Ok i had gone to a hydro electrict dam , they said water current spins the generator there for creating electricity.
I thought what t if we used this on cars.
I mean the wheels spin, they can stick a mini version of what the hydro dams use, in return when a cars driving the friction will generate static electricity, some how we can use this S.E (static electricity) to recharge car batteries,battery packs and so forth.
Spinning = friction
Friction = static
Static = electricity
electricity = power
power = bright homes
power = charged batteries
Every car has one, just it's far more efficient than what you're proposing; it's called an alternator. As in hydro dams, they produce alternating current (AC), not static electricity.
The spinning of the engine spins a magnet inside a wire coil, generating electricity (dynamos); this recharges the battery and provides the power for everything else that uses electricity while you're driving. In theory you could harness it and charge additional batteries to power other things when you're done driving, but it would be a very inefficient energy source; as you generate more power, you reduce fuel efficiency... it would heavily offset the advantage of using the car to generate power.
There have been tests of using pivoting roadways to generate power. As cars drive over the road, they tilt levers embedded in the road that spin dynamos under the road, putting power into the grid. As far as I recall, the results were pretty good, but it's a spotty power source.
Doing so will make the car's trip down the road more difficult (perpetually going slightly uphill).
That burns more gas, so really, it's only a very inefficient way to turn gasoline into electricity.
If you want to do that, you've already pointed out that it's better to just use one of these:
On discovery channel i saw those pivoting road but they said they would use it only for like intersections , speed bumps. because those are both places where cars have to slow down, where cars spend the most time at.
A few years ago there was talk of using a generator in the braking system that would generate a bit of electricity each time you used the brakes.
It's a matter of converting energy into chemical energy. We could use the noise generated by engines to do so. Or, what would be much better, the heat energy generated by engines. There's a lot to think about, our current technology allows us to look at problems and solve them because we have high-tech material etc.
I remember some company working on devices powered by the human body and it's movement as well as heat. That's the way we should go - increasing efficiency in everything.
all electric cars use re-generative braking, and a few petrol ones too, to re-charge the batteries using wasted energy
i really dont think there is much extra energy that can be squeezed from a car. they are already extremely efficient machines. converting the excess heat in energy? i doubt its worth the effort.
If I'm not mistaken - the combustion engine is physically up to 40% efficient, and we rarely reach that level in normal cars.
well i consider that to be efficient. more efficient than running an electric car using power created by burning fossil fuels.
You could always hook up them 'lectric cars to them uranium or thorium based nuclear reactors and have nice, clean and cheap energy.
It's all about energy transfer efficiency. Energy wasted while breaking can be better regenerated.
Energy can be regenerated when car is running down a hill or road. It is better to find out the energy loss ports in a car and seal them practically.
Energy saved = Energy generated
I recommend the movie: Who Killed the Electric Car? It's a great documentary and provides good info about battery technology and the power of gov't lobbying.
There was also an idea to use mechanical regenerative braking, where the wasted energy in braking would either wind up a spring, or start a heavy disk spinning... Then that stored energy in the spring or disk could be used to help accelerate the car.
I don't know if that's ever actually been implemented in a car though... The nice thing about it however, is that it could be used in pretty much any type of transportation that uses brakes, no matter what it was powered by.
That would be pro, turning all friction into power.
all these are built into hybrid vehicles
commonly they work like this i suppose :
gasoline engine starts
the engine rotates the wheel as well as a generator which are connected to it
the energy generated is used to charge a li-po battery pack
then after a while , the system looks for problems and if there is no problem , it turns the gasoline engine off
and then switches on to the electric engine which works using the li-po battery pack
as the current lowers , the system looks for problem as activates the gasoline engine on and turns the electric motor on and continues generating power from the gasoline engine
yes , i think it is implemented in Toyota prius or Chevy volt
Mechanical regenerative braking?
Certainly not the Prius, and though I'm not too familiar with the Volt, I doubt it does this either.
They may well use electric regenerative braking, but mechanical? I doubt it.
Correct. The Chevy Volt does have electrical regenerative braking not mechanical. Mechanical would be more prone to failure due to repetitive cycling and would require more maintenance (lube).
There are some other ways for a car to generate some of its electrical under development that cannot be disclosed to the public yet.
Besides braking, the only significant store of energy left to tap would be waste heat from motors... I didn't think such small-scale heat-to-electricity conversion was practical yet...
Hmm... well, there's also the side-to-side, up and down motion of the suspension... Adding generator-like electrical components to the suspension might be expensive and heavy though, and I don't think it would contribute a very large amount of power.
Any other source would drain more energy than it contributed.
The only practical way for a car to have a net generation of (electrical) energy is to use regenerative braking - which is already done today.
Energy recovered from engine heat, tire heat, tire friction (i.e. static electricity) etc. would be minuscule.
No, the energy that regenerative braking must come from somewhere -- that being the energy used to accelerate the car. It will still be a net loss.
The only (practical) way for a car to have a net gain of electricity/energy is to be solar powered.*
Energy recovered from suspension movement can be helpful though. I forget who it was, but somebody was working on a hyper-mileage hybrid that used this energy recovery method.
*impractical ways of having net gain in energy:
-raise a windmill whenever you stop, to charge batteries.
-use sails to accelerate; regenerative braking to decelerate.
-only drive downhill.
You can scratch that first one as it won't give you a net gain in energy. Sure windmills can generate energy, but that's mainly because they don't move. They way many tons. So build in the infrastructure needed for a car to be able to attach one and you'll be driving something the size of five tanks (maybe exaggerated some) for a grand total of net loss...
The main issue about that is consumer efficiency. Sure cars may become more energy efficient but most people are more concerned about their wallets. Add things like that and the prices of the cars skyrocket, the prices of parts skyrocket, and then you have to take into account that you may have to take it to a mechanic to get fixed because most people don't know about all of these new technologies. I personally will not take my car to a mechanic. I do all of the work myself. However, I look under the hoods of these new cars (like the Prius) and am lost... I have no trouble doing any repairs on my Ford Ranger. If I needed new brakes, no problem. Drums on the rear, disc on the front... Add in a new technology and I now will either have to learn it or pay for it...
The last problem is that new technologies may only be energy efficient at the consumer level and not the manufacture level. I honestly think that people who drive a Prius just like to feel like elitist. Why else would you drive a $30,000 car that doesn't even have the potential to pick up women (like some cooler $30,000 cars)? It's not for money reasons because I have a $1,500 car that works great and I won't use 20x more gas than you. Plus, I can do my own repairs rather cheaply (with good 'ol Autozone) while people who have a Prius will have high bills once they need anything done on it... So not money reasons... And it's certainly not for environmental reasons because the Prius gives off more emissions than many other cars plus it uses much more energy to be manufactured than other cars...
If you actually want to be frugal and environmentally friendly, drive a 1994 Geo Metro.
They get 53Mpg (compared to the 60Mpg of the Prius), and they're quite cheap.
To top it off, driving an older used car means that no additional resources need to be consumed in order to build it - recycling of a sort.
Geo Metro. I forgot about that little car.
I certainly would not want to have an electric car when those batteries need to be replace after warranty is gone. Would need a second loan to cover the battery replacement cost.
1: Tests are not required everywhere; I don't know about your country, but in the US, they are generally only required in/near urban areas. (Which means trucks often avoid them because trucks are more practical for rural areas anyway.)
2: Older vehicles are often exempt or have lower standards (because of being grandfathered in to new laws). Since heavy trucks generally last longer, there are a lot of old trucks that may be exempt.
3: Different classes of vehicles often have different standards; the standards for big trucks (especially diesels) can often be lower than the standards for passenger cars.*
(My '68 F250 is a good example:
1: It is better suited for a rural environment, so doesn't get driven in urban places where tests would be required.
2: It is older than most emissions laws, so it is exempt from them.
3: Even if it was tested, being a large truck, it would probably have more lenient standards.)
*#3 doesn't necessarily apply to safety tests for really big trucks. Because of their high capacity for causing damage, big-rigs often have more stringent standards for safety concerns.
You're lucky Ocalhoun. As those regulations make good sense. Are they Federal rules, or restricted to certain States only and how do they distinguish between urban and rural? I'm an expat in the UAE, and all vehicles have to be registered and tested once a year. And they really do a very comprehensive test, including testing tyres, etc. etc. The same standards apply to all of the vehicles across the board. The only exception is vehicles that are new, new being considered to be three years or less. If vehicles are over 10 years old they get to be checked even more carefully. At one stage there was a rumous circulating that all vehicles over 10 years would have to be dumped! That created massive panic as you can well imagine. Fortunately that did not come to pass.
The states determine the auto testing laws, and sometimes the states even delegate that down to county or even city governments to decide.
No law specifically differentiates between urban and rural; it's just that the only states/counties/cities that require testing are the more urban ones.
For example, take Denver Colorado. Since the state includes both urban areas that need smog control and rural areas that don't, Colorado delegated the decision down to the county level, and only the counties near Denver require testing. (Denver is the only urban area in the state.)
Generally, a (current) out-of-state license plate will exempt you from local requirements.
There are exceptions though, in the more authoritarian areas, where they will enforce local laws regardless.
In the more authoritarian areas, yes they would.
In good places though, they would just notice the out-of-state plates and not bother with it.
That said, even in the best places, cops will pull you over for anything that apparently makes a vehicle non-street-legal.
(Despite its looks, my truck is perfectly street legal -- though not entirely road-worthy.)
Back to electric cars, one thing that is always a thumbs down is that they are not fun to own. They seem to be pretty unimaginative and boring. So maybe that could also be one of the reasons why people are not interested to buy them? Here's a nice article about applying the "Fun Factor" to electric cars.
The Tesla Roadster looks real "fun" to own, I could not believe that it is really an electric car:
I thought this was common knowledge. When a battery is empty, one way of recharging it is turning a car on with another battery, then connecting the empty battery and letting it charge through the use of fuel.