What If?

[J Alynn]

If by “positive gain” you mean could a vehicle with a properly sized/positioned turbine within the “red area” like that of the picture above recover some of the energy that would otherwise be lost to air resistance (i.e. improve the efficiency of the vehicle)... then yes. Whether it makes sense to do so however would depend greatly on what could otherwise be achieved by just making the vehicle more aerodynamic instead, as a turbine would add weight and could only recover some of the energy lost to poor aero. You’re not dumb nor missing anything, other posters are simply conflating two very different concepts covered by the videos below.

Massively adding drag (i.e. ”red area”) to a system, that it wouldn’t otherwise have, and then trying to recover some of the energy lost due to this newly added drag; all while recovering none of the energy lost to the drag of the original system:

VS

Recovering some of the energy that would otherwise be lost to drag inherent to the original system whilst adding as little new drag as possible:

To quote a viewer...
View attachment 2411

Thank you. Your visuals clearly show what I’ve been thinking. Knowing we seem to want the Scout to have a brick like shape falls into your explanation above. Really appreciate the point of view and it clearly shows/depicts the two different point of views that I do think people were considering. Glad to see @Harris005 jad an idea with some merit since we have a vertical plane with wasted space behind to put a small turbine of sorts. Essentially replacing the traditional radiator with an energy collector/turbine of some kind.
Thanks again for the visuals

 

[absentEE]

Thank you. Your visuals clearly show what I’ve been thinking. Knowing we seem to want the Scout to have a brick like shape falls into your explanation above. Really appreciate the point of view and it clearly shows/depicts the two different point of views that I do think people were considering. Glad to see @Harris005 jad an idea with some merit since we have a vertical plane with wasted space behind to put a small turbine of sorts. Essentially replacing the traditional radiator with an energy collector/turbine of some kind.
Thanks again for the visuals

No problem. I always try to steel man the things that people say/post, so assumed @Harris005 was referring to a configuration that would actually work… as opposed to a configuration that would definitely not work.

 

[R1TVT]

Not to be a Debbie Downer here, but there needs to be some SCIENCE TALK that is not propaganda here. Breaking the laws of physics has never been done, nor has any vehicle ever taken in enough energy from a fan to OFF-SET the amount of energy used to generate new energy.

What is funny is that the video (which I admittedly did not watch) is even titled "breaking the laws of physics" LOL.

 

[Derek]

It is absolutely impossible to get "free" energy from fans/etc on a car. As R1TVT says, NO. The laws of thermodynamics stand, so any of these ideas will cost more power to overcome the additional drag than they will gain in recovering power.

That said, EVs already have an amazing tool, that works great. Regenerative braking (which can be really put to work as one pedal driving), where you try to use only the motors in "recharge" mode, if you will, to stop and try not to press the brake enough to use the brake linings (since that is turned into heat in the brake rotors and wasted).

Honestly, if the product has a ~300 mile range, I'm good for 99% of trips, as are most folks. If you want to make some feel better, possibly add a solar panel or a suitcase generator recharger accessory that people could buy that could boost them up, but it's really not needed for almost any trip. Just charge before you leave the house (easy, just have it on the charger when parked at home) and then don't run it dead while you're out. As long as you're not using AC while camping, you could drive out, camp for a few days and come back and should be fine. If they want to add an optional solar panel, you could, though it won't add much range per day, it would probably help folks feel better that at least it's charging say 10 miles of day of range into the truck.

 

[absentEE]

What is funny is that the video (which I admittedly did not watch) is even titled "breaking the laws of physics" LOL.

Clearly. Though I understand the skepticism, there is a question mark at the end of that title for a reason... hint: It's because it isn't breaking any laws of physics.

 

[R1TVT]

Yep. Clickbait...

Also, If you think about the advantages you get with a pure EV in terms of storage, efficiency, no dual or hybrid-type drive systems, a lot of that goes aways once you start to try to incorporate complicated ways to reproduce energy. As mentioned above, regenerative braking is an excellent way to recapture some energy and a solar top or tonneau could also help capture energy for charging devices or using AC. You would just never get enough energy from a small solar array to help charge such a large battery pack in any sort of meaningful way.

 

[absentEE]

Not to be a Debbie Downer here, but there needs to be some SCIENCE TALK that is not propaganda here. Breaking the laws of physics has never been done, nor has any vehicle ever taken in enough energy from a fan to OFF-SET the amount of energy used to generate new energy.

What is funny is that the video (which I admittedly did not watch) is even titled "breaking the laws of physics" LOL.

It is absolutely impossible to get "free" energy from fans/etc on a car. As R1TVT says, NO. The laws of thermodynamics stand, so any of these ideas will cost more power to overcome the additional drag than they will gain in recovering power.

That said, EVs already have an amazing tool, that works great. Regenerative braking (which can be really put to work as one pedal driving), where you try to use only the motors in "recharge" mode, if you will, to stop and try not to press the brake enough to use the brake linings (since that is turned into heat in the brake rotors and wasted).

Honestly, if the product has a ~300 mile range, I'm good for 99% of trips, as are most folks. If you want to make some feel better, possibly add a solar panel or a suitcase generator recharger accessory that people could buy that could boost them up, but it's really not needed for almost any trip. Just charge before you leave the house (easy, just have it on the charger when parked at home) and then don't run it dead while you're out. As long as you're not using AC while camping, you could drive out, camp for a few days and come back and should be fine. If they want to add an optional solar panel, you could, though it won't add much range per day, it would probably help folks feel better that at least it's charging say 10 miles of day of range into the truck.

Yep. Clickbait...

Given the video was seen as insufficient due to its title, the following discuss aerodynamic energy harvesting at length.


-Feasibility studies of micro wind turbines installed on electric vehicles as range extenders using real-time analytical simulation with multi driving cycles scenarios

-Numerical study on aerodynamic drag reduction and energy harvest for electric vehicle: a concept to extend driving range

-Overview of the Potential of Energy Harvesting Sources in Electric Vehicles


Paywalled:
-Aerodynamic Energy Harvesting for Electric Vehicles

-Review on aerodynamic characteristics and energy recovery of vehicle platoon

-Design and performance analysis of airflow energy recovery device of electric vehicle


That should suffice, hopefully we can allow @Harris005 and @J Alynn some credit and the thread to move forward with more ideas.

 

[R1TVT]

Again, not be be a downer, but that doesn't suffice for much. Defending the idea of using MWT's on cars to generate power to the battery by providing something like the above diagram is a LOSING PROPOSITION for many reasons - which physics will always prove.

I want to make my position very clear: You can absolutely 100% use wind energy to turn a wind turbine on a car, then convert a portion of the generated energy into power and current, and then use a portion of that converted energy to charge an EV battery. There is no debate there... The fact is that there is too much LOSS to make any of that worthwhile or practical.

There are a multitude of reasons why no OEM has added MWT's to EV's today.

This is an entirely impractical and inefficient solution for EV's. First and foremost, you would be increasing DRAG no matter where you place a turbine (yes, even inside the frunk space on a flat front), you would be adding vehicle weight, you would be losing power that is generated through conversion, and ultimately, just by driving to turn the turbine, you are USING EXISTING BATTERY ENERGY to create new energy. Nothing is free in the world of physics.

In addition to being a very clunky, impractical sub-system, you can only optimize wind energy through a very specific power band using a turbine and inverter. Now introduce inclement weather, ice, mud, dust, dirt and bugs into your turbine system... Well, you can see how quickly something like that would implode in the real world. in addition to the fragility and maintenance of such a subsystem, accounting for all that is lost in generating your new-found power validates the work of Isaac Newton. My guess is that this type of system would violate the 1st, 2nd and 3rd law of physics.

1. An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
2. The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
3. Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.

 

[Chaparral]

The wind turbine idea would only work if adding it to the front of the vehicle, as proposed, greatly reduces energy loss to drag/friction thereby allowing some of the energy saved to be recovered. However, I think it’s almost certainly the case that air passing through a turbine system would add much, much more friction than it would being pushed around the front of the car. Even if there is a slight reduction in drag (a big if) the energy available to be recovered is not going to be significant, the energy that can be reused is a fraction of that and when you factor in the weight of the turbine system system there is no way that this could possibly work. Such a system would have to work over a wide range of speeds. The dynamics of drag vary greatly with speed, so even if some energy can be recovered by reducing drag (which already seems impossible) that’s only going to be the case in a narrow speed band and when the vehicle is outside of that speed band the system is just extra weight to move around.

 

[J Alynn]

Again, not be be a downer, but that doesn't suffice for much. Defending the idea of using MWT's on cars to generate power to the battery by providing something like the above diagram is a LOSING PROPOSITION for many reasons - which physics will always prove.

I want to make my position very clear: You can absolutely 100% use wind energy to turn a wind turbine on a car, then convert a portion of the generated energy into power and current, and then use a portion of that converted energy to charge an EV battery. There is no debate there... The fact is that there is too much LOSS to make any of that worthwhile or practical.

There are a multitude of reasons why no OEM has added MWT's to EV's today.

This is an entirely impractical and inefficient solution for EV's. First and foremost, you would be increasing DRAG no matter where you place a turbine (yes, even inside the frunk space on a flat front), you would be adding vehicle weight, you would be losing power that is generated through conversion, and ultimately, just by driving to turn the turbine, you are USING EXISTING BATTERY ENERGY to create new energy. Nothing is free in the world of physics.

In addition to being a very clunky, impractical sub-system, you can only optimize wind energy through a very specific power band using a turbine and inverter. Now introduce inclement weather, ice, mud, dust, dirt and bugs into your turbine system... Well, you can see how quickly something like that would implode in the real world. in addition to the fragility and maintenance of such a subsystem, accounting for all that is lost in generating your new-found power validates the work of Isaac Newton. My guess is that this type of system would violate the 1st, 2nd and 3rd law of physics.

1. An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
2. The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
3. Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.

FYI -my intent was not to generate a heated debate but that said I’ve enjoyed the insight from this. Your response saying it is possible was the only thing making me scratch my head. I understand the power generated isn’t worth the effort, cost, etc…. Mine was more the question that it would feasibly work because originally the responses were pretty much it doesn’t work.
It’s great having this open forum and hearing various points of view/scientific responds which helped me better understand and hopefully others as well

 

[R1TVT]

No problem - nothing heated here...

My response was to say that YES, of course you could spin a turbine and generate electricity from the wind that is produced from a car driving down a road.
But NO, you cannot do this is an any meaningful way to create any net benefit (VS the amount of energy that is being lost) - particularly on a large EV battery pack that is required to move a large, heavy truck.

The cost of the energy being consumed outweighs the energy that is potentially being created, for all of the reasons outlined above.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[J Alynn]

No problem - nothing heated here...

My response was to say that YES, of course you could spin a turbine and generate electricity from the wind that is produced from a car driving down a road.
But NO, you cannot do this is an any meaningful way to create any net benefit (VS the amount of energy that is being lost) - particularly on a large EV battery pack that is required to move a large, heavy truck.

The cost of the energy being consumed outweighs the energy that is potentially being created, for all of the reasons outlined above.

Hope that makes sense!

I still like my idea of a hamster wheel inside and a cardio workout from Hell for those little critters

 

[absentEE]

Again, not be be a downer, but that doesn't suffice for much. Defending the idea of using MWT's on cars to generate power to the battery by providing something like the above diagram is a LOSING PROPOSITION for many reasons - which physics will always prove.

I want to make my position very clear: You can absolutely 100% use wind energy to turn a wind turbine on a car, then convert a portion of the generated energy into power and current, and then use a portion of that converted energy to charge an EV battery. There is no debate there... The fact is that there is too much LOSS to make any of that worthwhile or practical.

There are a multitude of reasons why no OEM has added MWT's to EV's today.

This is an entirely impractical and inefficient solution for EV's. First and foremost, you would be increasing DRAG no matter where you place a turbine (yes, even inside the frunk space on a flat front), you would be adding vehicle weight, you would be losing power that is generated through conversion, and ultimately, just by driving to turn the turbine, you are USING EXISTING BATTERY ENERGY to create new energy. Nothing is free in the world of physics.

In addition to being a very clunky, impractical sub-system, you can only optimize wind energy through a very specific power band using a turbine and inverter. Now introduce inclement weather, ice, mud, dust, dirt and bugs into your turbine system... Well, you can see how quickly something like that would implode in the real world. in addition to the fragility and maintenance of such a subsystem, accounting for all that is lost in generating your new-found power validates the work of Isaac Newton. My guess is that this type of system would violate the 1st, 2nd and 3rd law of physics.

1. An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
2. The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
3. Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.

The wind turbine idea would only work if adding it to the front of the vehicle, as proposed, greatly reduces energy loss to drag/friction thereby allowing some of the energy saved to be recovered. However, I think it’s almost certainly the case that air passing through a turbine system would add much, much more friction than it would being pushed around the front of the car. Even if there is a slight reduction in drag (a big if) the energy available to be recovered is not going to be significant, the energy that can be reused is a fraction of that and when you factor in the weight of the turbine system system there is no way that this could possibly work. Such a system would have to work over a wide range of speeds. The dynamics of drag vary greatly with speed, so even if some energy can be recovered by reducing drag (which already seems impossible) that’s only going to be the case in a narrow speed band and when the vehicle is outside of that speed band the system is just extra weight to move around.

No problem - nothing heated here...

My response was to say that YES, of course you could spin a turbine and generate electricity from the wind that is produced from a car driving down a road.
But NO, you cannot do this is an any meaningful way to create any net benefit (VS the amount of energy that is being lost) - particularly on a large EV battery pack that is required to move a large, heavy truck.

The cost of the energy being consumed outweighs the energy that is potentially being created, for all of the reasons outlined above.

Hope that makes sense!

Efficiency:
I agree with the studies from the mechanical/automotive engineering universities linked in my last post as well as the video by the engineer earlier, that turbines in these cases have the potential to increase overall efficiency and will deffer to them on this topic.

Practicality:
On the fence here, though I look forward to future studies. If I had to speculate though I’d guess it may make sense for some vehicles but not others.

FYI -my intent was not to generate a heated debate but that said I’ve enjoyed the insight from this. Your response saying it is possible was the only thing making me scratch my head. I understand the power generated isn’t worth the effort, cost, etc…. Mine was more the question that it would feasibly work because originally the responses were pretty much it doesn’t work.
It’s great having this open forum and hearing various points of view/scientific responds which helped me better understand and hopefully others as well

Yeah this discussion reminds me of the video below and the confusion that can be caused by taking advantage of certain aspects of physics/aerodynamics.