Comments on: New Rail Car Runs on Air-Electric Perpetual Drive

By: Oliver

Oliver — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:48:33 +0000

The thing that i query most about this rather bizarre machine, possibly the detail that actually kept the device in motion that no-one has mentioned, is: Why does it require a radiator?
While I don’t want to enter into the arguments that seem to be part and parcel of any blog, I think it is fair to point out that scientific development traditionally involves an element of resistance to ideas that have not derived from a linear process of logical thought. There is, for reference, a remarkably long list of latterly vindicated scientific ‘martyrs’ to bear this argument out. Whatever the comedic flaws of the above concept, do not be too ready to pour vitriol.
Furthermore, reference to the Parry People Mover (currently in production) bears dividends. A remarkably efficient vehicle (although with the above mentioned regenerative braking.)

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:29:40 +0000

Oscar - do you really think that a scientist, seeing the possibility of making such a machine, would say `I can’t build it, I must maintain the way the world is viewed and suppress this invention’. No, he or she would be happily collecting a Nobel prize.

This is not to mention the enthusiastic amateur. You seem to know a lot about modern technology, perhaps you could enlighten us.

By: Latente

Latente — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:34:24 +0000

In this blog we obey the laws of thermodynamics

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:41:47 +0000

oscar

What color is the sky on your world?

And just what specific “present technology” will make this possible?

By: oscar valencia

oscar valencia — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:31:12 +0000

with the present technology today,it will work. the only problems are scientific minds who oppose to it.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:41:42 +0000

This design can be simplified significantly by just connecting a driveshaft between adjacent sets of wheels and removing all the generator/motor and compressor/air-engine bits.

Actually, my idea is so simple, I could make a push cart with the two axles connected with a drive shaft, give it a shove, and see it go on forever!

Yeah, or not.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:30:31 +0000

Given the compounded inefficiencies of the generator, compressor, air engine and electric motor, the vehicle would go farther just letting the batteries run the motor-driven compressor until they were exhausted and not trying to run the wheel-driven generator or compressor.

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:03:23 +0000

js
This was a perpetual motion scam. Instead of air compressors think in terms of wheels turning generators charging batteries that power motors turning drive wheels.

Also, check out page 13 of this 1987 report from Stanford University http://www.slac.stanford.edu/c.....b-4363.pdf

The author takes a swipe at popular science magazines of the time saying that the editors didn’t know the first law of thermodynamics.

But I can’t be too critical…after all we live in an age of suckers buying “Q-ray” bracelets and tuning in to John Edward.

By: Myles

Myles — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:55:29 +0000

Are we looking at a drawing, or an actual working prototype? If this is a prototype I wonder how someone with such good engineering skills would still believe in perpetual motion - or is he a fraud looking to sucker investors?

js - you are describing a system that sounds similar to a hybrid car for recovering some energy. That is not what the article above is describing. Friction and aerodynamic losses are what require most of the energy to move a vehicle.

By: js

js — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:03:27 +0000

From a physical perspective, this would work: it would just bleed pressure from the tank to account for friction and aerodynamic losses - incidentally, at a speed of 125 mph (~200 km/h), the latter is dominant. Rolling friction would be minimal, the train being just two cars. Any energy lost in acceleration would be recouped (minus losses) in subsequent braking; any energy spent going uphill would be gained (minus losses) going downhill. So, if the batteries started out fully charged, the $2.50 worth of electricity is the amount of energy spent countering the friction and aerodynamic losses to keep the train moving.

Many similar proposals have appeared since, the basic idea being to store energy during deceleration for use during acceleration. The greatest obstacles are generation losses and storage capacity. Many modern rail transit systems have an arrangement where most braking is done by using the motors as generators (regenerative braking) and feeding the resulting electricity back into the system for other trains to use, eliminating the need for onboard storage.