Car that uses Wind Energy

[pharuan]

Here's a beautiful little concept car that is powered by hydrogen fuel cells and uses wind generators to catch the wind around the wheels to recharge the batteries to extend the range.

H Car Concept (http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/eco-cars-h-car-concept-incorporates-wind-harvesting-wheels/)

Where I'm sure it will never be production, since it's so pretty, the wind generators while moving at a decent speed and regen breaking together could be quite awesome.

[WarpedOne]

Don't they teach physics any more?
Jesus ...

The only real way to harness wind energy is - don't produce wind at all.

[Derwin]

Don't they teach physics any more?
Jesus ...

The only real way to harness wind energy is - don't produce wind at all.

Why, again, would this not work?

And how can you "harness" wind if there is none to harness?

I am kind of lost in regards to what you posted, WarpedOne.

Help me out on this.

By the way, I think this is an INCREDIBLE looking vehicle. Nice find, pharuan!

Derwin

[WarpedOne]

Why, again, would this not work?
II. law of thermodynamics.

Why is there wind when you're moving? Because you force the are infront of you to move away and make space for you. The faster you go, the faster air has to move away. Trying to harness this wind energy would mean that you would try to change its way and speed once more only to find you spent even more of your energy.


And how can you "harness" wind if there is none to harness?
In a way that you don't make any wind at all i.e. don't use any energy for making it. In this way you got (or keep) 100% of that energy that you would otherwise spent making wind.


I am kind of lost in regards to what you posted, WarpedOne. Help me out on this. I guess I was too "poetic" :) You can harness wind energy as long as you don't use your own energy for making it in the first place. Which is NOT the case with cars.

[Necoras]

A few points. One, WarpedOne is correct; "capturing" wind energy on a car means inherently increasing drag, which means you need more fuel to push the car, which will be more than you captured. You'll get a better ROI by reducing drag than you do from the capturing mechanism. For example, today's fastest trains travel at about 300 mph. The only reason they go that slow is because of air resistance. If you were to put a mag lev train in a tube and pump all of the air out the only factors limiting your speed are the length of the tube (amount of time you have to accelerate/decelerate) and the number of gs your passengers can take (how fast can you accelerate/decelerate). If you had a tube from NY to London you could easily have a train traveling at 3000mph with no ill effects.

Now, I assume the designer here isn't a moron and probably knows this. I suppose it's possible that you could design a car in such a way that it captures energy from eddies and vortexes that are unavoidable. At that point you'd be drawing energy from something that is causing drag and not directly caused by your forward momentum, and thus you might come out with a smaller loss than you would without the turbine. I would think that's why the turbines are on the wheels; they're on the side of the car instead of the front.

It is a pretty car though.

[Derwin]

Thanks for your explanation, WarpedOne. That made it a bit more clear for me!

Also, I agree with Necoras in that I don't think the guy who "designed" this car is a moron, and most likely already knows what you are saying.

I would suggest that somebody dig a bit deeper in exactly how this car is supposed to operate...how exactly is it capturing wind, and how is it turning it into energy.

Derwin

[pharuan]

Sadly, it looks like the guy (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/thomas-pastor/4/222/b9b) is just responsible for making it pretty.

The physics behind it probably didn't enter his head. It was done for the Michelin Challenge Design Showcase 2009 (http://www.michelinchallengedesign.com/MCD_2009/Site/mcd_gallery_2009/mcd_participants_2009.asp).

[WarpedOne]

I suppose it's possible that you could design a car in such a way that it captures energy from eddies and vortexes that are unavoidable. At that point you'd be drawing energy from something that is causing drag and not directly caused by your forward momentum, and thus you might come out with a smaller loss than you would without the turbine. I would think that's why the turbines are on the wheels; they're on the side of the car instead of the front.
Unfortunatelly, the short answer is: No, it's not possible.

While it is true that some vertexes and eddies are unavoidale, that doesn't mean they are "free energy". All energy in them comes from you trying to move the car. Harvesting energy from them, only means trying to stop them. And trying to stop them translates into trying to stop the car. So, while trying to harvest energy from them you end up consuming more energy to move forward.

It is possible that "something got lost in translation" and there is just too much talk about generators and such. Those turbines on the wheels could quite possibly be clever shaped rims that produce less turbulance than classic wheels hence creating less drag and offering better efficiency.

[Necoras]

Honestly my guess is that someone decided to use the buzz word "wind energy" to make their car sound cooler. People don't realize just how much energy is stored in coal, oil, gasoline, etc. They assume that all sources of energy are equal in magnitude and quality while being unequal in palatability. Thus, just burn down all of the coal plants and put up wind turbines!

Same idea here. There's lots of wind on my hand/face when I'm in my car, why not use it! Yeah, that's a great idea! Hey, why did my range go *down* when I put the wind turbines on?

Petroleum and coal are near ideal energy storage devices. They contain the stored solar energy of literally tons of plant matter concentrated into a small usable form. Replacing those sources with diffuse solar energy in the form of solar and wind power simply isn't viable. The power has to be concentrated and that means using huge... tracts of land. It can't be done on a car. Sorry.

[TazmanianKoala]

In fact, there is no thing as "free energy".
The energy gained by the turbines actually slows the wheels down (retracts energy from the turning wheels).
So to keep up speed, there is more energy needed to propel the car.
Strange idea of gaining energy.o:o:p:s12

[dr4]

It's even worse. It's not possible to translate one form of energy into another with 100% Gibbs free (useable) energy. Losses will always occur from heat, friction, and disorder (entropy) losses. So in turning the turbines, you put in X energy and get out X minus losses, a net loss.

[travisty]

I say we put sails on our cars and blow on them!

[pharuan]

Looking at it again, because it's so pretty, the wheels are enclosed. The air being harvested doesn't come from the car moving, it comes from the wheels moving. And, as far as I can guess, when the wheels move the blades are pushing the air through them and towards a turbine of some sort.
How much of an effect would that have on drag? I am sure it would be less than if you just put a wind mill on it. :p
Oh well, it's still pretty. So's his other concept car, the Forza Rossa (http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/261301_PKWWZ9XTurRkK2kcclCciLvHc.jpg).

[Gunner]

It shore is purty though. I like that out of the box thinking that creates ideas like this.

[dr4]

I say we put sails on our cars and blow on them!

I know you're not serious, but of course that wouldn't work either. Remember "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". So, the force of expelling the air would cause a counter force to the direction of travel, plus the loss in efficiency would equal a net negative velocity and you would back up even ever so slightly. Sorry, but I didn't create the laws of physics. It might work, though, just hasn't so far in this universe!

[danbucks]

...For example, today's fastest trains travel at about 300 mph. The only reason they go that slow is because of air resistance. If you were to put a mag lev train in a tube and pump all of the air out the only factors limiting your speed are the length of the tube (amount of time you have to accelerate/decelerate) and the number of gs your passengers can take (how fast can you accelerate/decelerate). If you had a tube from NY to London you could easily have a train traveling at 3000mph with no ill effects.


Unfortunately, partly true in concept, not true in implementation. Several studies have shown that almost all trains in service today are some of the most inefficient vehicles in existence (e.g. it would take less energy to transport the same people individually by car).

Why?
1) Trains suffer rolling resistance. Major rolling resistance, despite metal on metal. This is because their weight per passenger is many, many times greater than a car - it is plain silly, to be honest.
2) Trains are NEVER at steady state, on perfectly flat tracks. This means they must push all that weight into motion, and up hill.
3) Even magnetic lev trains suffer from resistance - ironically, magnetic resistance decreases with speed.
4) Trains, with only a handful of exceptions in the world, are never 100% full (minimizing the kg penalty, which is still there at 100%)