The world has been waiting patiently for a solution to the perpetual motion machine problem. Leave it to the Chinese to solve it. Now, where the hell is my flying car Popular Science has been promising me for 50 years? I want mine to be electric. /sarc
From SkyNews –
Wind-Powered Car ‘Could Cut China’s Smog’
Holly Williams, China correspondent
A Chinese farmer has invented a wind-powered electric car that he says could save his country from the pollution caused by its rapidly growing car market.
…
But in a small tractor workshop, 55-year-old farmer Tang Zhenping has invented the prototype of a car that he believes could revolutionise China’s auto industry.
Mr Tang’s model – built in just three months for around £1,000 – is electric.
Its engine uses scrap parts from a motorcycle and electric scooter, while its steering wheel, upholstery and headlights all come from a Chinese-made Xiali hatchback.
But what makes the one-seater special is the turbine on its nose.
When the car reaches 40mph, the blades spring into action and begin generating pollution-free power.
“It works just like a windmill,” said Mr Tang, who claims the turbine gives his vehicle three times the battery life of other electric cars.
Full story here
h/t to Bishop Hill
UPDATE: This comment on the Facebook page was too funny not to share.
Rik Magers commented on wattsupwiththat’s post.
Rik wrote: “Not only does it defy the laws of physics by powering itself, but he picked up a chick in it! Hope this is the prototype for the new Chevy Volt.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice hood ornament! Luvving the fins!! Where do you put the personal rice wine cooler? And he’s pickin’ up chicks, already? Where do I sign up? I want ThLee by the end of the week!!!!!
A. Scott says:
May 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm
An equal or greater gain could be accomplished by increasing the aero efficiency/reducing the drag of the vehicle….
A perfect example would be delivery vehicles – with large “box” form factor. You really cannot streamline a box truck – it is most efficient at its task by being a large square box.
___________________________________
Of course you can stream line a box truck. It just depends on whether you wish to spend the money.
Different options:
http://www.32chrome.com/11212006International-Green2.jpg_preview.jpg
http://aveawww.purplewuction.com/a/2008/20080207/8042.JPG
http://trucksonly.com/advertisers/wingmaster/ILLUSTRA.JPG
http://www.freightwing.com/common/images/semi_belly_fairing.jpg (Article: Freight Wing Belly Fairing
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/Truck_Aero_Mods.jpg
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truckstop/faq/atdynamics_vid.jpg
http://www.truckparts.org/images/truck_parts/air_wind_deflector.jpg
http://www.purplewaveauction.com/i/a/2012/20120418midwest/A6149.JPG
And the Ultimate design: http://www.smartbusinessdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Air-Flow-Truck-Companys-Super-Truck4.jpg
Tsk Tsk says:
If that weren’t the case then all aircraft would be perpetual motion machines once they got into the air. It takes energy to sustain flight.
=============
Just such an aircraft can be built. Connect an airplane to a car through a tether, and fly the plane like a kite. The propellers on the plane extract energy from the air and convert it to electricity which is conducted down the tether. This electricity powers the wheels on the car which is how the whole contraption moves. So long as the wind continues to blow the plane will stay in the air providing energy to drive the car around. Perpetual motion, extracting energy from the wind.
The secret is to recognize that a windmill cannot turn the blades if the windmill is blowing along with the wind. You need a cold side to the engine (the ground) to offset the hot side (the wind). Thus, once you tether the windmill to the ground, you can extract energy to do work. This energy can then be used to move the windmill.
A. Scott says:
May 17, 2012 at 1:33 am
Where would we be if all the great (and often way out there) people who have dreamed all the new things we’ve seen in our short lifetimes had that same “why?” mentality. Instead of ‘why bother it’ll never work’ – they said ‘why the heck not – lets find a way to MAKE it work’ … seems we need more of the “why the heck not” folks these days.
===============
Some of those people might even believe that it would be better to invent our way out of climate change than to tax our way out. However, we continue to elect lawyers as politician to run the country, while the Chinese continue to appoint engineers.
To my way of thinking, the current politicians we have in the west believe in Perpetual Motion. All we need to do is raise taxes and we will all have enough money to be wealthy, If we raise them even higher, there will be enough money to give each citizen a million dollars. Once everyone is a millionaire, they will be able to afford even higher taxes, which will allow us to give them even more money, and allow them to pay even higher taxes, etc, etc.
Once taxes are high enough there will be enough to let each of us be billionaires. German showed the way in the 1930’s, when they implemented “quantitative easing” to pay their debts.
These cars would make much better speed with mast and sails.
The reporter of course got the salary, a trip to china paid ? why not put some effort in it ?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
If you are ducting air through the vehicle then you should restrict the airflow using a fan. The increased drag from the fan will more than offset any energy generated.
In your example, you reduced the drag of the truck by exhausting air through the vehicle and then you increased the drag by putting fans on your new vents.
Honestly, I’m disgusted by all the ignorance on this thread.
There’s no way that this device is generating more energy than the increased drag it’s creating. Period.
A. Scott says:
May 17, 2012 at 2:24 am
… forget using it to power the vehicle … why couldn’t we look at using ram air systems to take over at speed for alternators, generators, hydraulics and the like? Seems at least conceivable that a direct drive fan or RAT style wind generator like aircraft use might be more efficient than a massive belt driven alternator powered off the engine?
——————————————–
Of course, with your idea the truck will still have to carry around the big double V-belt truck alternator that does the real work as well as all of additional Turbines and such that you want to hang off the front of the vehicle, which theoretically may provide some marginally better efficiency in electrical generation given just the right set of circumstances and road speed.
A car’s alternator can have a parasitic draw by as mush as 4.5 HP under certain circumstances. Of course, typical draw is probably around 1 – 1.5 HP. I’ve got to imagine a big semi-tractor trailer truck pulling a “reefer” and all those lights, etc is using a lot more juice than a car. The nearest I can tell you want to replace the X HP that would run the alternator with X HP of additional aero drag and weight. BTW ducting creates drag too.
I’d be fascinated to know how much ‘turbine’ surface area (size) would be required for a truck going, for example, 55 MPH to displace the, for example, 5HP worth of alternator output. My guess would be more than most would expect.
Gail Combs says ( May 16, 2012 at 9:09 am): “Forget the spaghetti tree, I want money trees or a flock of golden geese or both to add to my farm.”
Get a law passed making leaves legal tender. Voila! Money trees!
Watch the first 30 seconds:
It’s not puzzling at all. The propeller enjoys increased efficiency because it’s turning in a still airmass.
There’s no way for a device like this to move forward on its own apparent wind.
And has been stated above, this is no different that a device extracting some energy from a tailwind and using that extra energy to travel faster than the tailwind itself – something which has been done by sailors for hundreds years.
What if, before the turbine, we ran the airflow into a funnel and across the radiator first, then into a fan turbine? The extra enthalpy of the hot air vs the cold air+compressor is basically what a jet engine does. In this case, the energy recovered doesn’t come from the wind (but we need the wind to get it), but from the excess heat of the engine.
“”””” tadchem says:
May 16, 2012 at 8:22 am
What we *really* need is a machine that converts wind power into crude oil. “””””
Not really; it should convert directly from wind, to 87 octane gasoline/benzine/petrol.
“”””” Crono141 says:
May 17, 2012 at 10:45 am
What if, before the turbine, we ran the airflow into a funnel and across the radiator first, then into a fan turbine? The extra enthalpy of the hot air vs the cold air+compressor is basically what a jet engine does. In this case, the energy recovered doesn’t come from the wind (but we need the wind to get it), but from the excess heat of the engine. “””””
Under one wing of every Supermarine Spitfire ever built, from the prototype to the last production model, there was a Meredith Radiator, invented naturally by a guy named Meredith. I believe at the RAR; the Royal Aircraft Establishment circa 1933) It ran the cooling fluid from the RR Merlin/Griffon engine through a “radiator” heat exchanger to heat the incoming airflow from the input duct, and allow it to expand in the exit duct, to provide a net thrust that exceeds the drag of the radiator, so the cooling radiator provided net forward thrust; it literally was the first jet engine.
Later on, the designers of the P-51 Mustang put as similar contraption under the belly of that plane to do the same thing, that the Spitfire had six years earlier. The advantage of the P 51 design was that it was easier to shoot yourself down on a straffing run, by kicking up stones off the ground into your radiator.
@Gail Combs: Plenty of ways to round the corners of a big box and chip away at the drag but the coefficient of drag is still largely that of what it is – a big old box. Don’t get me wrong – there is a lot of new interesting technology – note I posted some of what you did – and that even a few percent gain in fuel economy can be a BIG savings with over the road transport.
Things like under-trailer side skirts have a feasible cost-benefit ratio, and thus you see on many trucks these days – but many/most of the aero improvements are not (yet) economically feasible – or we would see them on every truck.
I suspect the same would be true of a design that uses alternative ideas like using ram air turbines or ducted fans and the like would be similar … they COULD be done, and may have some benefit, but the costs would make them unfeasible at present.
We could easily add regenerative braking to semi’s – they already use engine compression to assist when needed – but it must not be cost effective or would be in use. At some point that too will change as fuel costs increase someone will try it and then refine it until its cost effective.
Same with solar – a semi trailer would seem a perfect candidate for solar – large flat roof exposed to sun all the time … could generate electricity when moving OR stationary. Seems a no brainer. But at end of day the costs simply outweigh by the benefits. At some point solar panel cost (and I’m sure durability is an issue) will get low enough to make it feasible.
That’s all I propose – that it could be possible, with all the dirty air flows and high drag areas – to incorporate a ducted fan or RAT system – to replace or supplement some of the existing functions.
Part of that idea could be using the ducted fans to “shape” airflow in such a way that it provides addtl aero efficiencies … as I noted simply creating a proper vortex along the sides and bottom of the trailers could save considerable fuel – could do much the same task as the say the under-body skirts.
I noted that it seemed at least possible that when you add these “co-product” [that oughta light off a firestorm 😉 .. ] benefits along with efficiencies of the technology over things like engine driven pumps etc that there may well be a net gain/improvement/benefit. I also was clear that any such benefit could easily be offset by costs making it impractical.
BTW – THESE are the ultimate designs 😉 ….
http://www.photo.machinestogo.net/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=55&g2_serialNumber=6
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7355/colani2005ama4.jpg
Erny72 says:
May 16, 2012 at 10:28 am
“Racing cars are able to benefit from a tow when closely following another car because the leading car does the hard work of shoving the ambient air out of the way, meaning the following car has less drag to overcome.”
The whole train has less drag to overcome and the whole train is thus able to go faster than any car alone. Length to width ratio of displacement boat hulls favors longer narrower hulls. A car body is essentially a displacement hull (although on wet roads with the wrong tires it may become a planing hull LOL). Drafting by one or more cars, provided the gaps are small enough, effectively turns a number of short hulls into one long hull and this reduces the overall drag for the whole line. In the case of just two cars the lead car alone would have a low pressure zone to the rear of it slowing it down. A drafting car behind it eliminates the low pressure zone behind the lead car and the second car now has the low pressure zone behind it. But since hull length to width ratio is improved they both go faster than either car could alone. This is one reason why teammates draft each other – both benefit from it equally. There are other reasons. It’s easy for one or the other car in an uncooperative draft to mess up the other one. Too small a gap may reduce down pressure so much on the lead car rear tires he spins out into an outer lane and falls behind. Too small a gap may also deprive the second car of cooling air resulting in a blown engine. Yet another reason is that cars can be designed to be good or poor as draft-mates and if you’re on the same team the cars can be designed work very well together.
A. Scott says:
May 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm
“We could easily add regenerative braking to semi’s – they already use engine compression to assist when needed – but it must not be cost effective or would be in use. At some point that too will change as fuel costs increase someone will try it and then refine it until its cost effective.”
Ever seen one of those cheap model planes where you spin the prop to wind up a rubber band and when you let it go the prop spins as the rubber band unwinds? Presumably you could make a driveshaft for a vehicle such that braking winds it up and when you release the brake it unwinds. This seems like it should be cost effective although probably limited to normal braking on a level surface. In electric vehicle regenerative braking you can keep on recovering energy until the batteries can’t hold no mo such as on the downside of a long hill. With a little extra hardware you might harness the braking energy to produce compressed air and store a lot more energy that way but probably with much higher parasitic losses so might not be be cost effective.
It works if you want to reverse.
And now you know why I think poll-driven politics is such a bad idea.
Just chipping in…
A wind turbine on a car is no sillier than a wind turbine on a boat, and those have existed for some time now. Most wind turbine boats (windmill boats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill_ship ) can powersail straight into the wind, that’s their one big advantage over more conventional sails that only let boats sail 30-40 degrees into the wind, or windsails that can push the enveope into the 15-20 degrees territory. With rearwind, though, the wind turbine boats have less performance.
ANY attempt to use a wind turbine for apparent wind is SILLY!
There’s a big difference between capturing natural wind and apparent wind. One is silly and the other isn’t. Please acknowledge this.
Ugh, this is so bad I can’t believe all the people saying this might work. You are oversimplifying the drag issue. The blades are moving faster (angular velocity) than the car, therefore more drag. The fan adds drag over a flat nose. Also the air leaving the blades either hits the front of the car or other surfaces causing somewhat less drag since it hits the car with less velocity. The air from the blades that does not hit the car is heated by compression from the impact with the blades and turbulance. That heat energy is lost. Even with a 100% efficent generator, you lose energy! Throw in the generation losses and storage/ transmission losses the net energy loss is huge!
His claim of triple net gains over simple battery power is a bold faced lie.
It’s a scam, plain and simple. The reporter swallowed it hook line, sinker, rod, reel and half the dude’s arm.
Sorry late reply, no internet. Did a (simple!) thought experiment in my head which lays to waste any claims that laws of physics are being violated:
1. Get Mr Tang to drive his car down a straight highway with his turbine on starting with a fully charged battery. Record the distance attained.
2. Repeat above under the same conditions but this time disconnect the wire which charges the battery.
If he went further in the first test then we’ve proven the vehicle’s own drag i.e. work performed against the air, can be harnessed to direct energy back into vehicle without breaking any physical laws.
If follows that a variation to an existing profile can do the same. In the eyes of physics turbine blades and normal grills/bonnets are all just arbitrary surfaces, same laws apply.
There is no such thing a Free or something for nothing.
Would you believe — a wind-powered iPhone? Maybe not.
The vehicle would absolutely travel further with the wire disconnected.
Connecting the wire will increase drag. The energy lost from the increased drag will be greater than the electrical energy generated by the turbine. Period.
Connecting the wire will increase drag.
Flow of an induced current within the vehicle will increase wind drag? Are you sure?