DIY Electric Car Forums banner

Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV

720 Views 0 Replies 1 Participant Last post by  EVDL List
Re: [EVDL] Magnetic Shock Absorber & EV

Hi Daren,

Thanks for the clear answers.

It is indeed hard to believe that the 45 Amp constant
draw that you posted is taken from a level track,
because 4 kW is not sufficient energy to move a van
forward at 55 MPH constant on level ground.
I hope the Physics prof can be of help to understand this.

One other misconception that you detailed in your answer:
It is not important how many Amps the motor draws while
taking off, it is important how many Amps are taken from
the battery while driving constant speed.

First, motor amps can be ridiculously high (around 1000 Amps)
while battery Amps stay in the order of 100 Amp, by using a
modern motor controller which will transform the high voltage
of the batteries to a low motor voltage when almost at standstill
so the batteries are not subject to the motor currents.
There is no need to have a constant running transmission or
variable speed transmission to accomplish this, the modern
motor controller does this already.

Second, the Amps from the battery are mainly a function of
how fast the acceleration is, all the excess energy above
the amount to drive a constant speed is used to increase the
kinetic (movement) energy, the speed of the vehicle.
For long distance and conservative driving, the speed increase
can take a long time to keep the Amps down.
However, the Amps can never be lower than what is needed to
drive the constant target speed, in this case 55 MPH.

You indicated that the average Amps to drive the vehicle at
Freeway speeds varies from the 45 Amps at the track to 122 Amps
in some of your tests in hilly terrain.
While the latter is a somewhat more realistic number, it still
falls short of the expected power needed to move a van like
you have at Freeway speeds, which is around 20 kW (200+ Amps).

One simple way to prove that your van can drive 150 miles on
a single charge is to do exactly that.

Note that it is very easy to make a mistake in the wiring of
an instrument and accidentally read a different value.
One possible mistake can be to use a 50mV 500A shunt and
connect it to a 100mV gauge indicating 500A on its scale,
which will read 50% low. It is not difficult to check the
actual current with for example a clamp-on current probe or
a second known-good shunt and meter.

Note that your claim that it saves energy to create a high
torque with a large reduction is not correct.
The energy is not only determined by Amperage, but also by
the Voltage. When you allow the motor to run twice as fast
and reduce its Amperage draw by a factor 2 for example, you
will find that it takes twice as much Voltage to make it
run so fast, so the power (Volts x Amps = Watts) is equal.
Every time you reduce the Amps but want to keep the Power
constant, you will find that the Volts on the motor must
increase, so your claim that you can drive 20 times as
fast by using a 20 times gear reduction is flawed, the
same amount of power is needed by the motor, its current
is lower but its voltage is higher. Same power in, same
power out.

Since your claim is that you can drive your van 150 miles,
I think you should try that and report the results.
I am OK if you can't find a totally flat stretch, that you
find a 75 mile stretch of road and drive it one direction
to the end, then return the same route, so you are sure
that there are no effect of start and end height difference.


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: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 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:
> l#a13079765 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

For subscription options, see
See less See more
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
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.