you used the wheels to generate power, you would be sucking power straight from the engine.


----------



## jcuber (May 6, 2009)

No, it is using the inertia of the wheels to generate more power. Not extremely efficient, but "save the earth" and all that crap.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 6, 2009)

Once again, lern2thermodynamicsplz.


----------



## Bryan (May 6, 2009)

Kian said:


> Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > jcuber said:
> ...



I think he forgot to mention solar panels that he'll hook up to the light bulbs, so he'll have twice the energy he started out with.


----------



## jcuber (May 6, 2009)

No, it was an example to show how the power was generated.

@Vault: I am in 7th grade, I can barely figure out what thermodynamics are without googling it.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 6, 2009)

Simply put, there is no way to create energy out of nothing, which is basically what you are suggesting. You can't have two motors power each other and somehow use less energy, that's just not how the universe works.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

What's wrong with googling it?
I learn half of the things I know from wikipedia and other assorted websites.
Schools are rather incompetent in teaching me interesting and useful things, and instead I spend time analyzing boring literature.


----------



## qqwref (May 6, 2009)

Um. Yeah. One of the basic results of thermodynamics is that you cannot create a perpetual motion machine (something that keeps going with no energy input). The energy has to come from somewhere.

And as for "using the inertia of the car's wheels" - what do you think would happen if you are driving a car and you just turn off the engine? Right, it'll slowly slow down. The car's wheels do not have enough extra inertia to be usable and the only reason you can keep going at a *constant* speed is because you are constantly using the engine to pump energy into the wheels. That is also why it is easier to maintain 60mph than to get up to 60mph.


----------



## Ellis (May 6, 2009)

Hybrid cars already have regenerative braking systems though, don't they? It has to be a Hybrid though, or at least have an electric motor, and not be just a motor attached to another motor. Sure you won't get all the energy you need from it, but it can store some energy.


----------



## Bob (May 6, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Is thermodynamics covered in basic (high school) level physics for you people?



and chemistry!


----------



## adragast (May 6, 2009)

I would say, yes, partially this idea may be possible, we just need to find a way to implement it. In my humble opinion, you will need another source of energy (water, solar cell, ...) to compensate waste of energy or to start the car at the begining.

This is for example another interesting idea:
http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613

I have myself been in a h2 hybrid car and pure electrical car. Never tried the solar-cell car myself but remember that when I was a kid there was a lot of them in Denmark/Sweden, ...


----------



## jcuber (May 6, 2009)

My idea is to improve efficiency, not run the car on motors. I know perpetual motion can't be made, I watch mythbusters. I already tried explaining my idea once, I may do it with diagrams tomorrow.


----------



## Ellis (May 6, 2009)

jcuber said:


> My idea is to improve efficiency, not run the car on motors. I know perpetual motion can't be made, I watch mythbusters. I already tried explaining my idea once, I may do it with diagrams tomorrow.



So the only reason you know that perpetual motion machines can't be made is that you watch mythbusters?

Seriously though, no need to create a diagram, your raw idea just doesn't work. But you are kind of close to this. It's not exactly the same thing, but similar... and already used it cars.


----------



## TsColin (May 6, 2009)

Ellis said:


> Thermodynamics is common sense. But yea, you should have learned it in High school.


 Common sense for you guys maybe but in 8th grade they haven't covered that yet


----------



## d4m4s74 (May 6, 2009)

you could drive a bit longer if you combine this for charging the battery in a hybrid, but you'll always need external power


----------



## qqwref (May 6, 2009)

This reminds me of how Yish used to say that he never learned that there were a certain number of positions on a Rubik's Cube, or that it could only be solved so efficiently, so he didn't have that stuff stopping him from making a method that was more efficient than possible.

Just because you do not know the rules the universe follows does not mean you are allowed to break them.


----------



## nitrocan (May 6, 2009)

It is possible IF you invented a frictionless surface, which is impossible.


----------



## d4m4s74 (May 6, 2009)

nitrocan said:


> It is possible IF you invented a frictionless surface, which is impossible.


if the road has no friction you'll have another problem

you need friction to pull up and break (and because of air friction you also need friction to keep moving forward)


----------



## nitrocan (May 6, 2009)

d4m4s74 said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > It is possible IF you invented a frictionless surface, which is impossible.
> ...



I was just pointing out that it is impossible


----------



## Novriil (May 6, 2009)

No way it works.. I have had plenty of ideas like that and now i know: 1) much energy goes into physics (different forces) 2) it's just not possible.. I even don't know why but all my ideas like that were: U A IDIOT! I CAN HAZ SMART, U IDIOT! so ... nee.


----------



## Dene (May 6, 2009)

Heh, I just actually got around to voting... people actually chose "Yes!!!"????


----------



## Tyson (May 6, 2009)

Second law of thermodynamics:

There is no free lunch.


----------



## Kian (May 6, 2009)

Tyson said:


> Second law of thermodynamics:
> 
> There is no free lunch.



Eighth law of thermodynamics: If this your first night of thermodynamics, you have to be thermo and dynamic.


----------



## ExoCorsair (May 6, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Just because you do not know the rules the universe follows does not mean you are allowed to break them.



But you can find workarounds, like throwing yourself at the ground and missing!


----------



## Simboubou (May 6, 2009)

Mankind has been looking for the endless movement for century... but it is impossible.


----------



## JBCM627 (May 6, 2009)

Tyson said:


> Second law of thermodynamics:
> 
> There is no free lunch.



I beg to differ.


----------



## shelley (May 6, 2009)

ExoCorsair said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you do not know the rules the universe follows does not mean you are allowed to break them.
> ...



The key is distracting yourself at the right moment in such a way that you forget to land.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 7, 2009)

JBCM627 said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > Second law of thermodynamics:
> ...



May I differ yet again?



shelley said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Ah, so _that's_ where that bag went!


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (May 7, 2009)

As people are pointing out, Perpetual Motion does not exist. Energy gets used up (2nd law of thermo). The best you can do is improve efficiency. Some cars are set up so that when you want to slow down, a generator reabsorbs some energy from the wheels, rather than brake pads wasting it as friction. I actually tried to design a bicycle like that in the 1970's; pushing the "brakes" would actually cause the rear wheel to crank a spring, and you could release the spring force back into the wheel later, as you need it.

Oops, page 1 was so wide I didn't know there were 5 pages more when I posted this.


----------



## BillB (May 7, 2009)

I work for Toyota on hybrids. I sometimes give talks to police and fire companies to teach how hybrid vehicles work and clear up misunderstandings (usually safety related). I still get people who ask why not have a motor on the front wheels driving the car and one on the rear wheels generating electricity so you'd never need gas. Sheesh. The fuel burning engine recharges the battery. The amount recaptured during braking is hardly 2%.

BillB


----------



## JBCM627 (May 7, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> May I differ yet again?


Oh good point.



BillB said:


> The amount recaptured during braking is hardly 2%.


Wow, is it really that small? Have attempts been made to make it more efficient, or would implementing that just be too impractical for now?


----------



## BillB (May 7, 2009)

BillB said:


> The amount recaptured during braking is hardly 2%.


"Wow, is it really that small? Have attempts been made to make it more efficient, or would implementing that just be too impractical for now?[/QUOTE]

It's very efficient. But remember, you drive the vehicle for 1/2 hour using energy and then step on the brakes for 30 seconds while decelerating. The other thing is the battery can only handle a certain amount of current flow. When you step on the brakes hard, you could generate beyond what the battery can handle. So at that point the standard hydraulic brakes come in.

BillB


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (May 7, 2009)

due to friction, the car would gradually lose energy though.


----------



## BillB (May 7, 2009)

aznmortalx said:


> due to friction, the car would gradually lose energy though.



If you're referring to my post about having one axle generating while the other is driving, it's not even a gradual loss. If you put the motor/generator on a hybrid car into generate mode, it'll stop the car (that's what happens when you step on the brake pedal, regenerative braking).

BillB


----------



## JBCM627 (May 7, 2009)

BillB said:


> It's very efficient. But remember, you drive the vehicle for 1/2 hour using energy and then step on the brakes for 30 seconds while decelerating. The other thing is the battery can only handle a certain amount of current flow. When you step on the brakes hard, you could generate beyond what the battery can handle. So at that point the standard hydraulic brakes come in.



Ah, I assumed you meant the brakes would recapture 2% of the kinetic energy the car had at the moment it began braking, not that they would regain 2% of the total energy the car had output up to the time of breaking, if that makes sense. Is this what you mean?


----------



## BillB (May 7, 2009)

JBCM627 said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > It's very efficient. But remember, you drive the vehicle for 1/2 hour using energy and then step on the brakes for 30 seconds while decelerating. The other thing is the battery can only handle a certain amount of current flow. When you step on the brakes hard, you could generate beyond what the battery can handle. So at that point the standard hydraulic brakes come in.
> ...



Yes, of the total amount of energy. Like I said, it'll stop the car in its tracks, but you're not braking long enough for it to be a substantial amount of recaptured energy. I also still hear "What happens if I drive with one foot on the gas and one on the brake? Will I never need gas that way?" Seriously.

BillB


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

BillB said:


> Yes, of the total amount of energy. Like I said, it'll stop the car in its tracks, but you're not braking long enough for it to be a substantial amount of recaptured energy. I also still hear "What happens if I drive with one foot on the gas and one on the brake? Will I never need gas that way?" Seriously.
> 
> BillB



That's an FML right there...


----------



## Chuberchuckee (May 7, 2009)

I have a better idea:

1) Discover the secret to nuclear fusion.
2) Use it to power automobiles.
3) ?????
4) PROFIT


----------



## shelley (May 7, 2009)

Chuberchuckee said:


> I have a better idea:
> 
> 1) Discover the secret to nuclear fusion.
> 2) Use it to power automobiles.
> ...



Solar-powered car?


----------



## jcuber (May 7, 2009)

Cloudy day? Night time?

I do think that all new construction houses should have solar panel roofs, regardless of location. Imagine how much energy we could save on a sunny day?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

Chuberchuckee said:


> I have a better idea:
> 
> 1) Discover the secret to nuclear fusion.
> 2) Use it to power automobiles.
> ...



I have a slight feeling that have nuclear reactors in cars may lead to some nasty accidents...


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2009)

"In breaking news, there's been a small meltdown on the I-35 today. Seven people were vaporized on the spot and it is believed hundreds more may have suffered from radiation poisoning. We'll have more information as the situation develops."


----------



## darkzelkova (May 7, 2009)

The only way this could work is taking energy when you are braking. You can't take energy when you aren't braking, that would slow down the wheels and take more power just to make more power which wouldn't help at all.


----------



## BillB (May 7, 2009)

darkzelkova said:


> The only way this could work is taking energy when you are braking. You can't take energy when you aren't braking, that would slow down the wheels and take more power just to make more power which wouldn't help at all.



Yeah. I think I might use that when trying to explain.

BillB


----------



## shelley (May 7, 2009)

jcuber said:


> Cloudy day? Night time?
> 
> I do think that all new construction houses should have solar panel roofs, regardless of location. Imagine how much energy we could save on a sunny day?



Uh, yeah.. I think you kind of missed the joke.


----------



## EE-Cuber (May 7, 2009)

TsColin said:


> Well i got this idea for a car while i wasn't paying attention in class  and i wanted to ask you guys if you think its possible. Okay so the car runs on the energy that is created while the car is in motion (energy comes from the wheels), then it uses that energy to turn the wheels to keep the car moving. Its just a repeating process, but of course when you first buy the car it won't move because theres no energy in it . Sooo first you would give it a start-up charge and then it would generate its own electricity from there. Think its possible?



This violates the conservation of energy and will never work.
What you dont understand is that there are losses (Energy converted into heat ) which is unrecoverable. Another term for this kind of idea is a "perpetual motion machine" and it remains a popular topic for those who don't undertsand physics.


----------

