DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV

Hi Daren,

I agree with others that your claims of 150 miles range
on 16 T145's driving 55 MPH are at least 250% of what can
be expected from an EV, based on experience and on laws
of Physics. (wind- plus rolling resistance)
However, we like to get data on your vehicle, which will
clearly either support your claim of 150 miles on a single
charge, or show that your claims are wildly optimistic.

Please provide some data and it would be good to show some
evidence in one way or another, like having an independent
person travel with you over the 150 miles, or drive that
distance from one independent person to the next within a
period of 3 hours, so we can see that your vehicle indeed
made that trip on a single charge.

One way to show us that you dramatically changed the
consumption, necessary to achieve the 150 mile range, whould
be ot show the battery current consumption while driving
constant 55 MPH on a flat road.
If you can do that at max 70 Amps from your 96 Volts pack
or if you can show an E-meter that you use approx 6.5 kWh
to drive an hour at 55 MPH, then we know that you did
something exceptional.

For now, I remain sceptical however. It seems that you have
"spent your entire life" (as some news item put it) to create
a new type of transmission that allows the electric motor to
behave as ICE - spinning continuously at high RPMs.
However, this is not necessary. Every electric motor is very
efficient starting right from zero RPM, so I have the feeling
that the transmission you created, however unique it may be,
is a cludge that does not contribute to the efficiency of the
EV, just changes the way it is driven without benefit.
Much of what I have seen in the videos and found in
descriptions such as "Project Genesis"
http://www.planetevs.com/index_files/page0001.htm
show that you have the wrong assumption that an electric motor
uses less energy when it drives the wheels through a high
gear ratio. While it is true that a motor generates more
torque (or uses less amps) to drive the wheels at low speed
through a high gear reduction, this does not mean that this
significantly alters the amount of energy the vehicle
consumes. In fact, it explains why your vehicle can be seen
driving 10 or 20 MPH with screaming motor, but again this
does not mean that it saves energy.

Maybe I misunderstood what you did, the press did not report
much detail and I could not find much detail on what you have
constructed, but from the descriptions I read, I am afraid
that you are confused about the laws of Physics and it may
help to find someone to correct the errors in your reasoning
so you can avoid the incorrect claims that a 20 times higher
gear ratio allows you to drive 20 times further.

I searched for the patents you are claiming to have on this
technology and I could none related to the transmission,
only about a regeneration system and a few others.
(It may be that the patents are still unpublished, in the
period between applying and being granted and publicized)
The regeneration system is a description of regen as we have
known it for many years, so the general claims 1-7 of that
patent are worthless while the later claims take into
account the "plurality of alternators" and "plurality of
belts", which seem to refer to your transmission system.
The only other three coming up when searching for your name
(Daren Luedtke) were a vehicle warning system, a door open/
close control mechanism with permanent magnets and plain
magnetic shock absorbers, which should not be different
from gas- or pneumatic absorbers coupled to a spring,
with the difference that the drawing shown with the patent
indicates the travel of the absorber would be in the order
of magnitude of 1 inch before hitting magnet on magnet.
I see you are trying to sell the magnetic shock absorbers.
FYI: magnets are very bad absorbers, they are magically
good at preserving the energy when bringing them closer
and releasing the same when they push themselves apart.
In other words: unless you create "Eddy currents" in the
metal cylinders surrounding the magnets, you have built
perfect springs, not absorbers.

20060158323 - Vehicle warning system
U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/633,663, filed Dec. 4, 2004
276781 - control mechanism including permanent magnet system
filed on 1999-03-25
6,167,589 - Magna-shock January 2nd 2001

Finally after long searching, I found your variable speed
transmission: 60727958, filed on 18-Oct-2005
http://www.patentdebate.com/PATAPP/20070105672

I fail to see how this would lower the energy to drive an
EV by more than e few percent at best.
Please educate me and provide some data that you measured.

Regards,

Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mosesmo
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV


I'm using 16 T-145's not 105's sorry.

Morgan LaMoore wrote:
>
> Force of air drag times distance equals energy required
> .5*Cd*A*rho*v^2*d The lowest Cd I found for a Dodge Caravan was .35,
> and the lowest area was 30 square feet.
> .5*.35*30ft^2*1.3kg/m^3*(55mph)^2*150miles
> 25.7 kWh
>
> Energy in 16 T-105's (using 6 hour rate even though he's at 3 hour
> rate, ignoring Peukert's effect):
> 16*6V*205Ah
> 19.7 kWh
>
> He's only 20% short! However, you have to add in rolling resistance
> losses, he'll be farther behind. It would take a really deep discharge
> to go 150 miles, and you'd be destroying the batteries.
>
> That said, it was a lot closer than I expected, so if there was even a
> downwards slope of a few percent, they might be able to do it.
>
> And yeah, the magnetic shocks make sense, if you could get big enough
> magnets. I don't know how they'd help range, though.
>
> -Morgan LaMoore
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Magnetic-Shock-Absorber---EV-tf4578896s25542.html#a13079765
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top