DIY Electric Car Forums banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

72,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV

Hi Cor van de Water, thank you for communicating with me directly.
I will provide you with performance results taken directly from the computer
on Monday Oct 1st during our press conference. Although these run results
are date & time stamped and there were around 50 people there witnessing the
demonstration and there are bits of it posted on the TV coverage video. I am
sure you probably won't believe them. But I'll post them here anyway for all
to see. The reason we chose Ozark International Raceway as a place to
demonstrate the vehicle was because it is a flat track. Although the parking
lot and areas around the track aren't. One downfall to living in the Ozarks
is there is very little level ground. Anyway, I copied and will paste here a
sample of one of my runs down the track, once up to speed and running around
55 MPH:

Date/ Time Amps High Volts MPH

10/1/2007 13:27 46 93.1 60
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 58
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 56
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 43 93.5 54
10/1/2007 13:27 43 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 45 93.5 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93.5 54
10/1/2007 13:27 45 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 44 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 43 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 42 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93 54
10/1/2007 13:27 41 93.1 54
10/1/2007 13:27 22 93.2 48
10/1/2007 13:27 22 93.4 42

I have driven this vehicle enough to get AVERAGE Amperage draws between or
from as low as 70 Amps to as high as 122 Amps in hilly driving at higway
speeds (no city driving included). The averages are taken from the first
zero MPH reading through drive time and back to a zero reading. They do not
include any idle time when the vehicle is at a stand still more than a one
second stop before driving and a one second reading when we come to a stop
again. I also have several other columns (not pasted here) showing distance
traveled, Low Voltage reading (the computer battery voltage) trip odometer.

We are arranging to have a Physics Professor from the University of Missouri
Rolla, with a PHD in physics come down to ride with us and witness the drive
and the download of results so that people will know that the data was not
tampered with. When I have this completed I will post that information also.
To answer some of the forseeable questions; we are using a PLC, transducer,
and the software programming for both purchased from Automation Direct.
There are standard shocks on this vehicle with air shocks in the rear, not
magnetic shocks (that is just another invention of mine that I got called a
quack for inventing, thats why I put it in my original subject line). The
transmission is rated nominally at 97% efficiency and has been documented as
high as 99%. The transmission that I am using in the van is not the variable
speed transmission that you found the patent application for. The patent
application for the transmission I am using in the van has NOT been
published yet. WE all know that amperage draw is tied directly to the amount
of distance one can travel, the lower the amperage draw, the further you can
travel and if those high 200 amp+ amperage draws could be eliminated on
acceleration, the possible distance traveled is increased even more.


Cor van de Water wrote:
> 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"
> 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
> 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
> Email: [email protected] Private:
> 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:
> -----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
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see

View this message in context:
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at

For subscription options, see
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.