"Stupid Ideas" For long range Electric Vehicle

[R.S]

No. Helium is lighter than air, so if it displaces the air inside the vehicle, it would get lighter, but the difference is so minute that for all practical purposes it's completely irrelevant compared to the weight of the car.

Also, in order to keep the car filled with helium for any length of time requires the car to be completely airtight, and the added weight for properly sealing the vehicle would completely offset any losses in weight from filling it with helium.

I was thinking about adding helium, kind of like a ballon and wanted to argue why this is a stupid idea.

But if you substitute all the air with helium, then the car gets lighter.
It would also have the added benefit of making you sound funny, when you shout for help.

 

[Topher]

Do the math heh...

I think if Newton had this mentality then we would not be were we are now..., He went on and created his own math to make what he wanted possible...

So CREATE the math.

You haven't done that either have you?

Don't start with what you want to have happen, despite the fact that it violates the known laws of physics. If you develop new laws of physics that better model reality, only then can you use them to create some new thing.

Thank you kindly.

 

[R.S]

Do the math heh...

I think if Newton had this mentality then we would not be were we are now..., He went on and created his own math to make what he wanted possible...
So using current math then I would get the same result as all the people that failed and thus conclude this is impossible...For this stupid idea to be possible, the person would have to work on a totally new philosophy and possibly developing a brand new math equation to make it possible...

Can't create brand new ground breaking technology by using good old methods...these old methods can only bring you so far...

I get my idea is stupid, but maybe in a 100 years from now someone might find a way to make it happen lol...

You are confusing how physics, the science, works. Not only Physics, but science. Newton didn't have the idea that an apple would fall towards earth and then he invented algebra which lead to the invention of gravitational pull, so apples started falling from the trees, where they used to fall in all directions before. Newton observed, then he tried to explain it, using maths. Thats how it works.

So before I explain to you why your Idea doesn't work, we need to clarify some things first. Energy and power.

Everything is energy, and energy can be conserved in different forms. Matter, speed, gravitation or electromagnetic fields, chemical bonds heat and so on. But we can observe that the amount of energy always stays the same. We have proven that in many experiments.

Power is the conversion rate of energy. How much energy we can convert from one type to another per second. Its like filling one pool with the water of another pool. The water is the energy and the amount of water you can shovel from one pool to the other is power.

So if we look at a car at standstill it has no kinetic energy, but chemical energy in its batteries. As soon as we have accelerated to 60mph we have a certain amount of kinetic energy. But we have lost more chemical energy, than we gained kinetic energy, since the motors aren't 100% efficient in converting electric energy to kinetic energy and the same goes for the battery(chemical to electrical). When we recuperate we put some of that kinetic energy back into the battery, but again, we loose some of it on the way in form of heat. So if we would convert the batteries chemical energy with one motor into kinetic energy, we would loose a bit to heat and if we recuperate the energy back we, again, loose some to heat. In the end we would just loose energy to heat.

So the best way would be not using the motors at all, once we are at 60mph, but since there is drag, which is basically "robbing" some of our kinetic energy we need to constantly convert chemical energy to kinetic energy to cover our losses. Thats why we need energy even when we are driving at constant speed. But if we would use one motor to recuperate and one to accelerate we would loose a lot more energy.

Lets think of it as a cycle and assume every motor has an efficiency of 90% and we had no drag, or other resistance and the battery works with 100% efficiency.

We have 100% chemical energy that gets converted to 100% electric energy, which then gets converted to 90% kinetic energy and 10% thermal energy by our motor that we use to drive the car then we have our 90% kinetic energy converted to 81% electric energy and 9% thermal energy. Now we convert that back to chemical energy in the battery. Now we have only 81% chemical energy, but 19% thermal energy.

I hope you now see how this doesn't make sense. I tried my best to explain it. And of course I simplified it a bit.

 

[Blackout]

You are confusing how physics, the science, works. Not only Physics, but science. Newton didn't have the idea that an apple would fall towards earth and then he invented algebra which lead to the invention of gravitational pull, so apples started falling from the trees, where they used to fall in all directions before. Newton observed, then he tried to explain it, using maths. Thats how it works.

So before I explain to you why your Idea doesn't work, we need to clarify some things first. Energy and power.

Everything is energy, and energy can be conserved in different forms. Matter, speed, gravitation or electromagnetic fields, chemical bonds heat and so on. But we can observe that the amount of energy always stays the same. We have proven that in many experiments.

Power is the conversion rate of energy. How much energy we can convert from one type to another per second. Its like filling one pool with the water of another pool. The water is the energy and the amount of water you can shovel from one pool to the other is power.

So if we look at a car at standstill it has no kinetic energy, but chemical energy in its batteries. As soon as we have accelerated to 60mph we have a certain amount of kinetic energy. But we have lost more chemical energy, than we gained kinetic energy, since the motors aren't 100% efficient in converting electric energy to kinetic energy and the same goes for the battery(chemical to electrical). When we recuperate we put some of that kinetic energy back into the battery, but again, we loose some of it on the way in form of heat. So if we would convert the batteries chemical energy with one motor into kinetic energy, we would loose a bit to heat and if we recuperate the energy back we, again, loose some to heat. In the end we would just loose energy to heat.

So the best way would be not using the motors at all, once we are at 60mph, but since there is drag, which is basically "robbing" some of our kinetic energy we need to constantly convert chemical energy to kinetic energy to cover our losses. Thats why we need energy even when we are driving at constant speed. But if we would use one motor to recuperate and one to accelerate we would loose a lot more energy.

Lets think of it as a cycle and assume every motor has an efficiency of 90% and we had no drag, or other resistance and the battery works with 100% efficiency.

We have 100% chemical energy that gets converted to 100% electric energy, which then gets converted to 90% kinetic energy and 10% thermal energy by our motor that we use to drive the car then we have our 90% kinetic energy converted to 81% electric energy and 9% thermal energy. Now we convert that back to chemical energy in the battery. Now we have only 81% chemical energy, but 19% thermal energy.

I hope you now see how this doesn't make sense. I tried my best to explain it. And of course I simplified it a bit.

I really appreciated you trying to make sense of it...
and I admit "NOW" this is a stupid idea...

I totally get what you are saying and basically I can summarised Power vs energy relation with this. P=J.S...and I really like your water analogy because that's exactly how I explain..
Couple things to clarify tho...Noticed I called the page Long Range EV...I didn't mean to have unlimited free energy with this Stupid idea...I am aware it can be easily interpreted as such but, with the stupid Idea i had in mind I knew it wasn't possible...I was thinking more along increasing it to 500 miles highway driving instead of 200 miles....

If I can summarised clearly what I meant was, basically use the front motor in a regen configuration with the help of a gear box, while the back motor power the car...Again...I know it's STUPID but it is stupid right now...

I still have to understand alot more about Regeneration...Although I admit, it is Stupid,I'm sorry but I don't think i'll be able to remove that crystal clear 4K simulation video in my mind...Because In my mind I see it working...It's an illusion lol and it's stupid but it's in there lol...

Hopefully before I die of old age (Cross fingers) someone would find some way to make it possible without the help of combustion engine...

 

[Blackout]

So CREATE the math.

You haven't done that either have you?

Don't start with what you want to have happen, despite the fact that it violates the known laws of physics. If you develop new laws of physics that better model reality, only then can you use them to create some new thing.

Thank you kindly.

Of course, I haven't done that. If I did you would probably buy my car by now lol...

You are so nice tho...Are you Canadian ?
No need to be so formal about it, if you feel like saying more me and this stupid idea it's ok...I just hope you don't get my point twisted...all I meant was the laws of physics are only what we know so far...It doesn't mean that we have discovered ALL the laws of physics and having a mentality saying it's impossible based on a finite number of laws in an infinite universe is, in my point of view, the wrong approach to creating and dreaming of making the impossible, possible...

 

[Model 3]

I still have to understand alot more about Regeneration...Although I admit, it is Stupid,I'm sorry but I don't think i'll be able to remove that crystal clear 4K simulation video in my mind...Because In my mind I see it working...It's an illusion lol and it's stupid but it's in there lol...

I take it as you do know it is not working and/or taking our word for it, but you really have no deep understanding of why it is. So I will give you an a bit simpler example:

Let imagine an ideal world, where we have no loss. You get electricity in and out of the battery with 100% efficiency, and both the motor and the generator works with 100% efficiency, and we have no loss from rolling distance.
And we have a car that use 100w to run on a flat road at 60mph (no wind, no a/c or heating+++). Then we add the (re)generator, and that generate 100w while driving at 60mph. But now the motor will not just have to use energy to push the car@60mph, it will have to spend energy to rotate the generator so now the motor will use 200w. Nothing gained, and nothing lost. But then, out there in the real world we have to add the losses, so now we spend more energy then we get back.

Of course we may later find new laws of physics, or find new ways to use the laws we know, but getting that generator to generate more electricity then the extra energy the motor will need is something like creating new mathematic that makes 1+1=3.

 

[Blackout]

I take it as you do know it is not working and/or taking our word for it, but you really have no deep understanding of why it is. So I will give you an a bit simpler example:

Let imagine an ideal world, where we have no loss. You get electricity in and out of the battery with 100% efficiency, and both the motor and the generator works with 100% efficiency, and we have no loss from rolling distance.
And we have a car that use 100w to run on a flat road at 60mph (no wind, no a/c or heating+++). Then we add the (re)generator, and that generate 100w while driving at 60mph. But now the motor will not just have to use energy to push the car@60mph, it will have to spend energy to rotate the generator so now the motor will use 200w. Nothing gained, and nothing lost. But then, out there in the real world we have to add the losses, so now we spend more energy then we get back.

Of course we may later find new laws of physics, or find new ways to use the laws we know, but getting that generator to generate more electricity then the extra energy the motor will need is something like creating new mathematic that makes 1+1=3.

Yes but that is assuming that You want to get all of it back...
How can you get energy back from a motor in regen when the car is already in motion? a portion of the energy is sent back to the battery...how's that possible when that same battery was powering that motor in the first place...? At that moment you may argue that the battery stop sending energy entirely and then regen is possible...

Let say you had a motor that was never connected to the wheel and was solely use as a generator...and lets say with a gear system (meaning not using chemical energy or electrical energy) but straight mechanical energy that is already happening at the wheels turning So basically if your motor was efficient enough to work as a generator and let say a 2000RPM would give you X amount of kwh...i'm not claiming that It will be endless free energy lol, but what I am saying is if the car was rated at 200miles that configuration would help increased its range and maybe it would be 500 miles...
Because in theory, you would have a constant state of regen (at 60 mph) that would take it longer for the overall energy from the battery to be depleted...

So to use the water analogy, Let's say the battery was a 100 Gallon tank and there is a valve (pedal) and when open the valve (push pedal) you are dumping that water into the ground...So rate of flow would be how much you open that valve (or push that pedal to the floor or not...) so the way I understand regen so far is your kind of connecting a small tank of lets say 20 or 30 gallons that store the water when you use 100 gallons of energy and you have regen you end up using an 80 gallons and have an extra 20 gallons of water to keep going...

So if I can have a motor efficient enough to allow me to store that 30 gallons of water all the time (at a certain speed), while the other motor drives the car then eventually the 100 gallons will be depleted but 1st it would take longer to deplete because in that same time I end up using 70 gallons, and when I can not use anymore I still have that extra 30 gallons In the current tesla models regen allowed that 100 gallons to be depleted in lets say 10 min...than the system I had in mind would be maybe 20 minutes...
It's a really rough example, its hard for me to convert what I have in minds in words, and then again I am not saying that it's not stupid because that efficient motor would still have to be designed, and there are also other things I know I am missing...I need to spend more time and research more about regen...but basically I just don't see it as impossible...then again that's using the laws that we currently understand...there are probably others laws that we haven't fully explore lol ...

Basically, the range extender works on the volts because there is 2 source of energy...2 separates tank plus the smaller regen tank...1 tank has electrical energy, the other has chemical/mechanical energy...
my system I would have 1 tank for electrical energy + a smaller tank for regen...but the other source of energy would be mechanical energy generate from the motion...all it takes is spinning wheel and the proper gear ratio to have the energy that you want...and that can be done now

But I don't regret making that page...somehow the different point of view I've read help me out...but I've said enough lol time to do the work and fail 1000 times before i get it right #motivation lool

 

[R.S]

Yes but that is assuming that You want to get all of it back...
How can you get energy back from a motor in regen when the car is already in motion? a portion of the energy is sent back to the battery...how's that possible when that same battery was powering that motor in the first place...? At that moment you may argue that the battery stop sending energy entirely and then regen is possible...

Let say you had a motor that was never connected to the wheel and was solely use as a generator...and lets say with a gear system (meaning not using chemical energy or electrical energy) but straight mechanical energy that is already happening at the wheels turning So basically if your motor was efficient enough to work as a generator and let say a 2000RPM would give you X amount of kwh...i'm not claiming that It will be endless free energy lol, but what I am saying is if the car was rated at 200miles that configuration would help increased its range and maybe it would be 500 miles...
Because in theory, you would have a constant state of regen (at 60 mph) that would take it longer for the overall energy from the battery to be depleted...

So to use the water analogy, Let's say the battery was a 100 Gallon tank and there is a valve (pedal) and when open the valve (push pedal) you are dumping that water into the ground...So rate of flow would be how much you open that valve (or push that pedal to the floor or not...) so the way I understand regen so far is your kind of connecting a small tank of lets say 20 or 30 gallons that store the water when you use 100 gallons of energy and you have regen you end up using an 80 gallons and have an extra 20 gallons of water to keep going...

So if I can have a motor efficient enough to allow me to store that 30 gallons of water all the time (at a certain speed), while the other motor drives the car then eventually the 100 gallons will be depleted but 1st it would take longer to deplete because in that same time I end up using 70 gallons, and when I can not use anymore I still have that extra 30 gallons In the current tesla models regen allowed that 100 gallons to be depleted in lets say 10 min...than the system I had in mind would be maybe 20 minutes...
It's a really rough example, its hard for me to convert what I have in minds in words, and then again I am not saying that it's not stupid because that efficient motor would still have to be designed, and there are also other things I know I am missing...I need to spend more time and research more about regen...but basically I just don't see it as impossible...then again that's using the laws that we currently understand...there are probably others laws that we haven't fully explore lol ...

Basically, the range extender works on the volts because there is 2 source of energy...2 separates tank plus the smaller regen tank...1 tank has electrical energy, the other has chemical/mechanical energy...
my system I would have 1 tank for electrical energy + a smaller tank for regen...but the other source of energy would be mechanical energy generate from the motion...all it takes is spinning wheel and the proper gear ratio to have the energy that you want...and that can be done now

But I don't regret making that page...somehow the different point of view I've read help me out...but I've said enough lol time to do the work and fail 1000 times before i get it right #motivation lool

I guess we should talk about regen in general and how one motor can send power to the battery, while another gets powered by the battery.

Regen first: There is no such thing as a generator or a motor setup with electric motors, they can be used as generators, e.g. for regenerative breaking, as effectively as for motor applications. Thats why they actually are electric machines, not motors. And its not a matter of turning it the other way to regen. It an both apply power when driving forwards, as well as backwards and regenerating forwards and backwards.

With the induction motors Tesla is using, its just a matter of the frequency of the magnetic field and the frequency of the rotor. An electric machine consist of two parts, the stator, which is stationary and the rotor, which moves and is connected to something that needs to be driven, in our case the wheels(with some detours through the gearbox etc.). The stator has windings and through those windings flows an AC current. In fact its 3 different AC currents with different phases. Those windings produce a magnetic field that moves around the inner side of the stator and flows through the rotor. The rotor consists of very solid "windings", it looks more like a cage filled with sheet metal, and if the magnetic field is faster than the rotor, it induces a voltage that causes a current, which in turn makes the rotor move. Thats the source of the torque. If the rotor moves faster it induces a higher voltage to the stator windings and there is current flowing back, through the inverter, into the battery. (The inverters job is it, to modulate a three phase AC current, out of a DC current, and the other way around.)


Now, how can one motor power the wheels while another puts power into the battery? Lets go back to our water example. Imagine two bathtubs, both half full with water. The first should be the battery chemical energy, the second is the cars kinetic energy. Now you grab a bucket and start moving water from tub one(battery) to tub two(kinetic energy), so you are the motor. I will do the opposite, I grab a bucket and start filling tub one with the water from tub two. I am the generator. On the way we loose some of the water, we aren't 100% effective, but that water is lost, it would be heat, we can't really get it back. Someone interested in thermodynamics would call it entropy.

Now here is your problem, neither you nor I, motor and generator, really store energy/water. Or just for a really short time. A motor/generator can only move energy/water from one form/tub to another. So to make your car go further with the same battery, you either limit the conversion losses, make your motor/generator more effective, or you limit your losses through drag. Drag is something like a hole our kinetic energy tub.

You could also make the battery tub bigger, so it can store more water/energy. Or you get a third tub, a gas tank, and fill your battery with the energy out of that petrol. Like the Volt or the i3 rex. But for that tub you need a special bucket, in fact two buckets, an electric machine and a internal combustion engine, and the second bucket looses about two thirds of its water on the way, which isn't really nice.

 

[wdolson]

Have you had any crazy ideas you would like to see on future electric Vehicle?

Well I asked myself this question and lately I've been driven mad by this idea, concept...I know it's a stupid idea, it's not suppose to be possible...or if it was that easy for sure someone would have done it and get billion on it by now...But yet, i can't help remove it off my head

What if when the car reach a minimum speed of 60 mph it becomes possible to de-activate the Front or Back motor and somehow change the rotation...It would thus become a generator instead of a motor and it would throw back energy in the battery...

If you apply Electric power to a motor, you will get mechanical power, but if you apply mechanical power to a motor you will get electrical power...Now I know motors are not efficient generators, and you would have to apply lot more mechanical power to get the same electrical power due to it's low efficiency... and reaching a certain speed it's just doesn't work as a generator...

But what if someone designed a motor, that was efficient enough to generate power, and invented that Gear box to use the rotation of the active motor and transform it to a higher speed with the help of this gear box to apply mechanical power to the un-active front motor/generator...-Then in theory that would work because the motor would be efficient enough to generate electric power and provide it to the battery...while that same battery is giving energy to the active motor...

That wouldn't be infinite range since at some point you will probably spend more energy than you can provide...but if that idea is possible I think it might drastically improve the range on electric cars...

Any ideas? Comments? Is it really that stupid ? lol

Any one else thought of other "Stupid Idea" for Electric Cars ?

I know people have kind of dogpiled on you here, but your idea of turning the motor into a generator is how regen braking works. If one motor was driving and the other was switched to generator, it would be like pushing the accelerator and brake at the same time.

The car slows down when the motors switch to generators because generators put a load on the system which is in the form of resistance. That braking sensation you feel is the generator load slowing the car. So the idea is widely used in a different form in electric cars, but it doesn't do what you think it would do.

There is an expression: There is no such thing as a free lunch. All systems lose energy. With an electric car you lose a little energy to friction in the drive train (as heat), and a little to friction between the tires and the road, and there is electrical resistance consuming some energy from the battery to the motors, but the biggest energy loss is to drag. If you have ever been near a fast moving vehicle, such as on the shoulder of a freeway, you will notice there is a wind as the vehicle goes by. The energy to create that wind came from the energy source moving the car and it's a net loss out of the system running the car. The wind came from the drag created by moving the physical object through space at high speed.

If the automated rock dumper used less energy than you gain from going down hill then yes, it would kind of work until you run out of rocks on top of the hill. When that happens new rocks (or the same ones) would have to be transported up to the top of the hill again. This requires energy. Once the rocks are up on top again you have effectively stored the energy used to move them, minus losses, as potential energy, which can then be released/given off to the cars as they roll down the hill with the stones in the trailer (again minus losses). So basically the rocks are just energy carriers, like batteries, and at the start of the thought experiment there was just a bunch of rocks sitting on top of the hill, sort of like how rechargeable AA batteries come pre-charged from the store...

There are all sorts of ideas being explored for storing solar energy. Batteries are one idea, but another is to use the solar energy during the day to move something up a hill or mountain, then release it later when you need the energy and run a generator as it goes back down again. An electric train loaded with rocks is one idea for this.

I suppose putting rock laden trailers on electric cars and then hauling those rocks back up the mountain again using solar energy would be one way to go, but having superchargers at the bottom sides of the mountains would probably work better.

The rock idea is kind of silly for loading cars at the tops of mountains, but it actually could be made to work (not that anyone would).

 

[wdolson]

I like the OP's idea even if it is not realistic.

People love to instantly shoot down innovative ideas. As technology advances coming up with the next best version of something gets harder and requires radical thinking. It means most ideas won't make it to the real world, but some will and they will be great.

Along the lines of the helium idea.....using aero-gels to fill voids would make the car lighter, quieter, better insulated, and maybe safer.

Elon Musk is famous for out of the box thinking and coming up with novel concepts, but he is successful at it when others aren't because he goes back to basic Physical concepts and builds from there. If someone is impossible within the laws of Physics, it's quickly discarded.

People jumped on the OP because his idea violated well known laws of Physics and there is no way around them that we know of. If there is, it's something very exotic and cutting edge. Those sorts of ideas are only possible in a lab environment, if you're lucky and it's going to be decades before anything will be possible in a production environment. Currently we have no ideas, even in theory, that would get around the laws of thermodynamics.

How do? Is it lighter than air (which fills a void here on Earth)? I don't know of any solid materials with lower density than air at 1 atmosphere pressure.

Helium reduces the weight, but it does not reduce the mass. In fact it would increase the mass a little bit. Weight is a bit of a factor in getting something moving, lower weight would reduce the friction in the various moving parts, but ultimately it's about mass, not weight. Getting a ship in space moving requires energy and it has no weight, but it does have mass.

 

[Model 3]

How can you get energy back from a motor in regen when the car is already in motion? a portion of the energy is sent back to the battery...how's that possible when that same battery was powering that motor in the first place...? At that moment you may argue that the battery stop sending energy entirely and then regen is possible...

I did not say that the generated power was sent back to the battery. I said that the motor still would consume 100w from the battery with or without the generator running (assuming no loss). So the motor would consume 100w from the battery + 100w from the generator = 200w. And then we can start to add the losses.

Let say you had a motor that was never connected to the wheel and was solely use as a generator...and lets say with a gear system (meaning not using chemical energy or electrical energy) but straight mechanical energy that is already happening at the wheels turning

How could you use the "mechanical energy that is already happening at the wheels turning" and still have "a motor that was never connected to the wheel"?
If the motor is not connected to the wheel in some way, the car will not move (except down hills), and if the generator is not connected to the wheel it can not harvest any of the energy in that wheels movement (no exceptions).

 

[Topher]

Hopefully before I die of old age (Cross fingers) someone would find some way to make it possible without the help of combustion engine...

Combustion engine has nothing to do with it. We are talking about conservation of energy.

the laws of physics are only what we know so far...It doesn't mean that we have discovered ALL the laws of physics and having a mentality saying it's impossible based on a finite number of laws in an infinite universe is, in my point of view, the wrong approach to creating and dreaming of making the impossible, possible...

People like to say this, but it isn't how science seems to work. All those previous experiments are still valid. Any new theories of Physics need to encompass what we already know. Einstein's theory of gravity didn't make Newton's theory of gravity completely wrong, it just tweaked the edge cases a bit. When quantum gravity is developed, it will do the same, general relativity won't suddenly becomes wrong and we won't all float into the atmosphere.

No one has EVER made the impossible, possible. They have merely made the unaccomplished, accomplished. It isn't the people who set out to do things which violate the laws of physics that succeed. It is the ones who acutely understand the laws of physics, who use those laws to do undreamt of things. Or more rarely, those who deeply understand the way reality works, and improve our laws of physics to match.

It is possible that conservation of energy could be violated. But it will be because dark energy remains constant per cubic meter even when expanding that space, not because someone is trying to make a more efficient car.

Helium reduces the weight, but it does not reduce the mass.

No, In any given gravitational field, weight and mass have a direct relationship. Reducing weight reduces mass.
A car with a vacuum (no gases) weighs less than a car with Helium, which weighs less than a car with air.
A car with a vacuum (no gases) masses less than a car with Helium, which masses less than a car with air.
Helium has a *buoyancy* when *in air* because it weighs (and masses) less than an equivalent volume of air. Put the car under water, and all three will have a buoyant effect. A boat doesn't weigh less, just because it is floating.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

Here Elon describes the method.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Blackout]

You guys are great looll
Special thanks to @R.S and @wdolson for their patience with my stubbornness...

No worries @wdolson I never let anyone ideas put me down, I enjoy having different point of views and I like listening to the opposite arguments because that's how I find the balance that I am looking for to make things happen...

@R.S Thank you for your bath tub explanation, That really help make sense of couple documents that I was reading...I have a very conceptual way of thinking and understanding and I know it may sound dumb to people but IT helps a lot...

The whole concept of Stubbornness is no matter what I hear I stay convinced it is possible...I may have to polish my initial idea with several iterations but in the End...Achieving a Long range electrical vehicle is still possible...and @R.S you just help me notice the missing link...the funny thing is it is right there in your explanation...

PS: By the way when you say: If someone is impossible within the laws of Physics, it's quickly discarded...I think that is a huge mistake...because 1st the laws of physics should always be challenged every day to ensure a full understanding of them and making sure there were no other cases that people have not missed in the pass...For example, Nikola is a perfect example of that...
and 2nd Even if it was impossible the real of Physics, well Quantum physics has already shown things are not impossible as we think they are...

With that said...that was my last comment about this topic...Time to get to work lol and fail thousand times til someone gets it right...

 

[R.S]

You guys are great looll

The whole concept of Stubbornness is no matter what I hear I stay convinced it is possible...I may have to polish my initial idea with several iterations but in the End...Achieving a Long range electrical vehicle is still possible...and @R.S you just help me notice the missing link...the funny thing is it is right there in your explanation...

Would you share your idea with us? The only idea I get when I read my text, is that we need a bigger tub...

 

[Topher]

The whole concept of Stubbornness is no matter what I hear I stay convinced it is possible.

Now you are drifting from 'stupid questions' to 'stupid people'. Stubbornness in rejecting the laws of Physics (or the underlying Reality) is no virtue, it is madness. If you think the laws of Physics don't match Reality (in some precise way), only then do you have an opportunity.

For example, Nikola is a perfect example of that...

What laws of Physics did Tesla find that others missed?

Quantum physics has already shown things are not impossible as we think they are...

NO. They have showed that the way you 'think they are' (or were) is wrong.

You, on the other hand, have neither the laws of Physics, nor Reality on your side. You just WANT something to be true, that isn't. And seem to think WANTING is enough to achieve it. My advice is to study either Physics or Reality, and do the hard work.

Thank you kindly.

 

[ABCCBA]

Well, then, we could install a small warming container that is well insulated and we could capture the 19% thermal losses and use then to warm food. So, we could sign up as a Uber Driver and a Domino's Pizza driver and we would have 100% use of all the stored battery energy and collect revenues for every mile driven. What a concept! Maybe the Model 3 can be equipped with the Optional Heating Oven and even more people could afford and justify BEVs!

You are confusing how physics, the science, works. Not only Physics, but science. Newton didn't have the idea that an apple would fall towards earth and then he invented algebra which lead to the invention of gravitational pull, so apples started falling from the trees, where they used to fall in all directions before. Newton observed, then he tried to explain it, using maths. Thats how it works.

So before I explain to you why your Idea doesn't work, we need to clarify some things first. Energy and power.

Everything is energy, and energy can be conserved in different forms. Matter, speed, gravitation or electromagnetic fields, chemical bonds heat and so on. But we can observe that the amount of energy always stays the same. We have proven that in many experiments.

Power is the conversion rate of energy. How much energy we can convert from one type to another per second. Its like filling one pool with the water of another pool. The water is the energy and the amount of water you can shovel from one pool to the other is power.

So if we look at a car at standstill it has no kinetic energy, but chemical energy in its batteries. As soon as we have accelerated to 60mph we have a certain amount of kinetic energy. But we have lost more chemical energy, than we gained kinetic energy, since the motors aren't 100% efficient in converting electric energy to kinetic energy and the same goes for the battery(chemical to electrical). When we recuperate we put some of that kinetic energy back into the battery, but again, we loose some of it on the way in form of heat. So if we would convert the batteries chemical energy with one motor into kinetic energy, we would loose a bit to heat and if we recuperate the energy back we, again, loose some to heat. In the end we would just loose energy to heat.

So the best way would be not using the motors at all, once we are at 60mph, but since there is drag, which is basically "robbing" some of our kinetic energy we need to constantly convert chemical energy to kinetic energy to cover our losses. Thats why we need energy even when we are driving at constant speed. But if we would use one motor to recuperate and one to accelerate we would loose a lot more energy.

Lets think of it as a cycle and assume every motor has an efficiency of 90% and we had no drag, or other resistance and the battery works with 100% efficiency.

We have 100% chemical energy that gets converted to 100% electric energy, which then gets converted to 90% kinetic energy and 10% thermal energy by our motor that we use to drive the car then we have our 90% kinetic energy converted to 81% electric energy and 9% thermal energy. Now we convert that back to chemical energy in the battery. Now we have only 81% chemical energy, but 19% thermal energy.

I hope you now see how this doesn't make sense. I tried my best to explain it. And of course I simplified it a bit.

 

[evp]

OK. If you have small bags of helium throughout the car, then the helium would provide a small amount of lift therefore making the car a big lighter and extending the range a bit.

No, to make the car "a big lighter" you'd have to use butane.

 

[ABCCBA]

For all these years we have been told that coffee can cause cancer, eggs can cause heart disease and having a dark natural tan was good. Now, we are being told that all of this is now not true. So, who is to believe that some silly belief named the 'laws of physics', to make it sound more absolute, is right?

I take it as you do know it is not working and/or taking our word for it, but you really have no deep understanding of why it is. So I will give you an a bit simpler example:

Let imagine an ideal world, where we have no loss. You get electricity in and out of the battery with 100% efficiency, and both the motor and the generator works with 100% efficiency, and we have no loss from rolling distance.
And we have a car that use 100w to run on a flat road at 60mph (no wind, no a/c or heating+++). Then we add the (re)generator, and that generate 100w while driving at 60mph. But now the motor will not just have to use energy to push the car@60mph, it will have to spend energy to rotate the generator so now the motor will use 200w. Nothing gained, and nothing lost. But then, out there in the real world we have to add the losses, so now we spend more energy then we get back.

Of course we may later find new laws of physics, or find new ways to use the laws we know, but getting that generator to generate more electricity then the extra energy the motor will need is something like creating new mathematic that makes 1+1=3.

 

[Topher]

Well, then, we could install a small warming container that is well insulated and we could capture the 19% thermal losses and use then to warm food.

And we once more come slamming into the laws of Physics. Thermal losses are losses precisely because they are so close to ambient temperature that no more useful work can be extracted from them (if engineers have done their job).

Understanding can be started by internalizing this: Carnot cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you kindly.