The laws of thermodynamics would prevent a wind generator from ever recovering more than a small fraction of the energy spent to accelerate and keep the car moving. Adding a wind generator to a car would only be adding to its drag.

This seems very do-able to me. A small fan under the grill of any car coupled to a dynamo which fed an auxiliary battery (for those times you're stopped at a stop light, for example) might work. It is the same principle really of a turbocharger which powers fuel to the injection using air off the exhaust.

I am interested in information on leveraging wind power to recharge batteries in an electric car. I would like information on where to buy or how to build small turbines, electric generators and rechargers. Any assistance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Please respond to Linda Mae Wilson at tallscarydaddy@earthlink.net.

PhilShaw is right, unfortunately. Adding wind generators to a vehicle will only increase it's drag and, therefore, the energy required to accelerate and keep the vehicle moving. So, even if you had 50 wind generators on the vehicle, the ratio of energy recovered to energy used would still remain very small.

However, if having the extra electric power is a higher priority than having optimum fuel efficiency, then this isn't a problem. Kind of goes against the whole "alternative energy" ethos, though.

OK, I have to take back mt comment above. This idea intrigued me, so I built myself a small wind generator to try it out and, lo and behold, it works!

My generator consists of 2 9-18VDC hobby motors (about $6 from Radio Shack) with RC airplane propellers glued onto the shafts (although I need to find a better way to attach the props, as the glue eventually wears out and the props fly off or stop spinning the shaft... still working on this one). The motors and props are installed in 90 degree PVC elbow "nacelles" using glue, tape, whatever. These nacelles are glued to a 4-5 inch PVC standoff (so the props can spin free and clear) and the whole thing is strapped to the driver's side door of my truck via some luggage straps. It's not pretty but it works.

I'm getting 25-30VDC at 2-3 Amps at around 62-65 MPH, and I have noticed no significant decrease in fuel efficiency. I am using the contraption to charge a 12V car battery. It seems to work best as a "topping off" device (i.e. keep the battery fully charged, rather than a deep-discharge then recharge cycle).

Alot of improvements could be made in lots of areas (e.g. drag reduction, voltage regulation, noise reduction (it's loud!), and appearence (most people probably wouldn't be caught dead driving around with this thing on their car)), but it works!

This is... ridiculous. Yes, it may be working for you, but I promise that any energy you get from it is either a result of the engine or the hills you go down. The blades on your turbine rotate because the air is deflected off them as you drag them along. As each air molecule hits the turbine, its impact forces the car back slightly, and there must be an equal and opposite force placed on the car to keep it from decellerating. Not only is this method of collecting energy very lossy, but the air is only deflecting off the blades because the car is moving (due to the engine and the hills). Consider this: you could put your generator in front of a fan, and it would work great, but the energy it collected would only be a result of the fan's work. There would be no net gain in the fan-turbine system, just a loss, because you have to use electrical energy to get the air moving in the first place. This caveat is not an issue for real windmills, because no other natural resource needs to be expended to get the air moving over the blades, as it is a direct result of weather patterns. In your case, you are converting chemical energy in the engine to kinetic energy in the car (which is already very lossy) and then using a turbine to convert some of that energy into electricity, which is converted back into chemical energy in your battery for storage. Throughout this process, no energy is every gained, and much is certainly lost. My advice is to stick to the alternator in your car if you want electricity, since it at least goes straight from mechanical to electric, skipping the wastefull turbine.

If you are really hard core, convince billions of people to try this out, and maybe the spike in CO2 from the engines driving the things will shift global weather patterns, creating apocolyptic cyclones that give those turbines something to spin about. It might rip the little suckers off your chassis, though. It's a toss-up, but maybe the odds are in your favor.

ruCrazy is entirely correct. This is indeed ridiculous. You say you've tried it and have "noticed no significant decrease in fuel efficiency." In case you're wondering, this is because of the tremendously many variables that go into your mileage, making it absolutely impossible for you to use your "observed" mileage as any sort a gauge in this process. These variables include everything from atmospheric temperature and pressure to the roads you drive on, to the traffic conditions, to the weight in your car, to the butterfly in Japan. The power you are generating is such a pittance compared to the energy density of gasoline and the kW output of your engine that you indeed should NOT notice any change in your mileage even though it is less. A typical car's engine produces on the order of 100,000 watts. You're claiming to be getting 90 watts (Power in watts = amps times volts) on the high end. I'd guess that you're probably losing at least triple that to your lossy system, which means you're sapping about 300 watts from the engine. Given all the variables that go into your mileage, there's no way in hell you'll be able to notice a drop of 300 watts out of 100,000.

Moreover, if this worked (ie, created energy), it would break the Second Law of Thermodynamic (look it up). Let's think about it inductively with a thought experiment: Let's assume, for the moment, that you're little scheme works. For simplicity, let's take an electric car as an example - you know, one of those beefy ones that does 0-60 in 3.Something seconds (just so you can't claim it's underpowered or anything). So let's mount a wind turbine on that. What you're saying is that you'd generate more electricity via the turbine than you'd use pushing the extra drag/weight of the turbine through the air. Ok. If that's true, then why not mount a BIGGER turbine and get MORE electricity? Or how about an even bigger one? Eventually you'll get to the point where it's big enough to supply all the electricity for the car as a whole, right? Then you could run your car forever without refueling/recharging!!! You've invented perpetual motion!!! Wow. Nobel Prize time.

The only way you could even theoretically generate more energy with the turbine than you're using for it is when going down hill, or when the natural atmospheric wind is blowing through the turbine. In the first case, you're using the potential height-energy of the car (which was created by the work of the engine, incidentally), and in the second case, you might as well use a stationary wind-turbine.

And anyone who may have paid attention to “Pat”'s statement that "It is the same principle really of a turbocharger which powers fuel to the injection using air off the exhaust" should know that Pat's understanding of how a turbocharger works is infantile at best. See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm . Please, people, let's do your research before posting, in an attempt to cut down on the enormous quantity of useless and incorrect "knowledge" being put forth online. Feel free to flame me, now, if desired.

ruCrazy and SirIssac... although I am very tempted to include a comment about some people's egotistical desire to flaunt their knowledge in this text, I will refrain, as pettiness is not in my nature.

However, I must point out that, if you look at my comment from June 21, you will see that I am well aware of the laws of thermodynamics, and the fact that I am not "creating" energy. I am also well aware of the fact that I am (indirectly) converting the chemical energy of my vehicle's fuel to electrical energy via the wind turbines. None of these facts have escaped me.

Also, as to SirIssac's comments about "mount[ing] a BIGGER turbine and get MORE electricity", once again, if you see my comments from June 21, you'll see that I have no illusions about this either. Thus, all your deftly crafted sarcasm has been wasted.

But you are missing the point. The point is not to "create energy" the point is to convert some of the energy that is ALREADY being used (by the engine) to electricity (via the turbines) for use in other applications which are designed to to use electricity.

Since, as you noted yourself, the power loss is very small compared to the total output of of the engine, the sacrifice is worth it IF you consider the electrical power generated to be of higher priority than the chemical energy stored in the fuel (a subjective value judgment).

In conclusion, relax guys, it's just an experiment... no one is questioning your obviously vast intellects.

Oh and to ruCrazy, thanks for the 5-minute Physics lesson, but I've taken college physics and am well aware of Mr. Newton's 2nd law (F= ma) and the forces that are acting on the turbine.

Oh, and I should have said "electricity" not "electrical energy"(just to satisfy the nit-pickers).

Hmmm... OK, looking at my July 8 comment, I can see how this might have been misconstrued to mean that I was thinking I was producing energy from nothing (i.e. the "I take my above comments back" bit).

What I meant (and, I admit, should have qualified in my comment) was that I was taking back the sentiment that this was a terrible idea. It is DEFINETLY not going to work in the way that it was originally put forth (i.e. "Perhaps such modest power could assist in the regeneration of the new fuel cell technology requirements") due to the laws of physics that have already been more than adequately covered in this thread.

However, given that the loss in fuel efficiency is relatively small (probably no more than what people with ski racks on their cars are losing, or people driving with their windows open or air conditioners on) and could be made smaller with improvements of the aerodynamics of the turbine chassis, it may make sense for those who wish to generate a little electricity for their battery powered applications at home, while driving to work (which is an idea that you could probably sell to alot of people). It all comes down to what your priorities are (i.e. if you are a hard-core environmentalist, this one's probably not for you).

i have, in fact used the cooling fan in a front wheel drive vehicle, placed behind the grille, to power my truck when my alternator gave up the ghost 50 miles from home and no $$ to buy new one. i had noticed that on an old front-wheele drive car i borrowed, that the owner had bypassed the temp sensor and the fan came on when the engine was started and stayed on all the time. when i turned the car off, it stayed running for several seconds until the fan stopped. i had pulled one off another car and had it in the back of my truck when i noticed my battery light was coming on. when i pulled over, i discovered that my alternator was shot and i was running out of juice fast. i remembered the car-fan situation and mounted the cooling fan to my front grille with some wire. i pulled a diode off a junked battery charger and wired it between the connection between the fan to the battery. at 25-30mph i noticed the dome light getting brighter and i made it home.

Ive been looking into this sort of idea myself for over 2 years now and of course its just commonsense that you can make more energy then what it takes to produce it, the concept is at least an easier alternative to fitting a second alternator or going for more expensive solar cells.Ive managed to generate 300watts of energy out of a package roughly the size of a small microwave oven. the drag is similar to a roof mounted storage unit or rack and on a large vehicle the resistance would be minimal compared to the surface area. I think its good lateral thinking.... thumbs up from me...I know im going to keep on trying.

I have more of a question then a comment here. I have seen advertised all electric cars that could go up to 60 miles a hour and have a range of 40 to 60 miles. So just how much electrical power would you need to operate this car? Thanks Glen

http://www.theaircar.comhttp://www.fuellessflight.com

"Here is great power. If anyone can say 'Tis evil, do say more! Because it consumeth naught and it maketh no ash. The Element of Fire is not in it. Let Wind blow upon a wheel that is shaped like a Flower, and let the wheel capture much Wind in bottles. On the occasion that ye wish to travel, release the Wind from the bottles in your chariot or your ship or your flying-machine, and it will speed you on your way. This Art be named Pneumatick, but All have neglected to travel with it, though it be preferred and more simple than Electrick whence it doeth work. They say Aer moveth naught without Fire."

Why don't we create a hard sponge car, that isn't as heavy and possibly would have less wind resistance then the idea of wind turbines could work??

I like those ideas that generate so much debate. They are much better than "yeh, good idea". I want to contribute a solution that will use the air flow over the car body but cause no drag (kind of). What if we have a kind of front facing pipe at the front of the car with a cover aerodynamically styled to reduce drag when the cover is closed. Inside the pipe we have a turbine to drive the electricity generator. When accelerating the pipe is closed and so no air is flowing through the pipe meanning no electricity being generated nor drag being caused. When the foot is off the gas (meaning the driver wants to decelerate) the pipe cover will open and the air will flow through the pipe thus generating electricity and helping vehicle deceleration through the extra drag caused by the air flow through the pipe. The car battery will store the electricity till needed.

Good idea Hamadehss, Finally someone is starting to think a little bit (no disrespect to the other posters).

Capturing "lost" energy is significantly different than "free" energy. Using the wind for a kind of regenerative breaking system does not break any of the laws of thermodynamics - as long as you don't claim that your new found energy source is enough to "recharge" your main energy source.

I was wondering if there was any way to tap into the "eddy" currents - the currents that are reponsible for (or at least an indicator of) drag. In otherwords rather than mounting the wind turbine on top of the car, mount it in the back - maybe embedded in the rear bumper - capturing the air that is swirling. Airplane designers now mount winglets on the tips of their main wing in an attempt to capture wind (or maybe the correct terminology is "reduce drag") that is "rolling off" the wing - with the result of large fuel savings.

There is another potential way of capturing "wasted" wind engergy created by cars and trucks. Arrays of mini-turbines along side of high-speed-high-traffic high ways. I'm sure you've seen dust, snow, or leaves get "swept up" when a car zooms by. Well there you go - that's wasted engery that is just asking to be utilized. Obviously you have "run the numbers" to see if the investment makes sense, but the potential is there (no pun intended).

I've also noticed that when a large truck/trailer zooms under a pedistrian (and other bridges that there is significant "ground effect" - enough to make the bridge flex and give you a feeling of momentary feeling of weightlessness. That's yet another source of wind power driven by cars (again no pun intended) - though again a little off topic as it is not "the car itself" that is utilizing the wind.

-CF

Yeah, Hamadehss is getting somewhere. It should only generate when braking. So how about some sort of louvre that pops up when breaking and closes when accelerating, like airplane flaps. It would have to be real quick to open and close, and should be a big resistance, to really help brake the car, since most of the time the car isn't braking so it wouldn't be charging. Could wind resistance help stop a car, and could it be funnelled into a turbine?

Or maybe there is a better way to harness the momentum when braking? Is there any way to put regenerative brakes onto a regular old car?

Interesting topic..I have been thinking about this possibility for years. So with a hybrid electric and an extra battery I don't really see why the wind around the car could not possibly add to charging a second battery. The last few posts about other ways other that something attached to the top or sides I think are right on. Wind is compressed as it hits the top of a hill. The speed is faster there. Likewise a sea shell is naturally designed with sacred geometry. This is a natural compression shape that could capture wind at an even higher speed than it is taking in and could possibly be designed in a way that has little drag on the vehicle.The problem with Newtons laws is they are finite and narrow minded. And most physics majors and scientists insist that nothing can challenge them. Therefore they are unable to creatively explore. But, dah, isnt that what science is...exploring?Limited thinking is what got our world into this mess in the first place. Yeah, it won't work...it's impossible. True scientific exploration always begins with pure imagination and the willingness to not say "NO" to any idea. Our solutions cannot be found at the same level that the problems were created.Creative exploration requires following pathways that may seem stupid and silly. Edison tried many things before actually find the right element to arc his light bulbs. And New York Utilities picked the so called crazy Tesla over Edison to move electricity from Niagra Falls to Buffalo New York. Edison said that it was not possible to salvage power at the end of miles of cable. Tesla proved him wrong and they used his ideas in the generating plant. Good thing Tesla didn't give up on his genius.

OK - I am not a physics major, but why could you not create an air scoop on the front or side of the car (much in the same way we do on race-cars to coor brakes, etc...) that feeds a magnetic frictionless fan that collects and stores wind energy into the cars electric system. How about using the same system on the cars exhaust gases. I get the concept that you gave to use energy to create energy, but if designed correctly - could this not help supply additional power for hybrid batteries?

You have an energy creating system - why not harness some of the power?

1: you can't use this to generate electricity to power the vehicle. This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

2: If you just want more avaliable electricity in the car, why not just buy and install a bigger alternator? This would be more efficient b/c it has a direct connection to the engine and not an indirect connection via air resistance.

3: Wind energy is one of the least efficient ways to harvest braking energy from a car. Go ahead and use it if you have no other option, but you will be wasting a lot of energy that could be captured with other regenrative braking solutions, including electric and hydraulic systems.

Hi everybody been a while since ive been on and ive been doing alot of fiddling with this sort of wind power, ive managed to produce a 5 blade unit with about 30cm diameter turbine with streamlining and nose cone etc that makes about 160watts, my testing with enclosed systems have found it creates to much disturbance in the airflow and you lose alot of the energy, my plan has been simple and streamlined, the unit is held on the roof of the car for testing using neonydium boron magnets and isnt enclosed its just built tough in case of bird strikes, the bird will definately come off second best, so from my experience open is best, my units are deigned to mount on RV's and create much less drag then most external items such as aerials, topboxs, aircon units etc and its not a free energy unit as drag is always present.

(sigh) Some people will just never get it. It will ALWAYS be more efficient to tap power from your alternator than to add a wind generator to your car. It is also easier. A small turbine will generate so little power that you could extract just as much or more extra power from your original factory alternator without problems. If you really want alot more power, you could install a larger alternator. While this would require some work, it would still require less work than making an equally powerful wind generator. A wind generator might be fun, but it is NOT practical, period.

The car engine is the prime mover, converting chemically stored energy to provide power for vehicle motion. This motion is also used to pull the turbine through the air. It is not as efficient as simply mounting a larger alternator driven directly by the engine.

Regarding the idea of recuperating power on braking. This exists already on hybrid and electrical cars. An electric motor consumes power on acceleration and normal running, but by reversal of teh control system, the same motor can be used to generate electricity (as an alternator) which creates teh desired causes braking.

The wind turbine is an intersting concept, but too large and less efficient than existing alternatives. A lot of intersting thoguhts, but please, drop this idea!

It seems we have a lot of masters in Second Law thermodynamics or high school physics which ever one you want to claim is the reason for this vehicle not to work. The law of thermodynamics does not apply hear. This is a mechanical energy to electricity to mechanical energy. And although at first glance this may seem like a perpetual motion machine novelty idea, it isn't. The reason we can not make this machine yet, although government patents already do exist, it is because we lack the technology for efficiency in windmill design. Right now the efficiency of windmill design falls between very small margins, 30-40 miles starting at around 20 mph to a maximum of 60 mph, with the optimum power band being closer to the higher end but not at the max because of burnout. Electricity is also a very strange animal to deal with. Right now we do not have a battery, except maybe Toshiba's new experimental lithium ion polymer and your regular car battery are able to use electricity coming out of the battery and put juice back into it at the same time. Almost all other batteries are on a charge first then use, trying to both creates a potentially volatile situation. And drag does become a problem, although it becomes a problem of stability and control rather than force prohibiting the forward advancement of the vehicle. Meaning instead of the simple steering design we currently employ, we would move to a fully computer assisted steering, something similar to what is used in airplanes, very expensive stuff. You would also have to design electricity conversion and amplification hardware like transformers, amplifiers, and capacitators that make the stuff we use for car stereos look like child's play. Let's not forget the revolutionary design you would have to create in windmills so that we don't have long giant propellers sticking out the top of vehicles. So after you spent millions developing this vehicle, you would find that you were able to create a perpetual motion vehicle, but a production cost vehicle would be way to expensive to cost effective. Perpetual motion is great and all, but not cost effective. Thermodynamics states that you can't use a force to gather energy and then use the same energy against the same force, you will either come out stalemating each other or on the negative end. So at first glance it does look like it negates the laws of thermodynamics. As far placing a small turbine on the front to save energy or capture loss energy, you are using going 3 energy forces (the chemical energy from the gas transformed to mechanical energy to the rotor/rod to air resistance to the windmill) to create 1 stream of electricity, when the chemical of gas to mechanical of the rotor/rod to electricity already exists in a car, you are adding an additional step making it inefficient as a means of generating extra electricity. So yes your theory on a vehicle in perpetual motion using air resistance as a means to generate electricity can be applied, but it would never be cost effective versus other means, although it would efficient.

It seems we have a lot of masters in Second Law thermodynamics or high school physics which ever one you want to claim is the reason for this vehicle not to work. The law of thermodynamics does not apply hear. This is a mechanical energy to electricity to mechanical energy. And although at first glance this may seem like a perpetual motion machine novelty idea, it isn't. The reason we can not make this machine yet, although government patents already do exist, it is because we lack the technology for efficiency in windmill design. Right now the efficiency of windmill design falls between very small margins, 30-40 miles starting at around 20 mph to a maximum of 60 mph, with the optimum power band being closer to the higher end but not at the max because of burnout. Electricity is also a very strange animal to deal with. Right now we do not have a battery, except maybe Toshiba's new experimental lithium ion polymer and your regular car battery are able to use electricity coming out of the battery and put juice back into it at the same time. Almost all other batteries are on a charge first then use, trying to both creates a potentially volatile situation. And drag does become a problem, although it becomes a problem of stability and control rather than force prohibiting the forward advancement of the vehicle. Meaning instead of the simple steering design we currently employ, we would move to a fully computer assisted steering, something similar to what is used in airplanes, very expensive stuff. You would also have to design electricity conversion and amplification hardware like transformers, amplifiers, and capacitators that make the stuff we use for car stereos look like child's play. Let's not forget the revolutionary design you would have to create in windmills so that we don't have long giant propellers sticking out the top of vehicles. So after you spent millions developing this vehicle, you would find that you were able to create a perpetual motion vehicle, but a production cost vehicle would be way to expensive to cost effective. Perpetual motion is great and all, but not cost effective. Thermodynamics states that you can't use a force to gather energy and then use the same energy against the same force, you will either come out stalemating each other or on the negative end. So at first glance it does look like it negates the laws of thermodynamics. As far placing a small turbine on the front to save energy or capture loss energy, you are using going 3 energy forces (the chemical energy from the gas transformed to mechanical energy to the rotor/rod to air resistance to the windmill) to create 1 stream of electricity, when the chemical of gas to mechanical of the rotor/rod to electricity already exists in a car, you are adding an additional step making it inefficient as a means of generating extra electricity. So yes your theory on a vehicle in perpetual motion using air resistance as a means to generate electricity can be applied, but it would never be cost effective versus other means, although it would efficient.

INVENTION TITLE Hybrid Wind Vehicle

Provisional Patent Holder: Sean Regan 9501 14th Bay Street Norfolk, Virginia 23518

DESCRIPTION [Para 1] The present invention relates to a hybrid wind vehicle. The hybrid wind vehicle incorporates the mechanisms needed to capture, convert, and store energy derived from wind activated turbines. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the wind into mechanical power. The mechanical power will be utilized by the vehicle and a generator will also be utilized to convert this mechanical power into electricity that will be stored within a battery system in order to start the vehicle as well a provide an alternate energy source for secondary purposes. The hybrid wind vehicle will utilize a design that incorporates a system of horizontal downwind turbines within the body of the vehicle. Wind turbines use wind to make electricity. The wind turns the blades, which spin a shaft, which connects to a generator and makes electricity. The electricity is sent through transmission and distribution lines to be utilized by the vehicle and/or stored for future use.[Para 2] The concepts utilized for this vehicle may be used in alternative products that would benefit from using wind energy (i.e. airplanes, locomotives, etc.)[Para 3] The turbines and other mechanisms that power the hybrid wind vehicle can be arranged in various manners and energy sources other than electricity could be utilized as the complementary energy source (i.e. fossil fuels, hydrogen, solar, etc.). Additionally, the turbine system utilized could vary such as utilizing vertical turbines and/or turbines attached to the exterior of the vehicle.What is claimed is: [Claim 1] The Hybrid Wind Vehicle incorporates the mechanisms needed to capture, convert, and store energy derived from wind activated turbines. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the wind into mechanical power. The mechanical power will be utilized by the vehicle and a generator will also be utilized to convert this mechanical power into electricity that will be stored within a battery system in order to start the vehicle as well a provide an alternate energy source for secondary purposes. The hybrid wind vehicle will utilize a design that incorporates a system of horizontal downwind turbines within the body of the vehicle. Wind turbines use wind to make electricity. The wind turns the blades, which spin a shaft, which connects to a generator and makes electricity. The electricity is sent through transmission and distribution lines to be utilized by the vehicle and/or stored for future use.ABSTRACT [Para 4] The invention will utilize a mechanisms incorporated into the design of the vehicle that will capture wind and convert the energy which will both fuel the vehicle as well as be stored for future and secondary device use. The vehicle will be able to utilize the renewable energy source to improve upon existing vehicle designs which are primarily dependent upon non-renewable energy sources. Furthermore, the vehicle will utilize wind power as a significant means of energy and result in a vehicle that is environmentally friendly versus current vehicles which emit a number of pollutants. Finally, the mechanisms used in this vehicle can be integrated into other products (i.e. airplanes, locomotives, etc.) and will potentially diminish current dependence upon increasingly scarce natural resources.DRAWINGS

this idea its great for recharge something that requires more that the output that the car battery gives, like a ipod the fan generator has a magnet you placed on the rof of the car and the ipod of corse inside conected whit a cable to the generator on the fan and it recharges wen you go like at 60 km but for other purpose not

Well I just had to put my 2cent in here....

Physics and the second law. Maxwell comes to mind, demons also come to mind. or are we forgetting entropy cost.

And some off the comments seem like the forward thinkers are gone.

2 law If you cease to feed a demon the second law of thermodynamics will quikly stop it's operation. Thus you have not violated the second law.

And come on putting a large windmill on a car---give me a--- ya right. the term RAT comes to mind, and for you that don't know its a Ram Air Turbine use on airplanes and can produce up to 70kw

I have been fighting this for 30yrs and a lot of people have there own thoughts but it can work to a point, it's just to what point we don't know.

Rmenber a brick wall has a drag coefficiency of 1 and a car is 0.36 - 0.4 with the engine well open in the front, so the drag is already in the system. To maintane a speed of 50mph it take 10 HP or 7.5KW This is fact not speculation. I have seen other posting giving info like the second law but lets finish the calcuation just not use one. Gather all info and then formulate a conclution instead of just talking.

But on the flip side this has help me, as i write my rebutle. Because I am working with several engineers including a thermalengineer on just this subject. and all our data and calcs show its posible and does not violate the second law. But I will only be sure after its made and all the data comes in.

Now don't get picky with my writing I also have NLD and am somewhat disabled.

My 2 cents

I want to try to add a positive spin (small pun intended) so maybe, in the right locations, road-side windmills could recapture a bit of the blow-by? Yeah, I'm skeptical too....

This idea has merit.

Cars typically have areas of drag that are necessary for the operation of a vehicle, like the radiator. Some air must flow through the radiator to cool the engine. This results in air flow burbling that contributes to total vehicle drag.

Laminar Air Flow

Potentially in these areas the control of air flow can help to provide consistent laminar air flow over the body of the vehicle. Something like blow into a flute. The back pressure can control the boundary layer and contribute to lower drag of the vehicle.

Areas where this boundary layer might be beneficially controlled would be the front bumper and grill to hood interface, hood/windshield interface, wheel wells, roof to back window interface, back window to trunk lid interface, trunk lid to bumper interface.

The complexity of such a system would require an aerodynamics engineer to determine the configuration of the body and turbine units needed to promote laminar flow; but this concept is feasible.

The turbine/laminar flow configuration could reduce vehicle total drag and potentially produce a small amount of power in burble areas of air flow.

what about funnels collecting the air and forcing more air into a tube that goes to the wind turbines? it could be placed where there is already drag at the front of the vehicle

I know this is from 2004, but had to contribute: because of all the losses in the conversion processes (gasoline to motion, wind to electricity), you would most definitely be better off:

(1) making the car as aerodynamic as possible, and (2) using energy from the Alternator which normally discards most of it's energy during highway driving conditions.

There's no way, no matter what the design of the air scoops and turbines, etc., that you will beat the above idea in energy, cost or efficiency.

I am actually extremely interested in this idea. I thought that I was the only one that thought of this. I was discussing it with my co-workers and I'm going to try to make a model of this very idea with a hybrid vehicle. The fans will be pushed by wind power while the car is in motion, and charge the batteries. In the Prius the battery is charged by braking, what about when the car is in motion? I think this will work and will be worth trying.

A wide open mouth on the grill which funnels the wind into a wind tunnel through the underbelly of the car, would serve for increasing the wind speed pressure. Being made of durable plastic, this wouldn't add much to the weight of the car, except for the generator. Also, finding space to implement this, would be an added chore.

VERY DO-ABLE..... ide do this just as a cheap way to charge my ipod or cellphone on the road... it wouldnt provide a ton of power... but enough to keep your ipod topped off while not draining power from your stereo...

I know there are allot of opposing views on this topic, however, it will work. Toyota has already created a car with a similar structure.

I think this is a great idea. It can work if used in an aerodynamic way. Not being the primary source of energy but being a supplemental source. For all those saying the alternator will provide more energy you are probably right but you are using gasoline to power the alternator. The wind is free. Gasoline is definately not cheap.

Using energy that is free to help power the vehicle is great and very green. The problem with electric vehicles is that they don't go very far on a charge and they have to plug into a source that comes from the process of burning coal. Electricity is not free either.

I think the solution is not one idea but several ideas packed into one car. Like using wind, solar, braking to power them up. The idea will work if used correctly and efficently. I think using several hundred smaller wind generators will add to the energy for the car. Having read the comments on the batteries in the cars now, only one having the ability to accept energy and give off energy at the same is a hurdle.

Keep up the good work guys. Keep the ideas flowing and never give up. To all those opposing this idea and some of you are right. But if some great inventors have given up before today you wouldn't have the great stuff we have today.

Vehicles are a great idea from gettin from point A to point B but if we could make them super efficient or free from foreign oil alltogether would be great.

I can imagine the day driving a vehicle that needs no foreign oil or plug in into a fossil fuel. I can imagine a car as being its own generator using solar and wind and any other free source that is surrounding area.

I don't have any technical background, but have long had the idea to put a wind generator on a car. The difference I see from what's posted, is that I'd go smaller & more, rather than 1 big one. I'm not sure where the best place would be aerodynamically, and it could be moved if this would work better elsewhere.

Picture a second roof on top of the roof of a car (maybe 6-8"), with the space inbetween filled with little "windmills" (about the size of the toilet paper insert, with flaps to capture the wind). They'd be not in a straight line, but designed to each capture the wind going thru the cavity and of course made of a light material to lessen the drag. Since wind would be going through at a high rate of speed, they would certainly not need to be large & heavy. I don't know if they'd each need a separate generator, or could all go to one or a smaller number. The comments on this page all seem to refer to "a" wind generator. If a number of small ones were used, could they not generate enough power to overcome the drag they'd cause???

I had thought of this, and am glad I found people who had similar ideas.

I had thought of having a small cylindrical fan on the front of the car which uses the wind force travelling over the car to power it.

Unfortunately, I don't know alot about the mechanics of the generator system, but surely it could be possible? Even if it only contributes to a small percentage of energy created.

I understand the extra weight of a generator and drag of the turbine would slow down the car, but if it was properly researched it might be possible.

I am slightly disappointed alot of people have only commented to boost their own ego's and slate others positive ideas, as surely this is a good idea to help improve our planet. After all, this website is called "Why Not?"

How do people go about putting this idea into practice? It needs to be tested.

Also, what about using solar power? Having those light weight, flexible solar panels placed on the car? Would that work?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Greg

Absolutely you can make power from the wind. A Piper-Cub with no electric system usually has a fan generator.

But also absolutely, the drag is more than the energy generated (because no system is 100 percent efficient) and for a car, you'd be better off to drag mechanically, like pull a wheel with a generator or even take it right off the engine like the alternator does. But there's no way you can generate more power than you're wasting with the drag. And the wind/propeller system is horribly inefficient.

Finally, if you don't believe me, here's a link to a video of a guy that's built one of these cars and is trying to get money from people. If he made a serious breakthrough, I'm sure he'd be the newest millionaire on the news.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7946363986129135783&q=wind+generating+car&total=70&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Here's other whynot's with the same theme--people just don't give up:

http://www.whynot.net/ideas/4100

http://www.whynot.net/ideas/2983

http://www.whynot.net/ideas/3105