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
> 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
> 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.
> Cor van de Water
> Systems Architect
> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
> Email: [email protected]
> 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]
> 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.
>> 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):
>> 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:
> l#a13079765 Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing
> list archive at Nabble.com.
> For subscription options, see
> For subscription options, see
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Magnetic-Shock-Absorber---EV-tf4578896s25542.html#a13094500
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
For subscription options, see
For subscription options, see