Put a Windmill Turbine on a Car?

The short answer is no, as it acts like a load and reduces millage. You could mount a detachable wind turbine to the car when it has stopped, but you would have to remove it before travelling as the wind resistance it creates would consume more gas than it saves.

See previous threads on CR4 regarding this.

What if we are talking just wind power?

Feasible yes practical no. What if there is no wind.

It would only generate more power to contribute with the vehicle displacement only if you could assure that the windmill reaction wouldnt be against the car movement itself, because, as said, the losses of the windmill and the generator (and the cars motor) would spend more energy than generated.

Maybe a system that receives wind power in angles greater than 90 degrees related to the vehicle trajectory, contributing the windmill reaction and the power generated, but even so, when the vehicle moves faster than the "back wind", it would receive the airflow from the opposite direction so... sorry. No way.

How about this, the car of the future:

Good One

This is a sailing Mobil and not a wind generator type they're talking about.

If you could turn your sailing canvass in to a turbine wheel that keeps spinning while it gives you the sailing power then you'd be laughing, can you do it?

You mean sails more like this vessel?

Cousteau's Alcyone

Not exactly! - however, I do remember when used to watch Mr Cousteau's documentaries they featured these Alcyone/s and I was wondering why they're not in wider use?

I meant an actual turbine wheel to act as a sail that also keep spinning. I know it wouldn't necessarily look anything like a normal turbine wheel but since we're at this topic then you can make your wheels start rolling in your brain and come up with something.

I am not saying it is possible nor I am suggesting it isn't, after all this is an engineering website where people can share or exchange thoughts.

The sail can really help a ship because it is relatively slow compared to the wind and doesn't have to follow a very specific route (usually). When sailing, zig-zag can be the fastest path to a destination instead of the straight line.

For a car it is less useful as we want to drive faster than the wind most of the time and are constrained to the road.

We could have a low drag windmill on top of the car. It would need to changes its blade pitch as needed.

When at rest or low speed, generate electricity.

When driving, IDLE.

When breaking, generate electricity.

The problem would be when you want to get the car in the garage...

It is actually simpler to use an hybrid vehicle than install a windmill. It is likely that the drag will waste all the other energy savings.

Well I know nothing about sailing, only what I can imagine about it, and I was just kidding before. My silly comments kept popping out after the picture of the sail-mobil was shown.

Like the others have pointed it out a few times already, the output energy would need to be at least equal to (but better greater) than your input energy, which is not possible.

End of story.

Sailing, is of course an entirely different situation than originally proposed. A wind powered car is not impossible, and there are several examples of wind powered boats that use a windmill for power input. The windmill can be made to pivot to automatically and continuously face into the wind, and the resulting boat can steer any course relative to the wind. Typically, these are least efficient with the wind from astern.

For a car, a windmill that would generate enough power to be useful would be horribly large. And still, you need to do your travelling on windy days. But land sailers, even those powered by crude soft sail, can really rip along, with speeds several times greater than wind speed. I have actually thought, on occasion, that a north-south train, in the middle of the US could be wind powered and useful... maybe.

Thanks for the input everyone. You've convince me. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'm not convinced yet that its a bad idea. I'm so glad to see this posting. I have no interest in providing power back to the vehicle that is allowing constant 60-100 mph winds. I am however interested in using larger trucks that could use an aerodynamic overhaul, driving our highways 24/7, at 70mph. I think that power generated each mile could be stored, transferred to stations along the highway near large energy use areas, with a very little increase in fuel consumption.(To all that read that last sentence, please note that I realize there is a law of conservation of energy, I see the wind resistence moving around the truck and trailer as wasted energy.) The truckers are here to stay for many more years, lets harness that energy and put this in our arsenal towards our goal of energy freedom. I found this website yesterday in a google search, not a member yet, but I hope you find time to reach me at thejunkdrawer09@yahoo.com if you see a flaw in my plan. Initial plan is to retrofit a 53' box trailer with wind turbines up top with a slight wing to increase air molecules to the blades. Truck redesign with a whole new look at hybrid technology is my ultimate goal. Trailers and substations seem to take most of my brainpower at the moment. I see an easier transition to retrofit of a cheaper trailer than truckers buying new/untested hybrid trucks. I think that if truckers can sell back energy to power companies, it comes close to offsetting the price of fuel today. Large trucking lines may jump at being a "green" company to sell their business. More stored in my head but in a nutshell, I think your thread makes alot of sense.

Take care,

Brandon

I think my post #1 summed it up nicely (without the need to go into energy conservation laws or aerodynamics 101), but if you are still dead-keen to continue then have a look at the numerous previous threads on vehicle MPG gains/measurement for detailed information on how to go about properly measuring the gas usage of a vehicle so you can get a clear idea of how much additional fuel the vehicle uses before and after any modifications.

For a truck and trailer you will be surprised by how much additional fuel is used when you lower the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle.

I would seriously suggest you check out the internet for information on vehicle aerodynamics and fuel usage before you sink large amounts of money into this project. Also have a look at the latest developments in truck trailer aerodynamic design (small changes result in large gas savings).

http://www.gizmag.com/truck-boat-tail/13283/

My advice:

First reread the posts with good answer votes. They offer several different ways of looking at the problem, but all come to the same conclusion, namely that adding a windmill to a truck (or car) will cause a net loss: the energy value of the additional fuel consumed will be more than the energy value of the electricity generated.

This is not conjecture on the part of the people who have posted good answers. These are not subjects at the leading edge of science, where there is still disagreement among scientists or engineers. The answers all relate to the most basic, time-proven physics.

So my first advice is to pick up a few physics texts and to read them. Run through a thermodynamics text also, and perhaps one on aerodynamics, if you are so inclined.

Then, if you still want to do your experiment, do it at a more reasonable scale, and in a way that can be more easily duplicated and more easily instrumented. Small electric vehicles are very handy for this kind of thing, because it is very easy to monitor the wattage (volts x amps) required to move the vehicle at a particular speed.

For example, you could mount a windmill on the back of an electric go kart. To eliminate the variable of weight difference, when you test without the windmill, add weight to the kart equal to the weight of the removed windmill.

Pick a day with calm winds, but do bidirectional runs to cancel any natural wind effects. Make 10 bidirectional runs without the windmill, and note the wattage required to maintain 15 mph. Then make 10 bidirectional runs with the windmill and note the wattage required. Also note the wattage output of the windmill. You will find that the increase of wattage required for driving with the windmill is greater than the wattage generated by the windmill.

You can play with aerodynamic mods to a go kart for a fraction of the cost of mods to a trailer. Make a box shaped body and experiment to your heart's content at modifying the shape to make it more aerodynamically efficient (and add ducts and wings, etc to funnel flow into turbines etc). No matter what the configuration, adding the windmill will always require more energy that is returned by the generator.

With an electric go kart, you can do all this much faster than you can with a 53' trailer. Data logging with an electrical signal is a no-brainer, whereas getting accurate fuel flow data is costly.

Have fun, and let us know how it goes.

Dunno, what everyone is saying seems logical, but some aircraft use ramjet generators to supplement power

The purpose of these engine, is not to generate power at the expense of the fuel.

If I am not wrong, the turbine generators are provided to air crafts to power the navigation instruments, if the main engine fail for any reason.

Put those pinch generators (like in those flashlights) in the suspension everytime you hit a bump it is converted to electrical energy!

Then Bumpy roads are better for the enviroment!

You are right, there is a few hundreds of watts dissipated by the chocks absorbers of your car. Using a magnet and a coil we could generate electricity. Adding a small electric converter would produce a variable (tunable) dampening suspension. This has already been implemented with success on expensive cars and will eventually be available to the masses.

Hitting pot holes will still consume more energy than rolling on a flat road but some of it will be recycled instead of being dissipated in heat.

It would induce air drag and additional load for the engine.

Glad to hear there is interest. Yes, the answer is yes. Some of the answers you have received indicate that these folks are well behind the A ball in technology. The last one you received must be from someone associated with Ford, GM or Chrysler perhaps???

So I have the airfoils and high performance, low drag structures ready. Next I'll build the show and tell /display/ demo. The power cell has been ready for five years( allow me to take my car from 25 to 34 MPG avg on highway/no AC/ one person on board/full tank of gas payload/ 7 degree max road grade ; tested over 47,000 miles

I plan to install them in my family's cars. Not waiting to have the car companies or governments to endorse them. Name of the game is "make do with what you have"

So here is one for all to ponder:My current vehicle has been "rated 25 MPG". So,

I am getting consistently 37 MPG in it. I have been able to achieve 41 MPG over 1500 miles. Accomplished only 3 times(so I am trying to get there)

I have an SUV tested over 200000 miles. We get 23 MPG highway with 6 passengers, full tank of gas, ac on./ cruise control on. We can do 19MPG city driving , same conditions but no ac or cruise control on. I talked to the mfg but they declined interest

Keep on thinking that the wind turbine won't work....that is Ok, meantime I am laughing all the way to my piggy bank(and not the Citicorps, Wachovias , GMAC, etc)

and funding my little wind turbines for those that really count: My family members.

Yawl have a great day you hear? Oh yeah.... I am leaving my BIG FOOT print on OPECs and Chavez/Putttin, Chevron, Hess, Citgo,Sunoco, BP, Murray. Conoco. Phillips

and the rest of the bunch that want you and I to continue to fund their lavish world.

So for now, when people ask, I'll tell them my story. If they are serious to help self, then they will ask and I will tell them.

Cheers, believe in wind turbines.... they do work within their limitations... I do love my SUV at 23 MPG and smaller car at 37 MPG

GUEST;YOUR THE MAN!!

DO WE REALLY NEED A SPACE STATION,WHEN WE NEED HELP ON ARE PLANET, THE ONE AND ONLY.WITH ALL ARE GREAT M I N E S WE CAN DO ANYTHING.

KEEP IT SIMPLE

You didn't tell us anything. What kind of wind turbine are you talking about? It sounds like you are using these "Airfoils" to charge some sort of power cell???? What kind of power cell, batteries? And how are you using the power from your power cell? You say you have a small car and and SUV. Unless they are hybrid's then they are gas powered and you don't say anything about making major modifications to the drive train so how are you using the power from your "Airfoils"? There are a lot of people on CR4 that have been talking about alternative fuel sources but no one has really come up with anything. If you are worried about patients it seems to me that the energy giants are going to stamp out any real ideas that come along. Not that I'm a big conspiracy person, but it does seem to me that a better mouse trap should have been invented by now. I myself have a hydraulic drive train idea and I've got it laid out in my head, now all I need is time and money to build it. And when you are raising your 2 1/2 year old granddaughter by yourself they are both in pretty short supply. If I can prove my idea I plan on putting it out there for anyone to try, I was thinking of a blog documenting my plans. At least that's my hope. Mother earth needs us, the thinkers and tinkerers, to find an answer to the energy crunch. Because it will never come from big business or big government.

So my challenge to you is to tell us some real details about your idea. If it's real then share your ideas, you might be surprised how much support you can will get from the folks at CR4. I wonder how many good ideas have died a slow death because someone was afraid that their plans would be stolen.

You missed your calling as an infomercial writer.

It appears that everyone believes that a turbine on a car will product no net gain in energy, or even a loss. This appears to be based on a conclusion that that energy generated by the turbine will be offset by loss of fuel efficiency. That the drag created by the turbine mounted outside the car offsets or exceeds the gasoline energy consumed to move it forward.

Come on Engineers, show me the calcs.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the weight of the car is essentially unchanged by reductions in other areas to account for the weight of the turbine and batteries. Is drag from an aerodynamic roof-mounted turbine so bad that it will never produce more energy than the energy in the gasoline to move it forward?

What about finding someway to utilize the vortex / drag produced at the back of a tractor-trailer. I understand that the top trailing edge of the trailer produces a tremendous amount of drag. Maybe you could use some kind of turbine that could be used to power the trailer wheels. What if you could put a funnel down the length of the trailer to power the turbine and then you could redirect the discharge of the funnel in a way to reduce the trailer aerodynamic drag. You would get two benefits. You wouldn't need as much power from the tractor because the trailer would be helping to pushing itself and you wouldn't need as much power because there would be less aerodynamic drag. Win win.

Gee, - I think I like you. You're in a win win situation and full of confidence that's half way to success already!

"What about finding someway to utilize the vortex / drag produced at the back of a tractor-trailer."

Impossible. The whole point of aerodynamic streamlining is to minimize drag and thus improve mileage. Adding a wind turbine, whose very nature is to extract as much energy out of the wind, which means it has to offer as much wind resistance as possible, will create drag that will counteract any benefits gained from the streamlining. Add to that the additional weight of the transmission system, generator, and storage system, and you'll lose more energy than you gain.

Try out this experiment. Strap on a parachute on your back and ride a bicycle downhill. What happens? You'll find the parachute dragging you back, and you'll find you'll actually need to paddle hard to keep moving instead of simply coasting down the hill, wouldn't you? And that's the whole point. The wind resistance created by the wind turbine will reduce the fuel efficiency of your car.

This concept you explain may be like air foil Boundary Layer enhancement.

Some truck magazine did a investigation into minimizing drag in pickup trucks. Full cover, open tail gate, etc. I was not able to explain why they found that the best cover, starting with its rear edge at the tail gate and front edge half way up the bed was the best in a wind tunnel experiment.

Everyone please read Blink's link he put in this comment. He hits the nail on the head.

Well, ya, what he said. GA Ken.

I debated this many years ago. With out having to go into any calculations, Newtons Third Law should end the debate. Nothing is free in our universe.

Solar power is free.

I saw in You Tube a car that moves completly by wind turbines, the car have like 20 or 30 little turbines mounted on a fiberglass structure, but it has not fuel engine, i saw it without volume and i dont know if there was an explanaition but i see electrical engines that move the rear and front axe.

I have the link in my house´s computer, I´ll post at night.

I think there is some gulf between the tinkerers and the real engineers here that could be better explained. Much of what motivates the perpetual energy dreamers is misused intuition. Not to say that it's foolish. Likely every discovery was begun there. If it proves wrong, and the person is rational, he is disabuse of it and moves on in the right direction. The intuition will get you halfway there. It's the hard science that will make the ideas useful.

Isn't quite a lot around us reasonably intuitive without real scientific study? A wing creates lift because of air pushing on it from underneath? Sure, but not exactly. An apple falls downward because it has weight/mass. Sure, but not exactly. A photon is ejected straight out into space and gets lost to infinity. Sure, but some day it may just come back around and smack you back of the head. Is that infinity? Lots of stuff like this. Not bad ideas, and reasonably intuitive, but in need of some disabuse.

An automobile body, these days aerodynamically R&D'd to the point where the stylists are playing second to engineers, don't leave a lot of room for modification without bringing all other factors back to the table to make adjustments. Draw more air in through the grille to run an aux power turbine? Seems reasonable. The air pressure is just sitting there waiting to be used, right? Sure! But not exactly. Not on a well designed model it's not. You'd have to change the aerodynamics of the car to create pressure there. But that's not that clear to the average person watching a car roll down the street.

It probably does not require much treatise on any of this for reasonable thinkers to get beyond it. Just picking up a elementary text on aerodynamics, with some diagrams and drawings, should make it clearer that there is not simply energy hanging around an airfoil waiting to be taken advantage of by some energy making device. Any attempt to tap into it, is going to negatively affect a (theoretically) ideal aerodynamic shape.

Somehow, I feel like taking side with you. It's been two decades ago that right here in or around London one of the Universities carried out an experiment with a small sailing boat.

They replaced the mast with a twin/triple blade turbine wheel on a tubular pole. At a very low wind speed this turbine was easily able to propel the boat via a normal water screw. This was aired by 'Beyond 2000' series.

When I saw it I was a little disappointed because I was contemplating on the very same idea for almost a year by then but, I was kept back by this no free lunch in nature business.

Even though this boat experiment never seemed to kick off but there's nothing strange converting wind energy to rotational force to drive an object on solid ground with it. You can try this and 'I put my balls on it' it will work and I dare to say this even if you would hold me accountable for what I have just said.

The only thing this object would never reach the speed of the wind and therefore, its practical use would be pretty minimal but you could drive a crawler with it where power matters more than speed.

It's easy enough here to imagine a cart, with a large propeller geared anywhere above about 100:1 to the wheels and headed into a strong wind. What's it going to do? It's going to move forward into that wind. That's not any more mechanically wonderous than what a sail does. It's just a different mechanism. Like a sailboat, it could tack at angles to the wind as well. Again, this is not very well related to the original question. Of course a sail atop a car, as pictured above and under very rare road conditions, will supplement its power. It's just not, in the balance of uses that an automobile sees, going to be an asset on that balance. It will, in very very short order, become a net negative.

One thing for sure I would opt for the wind turbine drive then the sailing method.

The turbine when going against wind gets at least greater torque that helps to somewhat offset the wind resistance (here though you would need adjustable blades on the turbine to optimise it better) and could handle rough surfaces with the rite type of wheels regardless wind direction.

I hope our friend (COLLECTOR) will provide us the picture of that vehicle he was talking about.

Geb,

Heading to Jetson model car as a one large flat turbine.NOT a engineer and i don't use drugs, but let me rest if this is a bad idea.A flat turbine like the design of a hydraulic gear pump. Air in and squeeze together to produce energy.Can a car in motion create this?

There have been quite a number of windmill-powered boats, some going back to the 1950's or so. If you do the math, which can be a bit tedious, you find that their efficiency is relatively low as compared to a good soft sail or rigid wing (especially) on the point of sail where fast boats (ice, land, or water) are fastest: with the wind from nearly abeam. Where they are fun, is in their ability to sail directly into the wind, without the need for tacking.

My boat, powered by a rigid wing, would do just under three times wind speed, under (and this is a key) absolutely perfect conditions, and perfect driving.

One of the large losses in windmill-powered boats is in the underwater propulsion, which is often not more than 40% efficient. However, this part would be much more efficient on a land sailer.

The only thing this object would never reach the speed of the wind...

Properly arranged, you device actually could exceed the wind speed, just as ordinary land yachts do, with some claiming about 9 times windspeed. The problem is just in arranging the roads so they are aligned with the fastest sailing angles.

Kizmet queries: "I posted a question regarding highway generated energy. My husband then suggests that putting a windmill turbine on the front of a car might generate electrical energy for the car's use. Is this feasible?"

--

Sure it is. Its size depends on how much more gas you want to burn than now.

Have you learned nothing from that other thread?

Your husband is a man of a similar mind to me. When the car has broken down on some remote highway, imagine his hell as the other passengers drive him nuts while you fix the engine. Allow him to sit in comfort with his electrical gadgets - buy him some of these for Christmas ; http://www.yankodesign.com/2008/11/10/need-a-little-charge-stick-up-a-febot/ . I suggest packing them away before you continue on your merry journey

How about a pure solar car like this, to wrench every extra amount of free energy that you can from your ride:

Sure, not really free, but if you plant the right variety of grass, you can sell it for many hundred's of dollars a pound. Then, you could drive a Hummer for nothing!

I don't know how solar it is but it definately looks green.

Mr. Snuffleupagus! You're car's here!

Well, let's see.

If you install a windmill on the front of your car and connect it to an alternator, dynamo or generator (whatever), the additional drag caused by the windmill will result in higher fuel consumption. With today's fuel prices, that's the first killer for this idea.

If you disconnect the alternator from the engine and use the windmill to turn it, the engine will have reduced load resulting in better fuel economy. However, the additional drag created by the windmill may negate the savings resulting in zero or maybe even negative savings. Plus the fact that if the car stops, the windmill will no longer be spinning and will result in zero electrical power for the car. That's the second killer.

The third killer is obvious. Putting a windmill in the front of the car will obstruct the driver's vision and the car may be difficult to drive safely.

regards,

Vulcan

Now let's not discourage this year's potential recipients of the Darwin Award.

It all boils down to the 2nd Law of Thermdynamics. Entropy ruins more great ideas......

I'm not a automobile engineer, but I think a number of people have gotten confused on this topic. The original question was not about using existing wind from nature to power a car, it was about "capturing" some of the energy lost due to a cars passage through the air to regain some energy.

I don't think any posters proposed this as a perpetual motion machine; increasing efficiency doesn't imply that. It just implies lowering the energy required to move the car, but not lowering it to zero.

Does the law of conservation of energy prove this won't work? I don't think so. That doesn't mean it will work, but it's the wrong argument to knock the idea down. Energy goes towards displacing air to get a car down the road. The amount of air displaced is a function of the car's size, weight, shape and speed, not the size, weight or shape of the windmill. As long as the windmill turns fast enough to compensate for it's own weight, or what it adds to the car's need to displace air, it should be able to "pay for itself." That's not perpetual motion: the windmill does nothing at rest, and energy needs to be spent getting the car moving. But as long as it pays for itself, it will reduce the overall need for gas to get the car to go a given distance.

Now, if the mechanics of a windmill are such that a surface area of X generates energy of Y, and a surface of X always costs Y+Z in extra fuel costs, then it won't work. But none of the arguments presented here look at it from that angle.

it will induce drag, so it will increase gas use, i rather go for the use of a sunpanel integrated in the roof, or find a way to use the heat that builts op in the car when it is parked in the sun.

An object placed in the airstream of a car will require energy to move through the airstream. A windmill (such an object) cannot recover 100% of that energy, so causes a net loss. That is the simple answer. Saying that the energy output of the windmill will be greater than the energy required to push it down the road is akin to proposing a perpetual motion machine: you are not saying that the car as a whole is a perpetual motion machine, you are saying that the windmill is a perpetual motion machine if you propose that its energy output is more than its energy input.

On the other hand, we know that placing certain objects in the airstream of an airplane can reduce rather than increase drag -- winglets being an obvious example. So might a windmill have the same effect? In a very poorly streamlined car there may be vortices, the rotational energy of which could be captured. However, the more efficient method would be to deal with the cause of the vortices via streamlining. Using the airplane analogy again, there is little that can be done in the way of appendages to the fuselage itself: the basic idea being that you want to disturb the air (transfer energy to the air) as little as possible. So if you have streamlined the car, then anything you add to the airstream causes additional drag, which cannot be overcome by the output of a windmill, which must be less than the energy put into its movement.

In a more practical sense, putting a windmill in front of moderately well-streamlined car (where it would be working efficiently in undisturbed air) would cause a loss of perhaps to to three times its output, because there is the double whammy of ruining the streamlining of the car (by wrecking the airflow with the windmill) and only getting a portion of the energy back from the windmill that is required to propel it.

Yet another practical example: imagine how easy it would be for an aircraft manufacturer to use windmills to provide energy for onboard electrical consumption etc.: they have ready access to all the parts required. If they can get let's say 5000 watts from an external windmill that causes only 4000 watts of extra engine load, then they could simple make the windmill much bigger, and eventuall get 20% more than the total output of the engines, in which case we'd have our perpetual motion machine.

"you are saying that the windmill is a perpetual motion machine if you propose that its energy output is more than its energy input."

I'm not sure I'm saying that. If the car requires energy of X to run, and Y of it is lost due to pushing the air, and say 1/10th of Y can be sent to the windmill, which outputs 1/30 Y (using your energy loss of 2/3rds for the windmill), and say the windmill itself requires 1/100 th of Y due to it's own displacement needs, that would be a net savings of Y * (1/30 - 1/100), and not perpetual motion.

Sure, these are made up hypothetical numbers, but my point is that I don't think it's necessarily true that it can't work, and it doesn't require a perpetual motion machine to work.

The key thing is that the lost energy from the windmill-less car going through the air doesn't have to have any numerical relationship to the amount of energy the windmill either adds to the load, or the amount it is able to output.

Saying that a well designed car won't leave room for enough excess energy to be reused is possibly true, but it's an emprical question, and can only be proven with an actual experiment. And perhaps the best designed car is the one that purposely funnels the air to the windmill, which is different than current designs which don't accommodate a windmill.

Now, whether the resulting car will be ugly is another story...

The key thing is that the lost energy from the windmill-less car going through the air doesn't have to have any numerical relationship to the amount of energy the windmill either adds to the load, or the amount it is able to output.

This is simply not true. This misconception of how a wind turbine (or "generator" as it actually is) works is rather common, and has been covered before here on CR4, but I will go over it again.

The misconception comes about because people fail to realise (or forget) that as the amount of output being pulled out of the generator (wind turbine) increases, the force necessary to turn the wind turbine increases, increasing the drag. If you go thru the math you will find that the energy required by the vehicle's engine to overcome the drag is ALWAYS higher than the energy you get from the vehicle-mounted wind turbine, no matter the wind turbine configuration or energy output (electrical load connected to it), or the vehicle speed. There is no way around this, this is how it works in real life.

Sorry, but this idea won't increase vehicle fuel efficiency, only decrease it.

Thanks, Ken. Your alternative version should help clarify the issue to at least some of those who haven't yet understood the physics involved. A Good Answer, and so rated.

Thanks, Ron.

Some of these threads get stretched out over time, so I will sometimes not read through the entire thread each time a new post occurs. The hazard of that is that I may end up repeating myself, which (on looking back) I seem to have done here. Your original response can hardly be improved upon, really. Sometimes I think that if something is presented in enough different ways, something will click for the reader... but then at other times, I think I am just burning up bandwidth.

I am probably just too untrained in physics to understand this stuff. The main problem I've got is with "there is nothing to 'send' to the windmill". OK, if there's nothing to send, that would certainly explain why the windmill would have to be a perpetual motion machine to have it help. But why isn't the car creating wind with the extra hp required to push the car through the air (with that wind being lost in the process)? Why is the wind not even partially recoverable?

Put your hand out the window when you are driving, the rotors of the windmill will turn, but feel the same drag as your hand does. the engine has to overcome that drag to retain the same speed, but will use more gass, the windmill generator will lesson the loss but it will still be more than without the windmill.

like i said before incorperating some solar cells on the roof is more effective, no drag and always extra energy (during the day) for your fan inside the car )

This has been patented and reported in the press such as Popular Science 1926, which doesn't prove it works. But there is an argument that no one is probably presenting. I haven't read this whole topic yet.

According to Bernoulli's Law, pressure and velocity trade places. A car is an air compressor, it does work to push into the atmosphere and the relative wind resistance slows it down.

The part I think I won't find mentioned in this topic is that the atmosphere was already energized before the car smacked into it. By the sun. That's why it's floating instead of mixed with the dirt. Vaporized by the sun and at atmospheric pressure because of the heat it contains.

My argument is that the pressure already in the atmosphere is going to be partially converted to kinetic energy so the windmill under the hood of the car has that as an additional contribution. If not for this, then it is either a perpetual motion idea or at best a regeneration idea that won't work because it will slow the car down.

But the inventor of the 1920s claimed that the faster the car went, the more power it had. The heat in the atmosphere would be the only explanation of why the windmill didn't slow the car down.

It had to be started by a gas engine, which was shut off when the car reached 10 miles per hour. "It climbs hills like a gull," according to the inventor.

I'm not qualified to evaluate the patent but here it is.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=8a5HAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Luther

wow, creating very much.

green energy. change wind resistance into dynamic.