Electric cars are a pipe dream

Hi Guys....here's something funny....about the silence of the EV....well, i have invented an electrical device that generates FREE electricity....simply from a "jumpstart". Only, it's as loud as a saw in the garage!........YET, most importantly...it's the very first perpetual motion device. I call it the Sourcer....because it's the source for all electricity. It's as simple as a lawnmower. You wouldn't believe how easy the concept really is. I HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE of the machine i built, and it shows you it yeilds electricity from a jumpstart on the wall outlet. Then simply UNPLUG and play....ummm.....forever.....and then times ummm......eternity....and multiply that times forever more. and then some. IT's true. I'd love to show it to anybody...if they could handle it. IT'S FOR REAL...and it's so simple....and it is NOT a lie. go to my website and check into it. www "dot" silvermix "dot" us
Talk to me for real.....I want my TANGIBLE babe too.....i'm Sirius. peace....anytime....Hope ya'll are having a nice day like i am.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, it's basically a generator, that is powered by electric motors instead of a gasoline portable generator. It's aligned like a A/C unit with a belt on a car. And, it goes about 5300 rpms and only requires 3600 rpms to give light bulbs without FRICTION, OIL, GASOLINE, or POLLUTION. With that much rpms, it yeilds a surplus of electricity and 142 volts and a light bulb only needs 120 volts. there's a lot more....somebody get back to me...get REAL about this....it'll save us all money....and we could go to restaurants and shopping....instead of chasing an electric bill.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are there not solar powered cars? Leaving your car parked and it charges its battery from the sun.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I assure you that the energy you get out of your generator is LESS THAN the electric motor driving it is using, especially as you have a flexing belt drive.

At the end of WWII a lot of surplus electrical equipment became available. One unit, designation PE-103 had a 12 (or six) volt DC motor on one end of a common shaft and a 500 volt DC generator on the other end - just perfect* for an amateur radio transmitter in our car. I suspect you think putting in only 12 volts and getting out 500 is some great gain in energy too as you seem to be impresses with your motor giving higher RPMs than needed to dive you generator for lighting 117V light bulbs.

You need to learn what energy is and that NO device can every put out more energy than is supplied to it. As I know this, there is no point in visiting your web site where that is falsely claimed.

What you are claiming is worse than perpetual motion - you are claiming what is called an "over unity" device. Hook enough of them, if they existed, in series and a guinea pig running in its wheel could supply all the electrical energy the US needs. Get educated, or at least get realistic
-----
* back in the pre-transistor / vacuum tube age. We had a 6L6 driving the final 807 with about 40W of radiated power on 10 meters. Nearly wrecked the car with excitement, when a guy in Cuba answered our CQ.

 

OK.

Time to post this thread into pseudoscience.

 

Instead of looking for cheap energy, why not figure out ways to make more money and make use of our resources alot more efficiently.

 

That would indeed work. For a Nissan Leaf with one (very large) panel on the roof, you'd need to park it 24 days in Arizona summer sun to get a full charge. One drawback there is that the panel would be so large that it would significantly reduce your range due to aerodynamic drag.

But for someone who lives in Arizona and doesn't drive much (or very fast) it could work.

 

Obviously very inefficient if it takes 24 days to fully charge.What would help some is to have fold out Solar panels this would expand to a much larger Solar surface.More panels more charge,of course still inefficient overall.

 

That can work but then you have constraints on where you can park (i.e. can't park next to other cars.) I think in general it's much better to mount them on something stationary, backfeed the grid then just plug into the grid to charge. That way you don't have to carry them around, you don't have the extra drag/weight and they can generate power all day.

 

Biggest 30 economies Country GDP/barrel of oil
Switzerland 3788
Denmark 3516
United Kingdom 3393
Austria 2820
Germany 2819
Sweden 2746
France 2721
Norway 2671
Italy 2456
Finland 2321
Japan 2294
Australia 1933
Spain 1847
Netherlands 1809
United States 1605
Belgium 1546
Poland 1384
Greece 1292
Canada 1241
South Africa 1206

 

Adoucette, my last post was for you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The data you posted is horribly out of date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product_per_barrel

China for instance has a GDP of nearly 6 Trillion.

 

It is representative of the truth. That the US use more oil per dollar of GDP.

 

Well first get more recent data, that's SO out of date.

Second, Who cares how much oil we use per $ of GDP?

 

Firstly, it represents the reality of the trend.
Secondly, it shows the US uses too much oil.
It backs up my previous statement that the US is less efficient.
Uk produces wealth with far less oil, period. You may have higher GDP per capita but at what expense?

I understand the differences in the nature of our problems, but this is just more data (along with US gasoline consumption) that the US consume too much oil related products.

I saw a program the other day. Some TV presenter guy hunting down someones long lost relative. And what was he driving? You guessed it, a great big 5litre monster. Did he need it? No.

Peace

 

The only reality of the trend is the US is using far less oil than that chart indicates per $ of GDP.

And China is using far more.

But hey, I told you to find RECENT data.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

No it doesn't.
"too much oil" is your opinion.
We use just as much oil as we need and can afford.

Hate to break it to you but use of oil is NOT a measure of efficency.
Higher GDP per Capita would be a far better yardstick.

Whatever it takes.

Again, on what basis is it TOO MUCH?

Seems all it is is just your personal opinion.
Which is somewhat meaningless.

So, are you claiming that NO ONE in the UK drives a bigger car than they need?


Arthur

 

We have already been over this. This is just more data supporting my stance. That is all.

 

Hate to break it to you, but barrels of oil per dollar of GDP is NOT a measure of efficiency.

Indeed, maybe if the UK used a bit more oil their GDP per Capita would improve?

China's economy is BOOMING and they are now up to 10 million barrels per day and their GDP is 5.87 trillion dollars, meaning their oil per $ of GDP has more than DOUBLED since your old figures were published.

Indeed the rate of their annual GDP growth is number 1 in the world so you can't say that increasing your oil per dollar of GDP is a BAD thing.

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/01/china-102-million-barrels-of-oil-per_23.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Arthur

 

It will be a bad thing if oil prices continue to rise, unless there's a backup plan. China's got its 3 gorges dam, too.

We just need to go nuclear and call it a day. Then we could deal with Canada and Australia, instead of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

Yes, we need to Go Nuclear, but with thorium, not uranium, as both China and India* are. There is three or four times more thorium than uranium and all of it can be used for power. Less than 1% of uranium is U235 which is what uranium reactors require.**

Thorium is a by product of refining rare earths. There are 3200 tons of it stored in Nevada from when MolyCorp's mine was producing rare earths. That is enough to meet all US electrical needs for many decades, and of course when the MolyCorp mine reopens, the separated Thorium from it alone should supply at least 100 years more of US electrical requirements. Unlike expensive uranium, producers of thorium will pay you to take it away!

Thorium is much safer than uranium reactor as it is a liquid salt in the core, not a solid, which is roughly spherical in shape (Or perhaps a hemisphere). Other shapes, such as a flat slab, lose too many neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.

Thus there is a metal plug at the bottom of the reactor vessel, which melts if the reactor temperature should climb significantly above the operational design temperature. Then the liquid thorium salt core drains out into a large flat pan and the chain reaction stops. I.e. only gravity is required for a safe automatic shut down, no control rods, no working pumps supplying cooling water, no electricity needed, no electronic control system, etc. - just gravity.

The US would not need to import any thorium from Canada, etc. as it has enough for several millenniums. In fact if we keep mining rare earths, there is radioactive hazard, produced and the thorium reactor is one way to reduce it. MolyCorp's mine was closed years ago because they did not properly contain the radioactive thorium separated from the rare earths.

Oak Ridge ran a small thorium reactor for four years during WWII, but shut it down as efforts focused on making an atomic bomb. You can not make an A-bomb with thorium. Thus at end of WWII, there was lots of experience and technology with uranium so that was the type of power reactor the AEC developed. - Wrong choice.

For more details and two external links for even more, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2739409&postcount=1826
--------------
*There is lots of thorium but very little uranium in India. They should have the first of five thorium reactors on line in about 3 to 4 years. It is much simpler, safer, and more economical reactor, with less dangerous waste to dispose of.

** When the "spent" fuel rod is removed from a uranium reactor 95% of the U235 in it is still "un-burnt" and just stored in water pools, except in France, where fuel rods are reprocessed to recover part of the 95% of the fuel that was not used. Re-processing is complex and only France does it.