Because this is a world development, I'll put this here. I had an idea of a more effeciant car. Here's the pic. It got kind of messed up, but that is the wheel of a car. The boxes inside the wheel and on the car are magnets. This is a very basic drawing of a more complex design. The wavey lines represent the magnetic current. My question is: Why haven't people invented this yet? It would save gas right?

hmmm... could that work?
if it does... hmmm...
not a bad idea

I reported the image as offensive/adult content.

The reason it wouldn't work is because magnets lose there charge over time... the energy required to keep the magnets magnetic out weighs the benefit. Have you heard of Ion Lithium batteries? Japan created a 8 wheeled car that has every wheel driven independently by these batteeries... gives it much better handling and braking is a lot safer... and no gas required!... I'll find the link for the post on it for you...

Edit

Here's the link to the cars web page http://www.eliica.com

Check it out..

People will be upset, different. The people involved in gas companies.

Personally, I'm waiting for someone to invent a flying car. Seriously! With all the breakthroughs in science in the last few decades, surely flying cars are possible in my lifetime.

Of course, the traffic laws would probably be a pain to figure out.

How much would a magnet tire cost? How much energy would be required to draw the magnets around in a circle up to 70 mph? Then with that you'd have to think of the conditions that it will be driven on... off-road, gravel, snow, ice... how much more power will that suck up? Will this power source be able to last at least as long as a tank of gas if not more?

The main part of the Eliica, by the way, is the way the wheels are driven (and not the horrible shape of a car it is)...

Not only would the energy required be quite high (and you need to supply energy somehow btw) but what would happen if another car drove by?

BlackOps, certain rare-earth magnets will hold for a very long time. Generally, we considered the lifespan of samarium-cobalt to be over 200 years. Unfortunately, they are extremely brittle, very powerful, and must be secured well to flat surfaces to work well. They are also expensive. But that's in the PM motor industry.

Electrically driven wheels have been around a long time, not to burst bubbles. While they are practical in some apps, they tend to increase rotating weight too much, among other problems. Put the magnets inboard, there will be fewer problems with bounce, etc. But then, you'd be designing a fairly conventional rig.

There are other ways... But the energy companies won't like you very much. The Gray motor and the Ecklin generator come to mind. Also, Bearden and his pm-transformer thing are there to make power... And all you free energy debunkers better look this stuff up before you try to beat up on me.

You'd still have to generate an electrical charge somehow. Why not have the magnets on the axil instead of the wheel. It wuold then be more like the brushes in a power drill.

Actually, that has already been done. If you've ever owned an electric train set, take the engine apart. You'll see the same thing. The magnets would have to be very powerful to move something as heavy as a car though.

If you came up with this yourself, keep at. You might very well put together an idea that will change history.

I would suggest you find a way to pass the magnets through a coil, thus making an electric current.

Then again you shouldn't really listen to people who put "thus" in a post to make it sound like they know what they are talking about

As an augmentation/suppliment to a main driving mechanism, not the main driving engine itself, to conserve fuel consumption?

ok this would not work. read your physics book.

this violates the conservation of energy law. if you had an electric car that had those wheels, they would sap the energy of the rotating wheels slowing them down, so you do not gain energy, it stays the same. the same thing would happen if you put a propeller on the front and the wind spun it, driving a generator. ti would create drag, slowing the car, requiring more power to push the car forward.

but if the car was gasoline powered it would create electricity but at the expense of gasoline, so you would loose there too. it would be the same thing as the alternator, which is currently mounted to the acsessory drive system on the front of your engines. the alternator takes energy to turn, thus sapping the engine power to power the electronic systems on your car.

there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. as that is what this essentially is. not even in a weightless environment. if you take enrgy out the motion slows.

i meant to say that it doesnt stay the same because the drag and gravity would create resistance. no matter what you loose energy.

Different, follow this advice, please: While you are working on your concept, do NOT read the physics book as was suggested. First, there are too many dogma about what you can and cannot do, much of which is pure bs. Second, reading the physics book will very likely give you incorrect ideas about magnetism. To wit, the standard physics book will show lines of force going from end to end of a permanent magnet: they do not go end to end. In order to prove this, one needs a piece of microscopic magnetic paper (it's green and changes to greenish white in the presence of a field, the stronger the field the whiter it becomes). Find a very powerful magnet and use a bit of that paper to show the field rotation; you will see it goes from end to center, then center to end, with a tiny space between center entrance and exit points. This space is known as the Bloch wall. With magnets, it is also believed that as you use permanent magnets in a pm motor, the magnets will deteriorate depending on how much power you derive from the interacting fields: this again is a misconception. As in a previous post, the rare earth magnets will last longer than a lifetime, regardless of how much you use them: this was determined by empirical means, not by some idiotic mathematical formula, and was forwarded by my company to the Lockheed skunk works: anyone want to argue with them? You'll lose, guaranteed. Those boys KNOW what they're doing.

Your pic shows an odd configuration for the fields: keep working on this concept. A physicist whose nom de plume is Rho Sigma (he's a bit of a rogue and doesn't want his career destroyed) has forwarded the suggestion that properly designed permanenent magnets can possibly push each other's fields out of the way and then when the fields once again act upon each other, more force would be produced than that required to shift the fields originally: similar to what you show.

It has been shown by many "fringe" scientists and engineers, myself included, that a DC electric motor can be designed without the use of shifting fields: yes, friends, it can be done, and no, it is NOT impossible, nor even difficult. Just requires a little thought and correct interpretation of physics.

The 'neither created nor destroyed' business is almost always misinterpreted to mean that once you have used up energy it cannot be re-used: once again, this is bs, and that is shown in any properly designed switched reluctance motor, quite common. A proper drive can be found in the .pdf archives at Texas Instruments and their DSP usage/example files.

Those of you not convinced that science has all the answers, I refer you to Tom Bearden's research into the use of pm magnets and mag amp steering of the pm field. Also refer you to Ecklin's switched reluctance generator. Bearden's claim is that using small electrically generated fields to steer a more powerful pm field, more power output gan be had than that used to steer the pm field. This works, and using the guidlines on Beardens site, anyone can build and prove that the machine does, in fact, work. Ecklin's generator uses mechanical means to deflect either a pm or electromagnetic field to generate power. This device will do the very anti-conventional physics thing of going from no load to full load on the output with zero change in input power. This has also been proved beyond question to operate as stated.

Another interesting possible solution to energy production is the Gray motor, which uses a unique form of spark gap power on repulsive electromagnets to produce mechanical power, so having zero field interaction on the separate coils (which produces back emf). This motor has also been proven to operate as Gray stated, by anyone willing to put forth the effort to try it.

I know these three devices work simply because I have built and operated all three. Any argument that they will not because of some stupid "laws of physics" will fall on deaf ears: the fact is that I have built all and they do work whether physics likes it or not.

And so, Different, keep up the playing with ideas, and don't allow the small minds to dissuade you. To paraphrase Tesla, "Today's scientists come up with equation after equation and eventually end up with something that bears no resemblance to reality." Tesla's inventions were the product of an unleashed mind, and we still do not fully understand all of his inventions. And we certainly don't utilize most of them, unfortunately.

A physicist whose nom de plume is Rho Sigma (he's a bit of a rogue and doesn't want his career destroyed) has forwarded the suggestion that properly designed permanenent magnets can possibly push each other's fields out of the way and then when the fields once again act upon each other, more force would be produced than that required to shift the fields originally: similar to what you show.

Amatuer question > if you applied this to an aircraft would it theoretically create a bubble where normal physics don't persist...to the effect that just shifting your aircrafts nose up or down would change the direction of the magnetic force and propel you.... and would it act as inertial dampeners at all(so that manouvers that create high g force can be done without crushing you like a bug)?

Rats. I lost all I had typed before so got to do it again. That's what happens with Christmas cheer.

To answer that I have to put myself into the question. There are several possibilities, I think, all would require experimentation.

First, The use of magnetic fields is a thing you enter at your own risk. A fellow by the name of John Searle supposedly developed a "flying saucer" using interacting fields. You'd need to research this guy, and be very careful in experimenting: there is some conjecture that his stuff has the ability to warp gravity, space and time. His original stuff was based on Faraday wheels. The Faraday wheel, in some configurations, is homopolar and has some weird properties. Tesla did some with it, but his orientation was more with higher frequency. The searle device seems to have caused a vortex field to do its thing, and excluded gravity.

Second, Tesla had ideas for airships, presumably based on his turbine (see the International Tesla Society for more info). Unique property of gyroscopes is they weigh less when running than when stopped (find info on Lathwaite et al on google) Unfortunately, Lathwaite got excommunicated when he demonstrated this property to the Royal Academy of Sciences in London. This could perhaps be a viable option, using Tesla turbines to provide lift using compressed air, and the properties of gyros.

Third, check out the Kaspar wing, supposedly more efficient and with unique properties, such as the inability to stall, greater lift, and the only aircraft ever to do a forward roll.

Finally, http://quantumgravitics.tripod.com/ has some really unique ideas on vortex propulsion for autos, and their ideas are extending into aircraft. We don't know a lot about the vortex, or if we do, it's not common knowledge. There was apparently some research into vortex craft done in Germany at the tail end of WWII by an Austrian (under threat of health) whose name was Viktor Schauberger. Some research has been done in the US by independents, and apparently has been successful. Check this out also. It seems that a vortex does some really strange things, such as (as mentioned above) exclude gravity. Think about this: a tornado can lift such things as an 80,000 lb big truck with winds less than 300 mph. If you work out the wind pressures, that doesn't make any sense at all, but it happens anyway. Check out all the vortex stuff on the web.

^Wings and vehicle shapes can develop very high forces with much less wind speeds.

As for an all magnetic motor that keeps spinning with no energy input, I'll believe it when I see one. Not saying that it is impossible, just skeptical that it would work. I don't really know much about electromagnetic fields.

If your fist part referred to lifting a big truck with less than 300 mph winds: For some time, I drove a big truck. The tractor was a K-whopper COE high rise with a Cummins 315, not very fast, but it got the job done. I drove OTR and was in storms bad enough to stop cars in the roadways, but never had to stop the truck. The tractor weighed in at 17,385 with full tanks, and I never felt wind, even when bob-tail. Fortunately never came close to a tornado, but would have given same a wide berth. Saw a lot of strange happenings, but I'd have to be convinced with empirical proof that a <300 mph wind could lift a fully loaded big truck (not just roll it, lift it), since it is a big box with poor aerodynamics. Have a friend in the trucking business, his company runs flatbeds, and they have had instances where a heavy hauler was lifted by a tornado, and there's not much side area on a heavy hauler.

As to the second part, that's a correct attitude, friend. Haven't seen one of those either, but would like to see one that does work. Whether Rho Sigma's thing would work, I don't know, never tried it. There was one that was patented, I think the guy's name was Johnson, can't be sure of that, that was claimed to work. I have a copy of the patent somewhere, but never could make enough sense of it to say yes or no, besides the fact that the magnets were shaped in such a way to make it very difficult to build.

As to re-use of energy, there are quite a number of applications in electronics where electrical energy is used more than once. The Gray motor is capable of doing so, and while there is an energy input, no doubt, the mechanical output plus the recovered energy is greater than the initial input. That one can be checked out easily.

Ecklin's machine will definitely go no load to full load with no change in input. As to over unity, it seems possible, though the one I built did not, and I didn't have the time to continue with it.

With the flat bed, if there was quite a bit of flat surface area that the wind could pass over it is possible to lift the bed assuming most of the wind passed over the top of the bed.

I'll check out that Gray motor.

Heavy haulers usually have loads that are big chunks of metal, such as girders, large transformers, and so on; sometimes it's required that they be tarped, but the areas involved are substantially less than a standard 53' van. The loads are also generally close to or greater than the normal gross (with permits, of course!).

The Gray motor is a strange beastie. His concept is to use a cap discharge through coils that generate opposing fields, so have no electrical interaction except internally in each coil. The repulsive force causes the rotor to turn, and the discharging fields force continuing current flow as the fields collapse: this is what is captured, and Gray (I think he's kicked the bucket now) claimed he could capture up to 90% of that. The experimental version I saw was dyno'd at 10 hp. On that same subject, the drive system used in switched reluctance motors does recapture some part of the drive power. With a relatively small modification, such motors can be utilized in a way similar to Gray's but with less complexity. The mod is within the drive electronics, unfortunately I'm not at liberty to say exactly what that mod is due to patent considerations and non-disclosure agreements.

That Ecklin thing is such that if a flywheel were attached, the attractive forces can be used to offset the mag forces keeping the blade within the field. If you've looked at it you'll see why, and also it becomes evident that with proper configuration, this generator might be an over-unity device.

I do share the opinion that perpetual motion is highly unlikely, if for no other reason than friction will eventually wear anything out, whether it be mechanical or electrical. However, I am a firm believer (through direct knowledge) that over unity machines can be made.

On the vortex subject, when I was studying the stuff Schauberger discovered, one of the things was a converted grain silo. The guy built a top on the silo that was steered into the wind, and it channelled the air down the silo and into a crude Schauberger turbine. According to what I read, the thing could generate up to 100 kW in a decent wind (which is outstanding). Not enough is known about this thing to comment on it; but Columbia University did a study on flow dynamics through a spiral, and the graphs (empirical measurements) showed one small area of velocity where the resistance dipped below zero, indicating that at that velocity the thing would possibly power itself. That was what Schauberger claimed.

Thanks man. I'm reading up on it now and it sounds really interesting.

some one needs to create a webpage dedicated to community energy discussion and research. Alot of good ideas pop up and become lost in these archives here at UM.

If someone would take that time, or if UM would dedicate a forum to this paticular subject and prune all the nonsense after a thread is closed, UM could be a haven for ideas, and by the power of the common man we could upset the current ways and money holders.

Sound good Mods? Would you support it people?

ADbox: I would definitely support such a forum. Problem with such things is that there are many pseudoscientists who mistakenly call themselves scientists; these people seem to disregard the main adage of true science, that not only must something be proved true, but something must also be proved untrue. These creatures quote such mundane crap as "proof of the negative is not required" and so forth, while having no real idea what they're talking about. Damn, I've been fighting that for decades!
Yes, that was a rant, but I figure I deserve it once in a while.
There is truly such a small amount that is known vs. what is not. I first ran into this while designing a device to measure sputter thickness on silicon wafers using the capacitance of an IGMOSFET. Seems that the tiny amounts of power I was using to drive this thing would build up inside and every now and then a large burst of power would come out. That was microwatts input, and about every 4 minutes there would be a burst of more than 5 watts out. Didn't make sense, because everything was instrumented. Turned out to be what could be called 'orthorotation of zero point energy', which a) most people, including science people, have never heard of, and most who have don't believe it exists. ZPE is blamed in many machines that are over unity, but have no 'scientific' explanation, even when there really is an explanation. ZPE exists, and there is no reason we can't use it if we can figure out how.
But there are many things we don't know about, but that do work. It would be good if there were a single place some of those items could be discussed. Possibly a free energy or oddball devices forum, with instructions to the 'scientists' to keep their idiocy to a minimum and let those of us who really have open minds discuss things of interest.

rabitcat:

I feel you. But the way i look at it is i am an idiot too, and half the time what i think im saying isnt right. Other times im 90% right and i have completely misunderstood the other 10%. And maybe, some cat who has only 10% right and 90% wrong might come along, and there is a good chance that if there is a "Force" in this world, and i am ment to solve that puzzle, then that cat's 10% might be the 10% i needed. I would be able to see freely through the 90% of his bs.

Most people will never make a major discovery, but sombody might consider peices of your crap to be the missing piece to their golden theory.

So thats why u cant just not do it bc there are so many idiot. 10 idiots that have 10% of a subject right come togeather to make 100%.

its like playing statistics.

so you gonna make a webpage for us

This is classic E&M.. no 'theoretical' physics or QM or weird stuff like that.

Magnetic..current? Doesn't exist. You can have a magnetic field.. and by changing its magnitude or orientation you can have magnetic flux through some space. With some constant magnetic field, that wheel is just gonna sit there. You gotta have forced alternating action of some sort to get work out of a motor with magnetic fields involved. You're basically just making a car with its wheels driven directly by an electric motor... where your wheel is the rotor and something in your chassis is the stator.

Couple things are bad with this. One, you'll need a large alternating magnetic field strength to produce any sort of meaningful thrust. That is gonna cause some nasty induced currents in any sort of iron parts of your car. And that might ruin your day.

Second, youo mentioned "saving on gas." If the car is driven by an internal combustion engine, you're better off just leaving it as it is. Instead of taking chemical energy and transmitting it directly to shaft energy, as in the typical powertrain, you're taking chemical energy, to shaft energy, to electrical energy, back to shaft energy.

Or, if you're running the car off a large battery... all you've got is an electric car. Nothin new.

that car is frieken great even though it can only run for 8 seconds i would be proud to owne it!!
bravo!!

That's a pretty innovative thought you have there, different. Well I personally don't believe in cars. I myself can travel at the speed of light, but I believe that mortals (i.e. Man) should focus on teleportation instead .

TeraLink Was Here!

Who is it says magnetic current doesn't exist?
No, you do not need forced alternating action. Physics itself, strangely enough, states in virtually every introduction to physics book that a current flowing through a wire immersed in a magnetic field will exibit torque. Look it up. All that's necessary is to maintain the same polarity of field, direction of current flow, and distance, and there you have it: a dc motor with no commutation. Better known as homopolar.

I think it wouldn't work. May be only on animated car.

consider the fact that magnets are weak unless u get a electicaly charged one 2 make it more powerfull, but then you have 2 use electricty, besides u have 2 put it on the ground and see if it moves,AND magest change N S

as far as i know, schauberger never worked with wind, however, the idea of the golden-mean-ratio like spiraling movement of natural media on earth (water+air), can certainly be used for novel designs on wind-turbines too. regarding the crude schauberger turbine you mentioned, which one was it? was it a replication of the jet-turbine (117749), the heimkraftwerk, or the trout-turbine?

do you have any way of re-discovering the columbia university flow dynamics through a spiral-study? because i am in contact with at least 4 people who are deeply interested in mathematics regarding schauberger (be it golden mean (viktor schauberger) or hyperbolic (walter schauberger) - including a math professor in canada who is always yearning for more information. do let me know if you can dredge up anything from your library archives, many, possibly hundreds people, would really appreciate this.
it could even fuel up more conversations on the viktorschaubergergroup!
(and more developments, including opensource developments on PESWiki)

I suppose I should have got to this sooner.
Magnets are not necessarily weak. Permanents such as samarium cobalt are usually quite strong, on the order of 12-14,000 gauss. If you get your skin in between two of those things, you'll definitely know it.
The most practical motor is a dc series wound, as it delivers maximum torque at low or 0 rpm, making it excellent for direct drive applications. PM motors, on the other hand, do provide a nearly limitless lifetime, as there are no brushes.
If one were to design a wheel drive, mounting powerful magnets on the rim or near the rim would be much the same as construction of a ring motor. These can be made quite powerful, using small magnets, and would be able to drive a car. The biggest problem of such is the increase in unsprung weight, and most chassis/suspension systems have difficulty in dealing with that. There is, however, a pm motor developed by a firm in LA that is somewhat different, and the drives and ferrites can be made lighter.
A well-designed ring motor is capable of hundreds of n/m of torque (hundreds of foot/pounds), and so is quite capable of driving a car at highway speeds.

I'm still looking and organizing. As I said, some of the material I once had seems to have disappeared.
However, the univ papers had, as I remember it, photos of water droplets suspended in the air around an air vortex (if I remember correctly, it was an open-air vortex), fine droplets that were illuminated with lamps. Along with those pics, there was a tentative mathematical analysis, since the apparent situ would mean the droplets should have migrated outwards and then fall, which they did not do. I really need to find that particular article.
The wind turbine was done by a guy who really didn't expect it to work, but built it in his spare time. Also somewhere in my junk.
I need to mention something here, about all this. If one uses some common sense about it, and does some research into gyroscopes (which I consider to be linked with the VS turbines), you will find some places/people that think there is a mass transfer to the plane of rotation (see Laithewaite's research). If this is truly the case, then it is possible for there to be an energy gain from the mass transfer, if the outside of the turbine is jetted, as in the VS cases. Whether the golden ratio enters into it remains for more research. However, I think that just studying Schauberger is not adequate to fully understand what he discovered, as I suspect there are many factors involved, some of which we have little knowledge.
Another aspect of this is the Tesla turbine. You might consider this in your researches. The reason I say this is that the VS turbine makes use of two types of spiral, and the Tesla turbine also makes use of a spiral. In the VS case, the fluid is trapped, while in the Tesla device, it is not. Now, one could say that this makes the Tesla turbine less, but before you do that, consider the quantum analysis of the Tesla machine: in tests of airflow, it has been found that the greater the speed differential between two plates and the fluid flow between them, the greater the effect of the boundary layer, which decreases the slip and increases the pulling power of the turbine. This means that the fluid will effectively become physically trapped when the speed differential becomes great. This explains why Tesla's claims that the low end torque was very high, decreasing with turbine speed. In other words, the turbine worked more like a steam engine or dc series wound motor, delivering large amounts of torque at low rpm.
My suspicion is the the two were working the same phenomena in divergent ways.

here is my 0.02, motors shouldn't be in the wheels of road car,(not a problem for buldozers) unsprung weight is the enemy of handling, placing pm motors in the wheels might rise durabuility issues, road impacts will missalighn pm, small pm motors can be used as a genset, i read on the net, there was a el. motor invented with dual winding, one acting like motor other acting as gen, so puting power to it will make it spin plus generating power at the same time(don't know how exactly it's done, if i find the article will post it later). there is also further development of battaryes, aluminium batt. hold more charge, take charge fast and lifespan is longer. there was also an article on the net, that a guy found a way to charge batt, and drain at the same time, pair it with dual winding motor, you get very efficien motor batt. combo(if those two are realy what inventors claim they are), also there is some brakethru in smart metal tech(changing shape with due to current or magnetic force applied), so instead of motors or solenoids, in power windows or locks or other actuators, smart alloys can be used, simpler, lighter, and more reliable. also weigh is a big enemy, what if we could cancel it somehow, v. shrauberger effect , and joe cell doo just that,(as a side effect) has something to do with ions, a small ion generator might decrease weight, elliminating need for strong motor, improving handling. i woudn'd automate driving, it taking away all fun of driving.

ok a wild and crazy idea just sprung into my brain. instead of making the wheels to be magnetic why not instead make the suspension magnetic(that would repel and attract to maintain the same height). it would definitely feel like your floating? Yikes! getting excited of all a sudden

What would the use of that be, though?

It is possible to use ring motors in the wheels, as the weight added is relatively small, since the armature can be thinner than a regular motor.
Using permanent magnets is best, regardless of what has been printed, because of simplicity. There is no real alignment in dealing with these except in the original placement of sensors, usually Hall effect transistors, and once they are placed on a pc board, no further alignment is necessary.
A ring motor on each wheel would be relatively light, quite reliable, and able to provide necessary torque/horsepower.
However, I am still in favor of single motors, for the following reasons:
First, a heavy vehicle is easier to deal with when a single motor is used. The weight of the motor can be as high as nearly 400 lb, for a motor that is capable of up to 2000 horsepower. Those who don't think this horsepower is real, consider a diesel-electric locomotive: the diesel will produce upwards of 7000 hp, most being converted to AC, directly driving traction motors on each axle to pull upwards of a million lb of train. On a vehicle, one particular DC series wound motor is capable of 2000 hp, and weighs in at 385 lb. Lesser vehicles, such as mid-sized SUVs can use 20 hp motors, capable of overdrive under harsh conditions (hills, etc), so long as they are properly cooled. Smaller vehicles obviously can use smaller motors.
Second: Single motors can replace current drive technology using the current driveline, which makes for a much easier conversion to electric, therefore hastening an overall conversion to different sources of power from petroleum, and my opinion is the faster, the better.
Third: Using a single motor is less expensive in drive electronics than multiple motors, obviously. Using multiples requires that each motor have its own drive system, and a central system must coordinate the several systems in order to keep the vehicle safe (if, for instance, one motor shorts or goes to full power, it must be individually shut down). The central system, while not necessarily complex, must monitor all motors always, to keep the system properly working.
Fourth: a single motor is obviously more easily maintained. If a brush motor is used, then it is easier to replace brushes; if a pm motor is used and any maintenance is required, it is much easier to perform.
Fifth: A proper motor with the necessary characteristics is cheaper and easier to find than multiples. Overall, the loss in efficiency due to gears &c will be well offset by the lesser expense of the single drivetrain.
Sixth: if, someday, someone makes a proper power supply, whether it be fuel cell, battery, genset, or otherwise, it will be easier to deal with considering a single motor than multiples.

Let's examine a for-instance. Let's say my intent is to build a diesel-electric, but using the diesel as a constant rpm genset (more efficient), so that the motor is on a voltage-variable system. Simplicity is the key. So I get a diesel genset, modify it so that the generator puts out a variable voltage, output controlled by the field windings. If I add a controller to manufacture the excitation voltage, the controller needs to be far less capable than if I were controlling the motor voltage, correct? In other words, to control motor voltage, I need to control up to perhaps 192 volts at 200 amps or more. This is no mean trick, by the way, and requires heavy duty electronics. On the other hand, if I control the field voltage to the genset, the voltage may be up to 48 volts, probably less, with a much smaller amperage, perhaps 10-20 amps at a maximum. So the controller can be an order of magnitude less powerful, subsequently more efficient, much lighter, and less sophisticated. The output of the generator can go directly to the drive motor, thereby losing less in transmission. Overall, then, cost is less, efficiency is greater, and complexity is less.
I also tend to think that the use of DC series wound motors have the advantage over other types, due to simplicity and power output. The simple fact is that a DC series wound motor is capable of extremely large outputs for short periods of time, far over the rating. If a PM motor is used, the size must be large enough to provide power for all circumstances, meaning that it must be designed to output at least half the rating that's needed. The series wound does not. If I need to use 15 horsepower to pull a car at 65 mph, level, no wind, then go up a hill that requires 49 horsepower, the PM motor will be hard pressed to do it without being designed for the 49 horsepower. On the other hand, a 20 horse series motor will put out the 49 horses without objection for a reasonable period of time, and if properly cooled, a longer time. It is quite reasonable to replace a 300 horse diesel in a motor home with the above mentioned dc motor weighing 385 lb, provided a proper power source can be installed.
It's also quite reasonable to put a 25kW diesel genset in a full sized pickup truck (say a Chevy Silverado or Ford F150) and run the truck with an overall mileage figure exceeding 50 mpg, provided you'd be willing to drive within the limits of the system. 25 kW is 33.5 hp, and such a pickup will generally require less than that to maintain 65-70 mph flat-no wind. A 25kW diesel genset can be had that will run on 1 to 1.5 gallon per hour of diesel. Easy to figure that one out.
The biggest problem with conversion is the prevalent use of automatic transmissions now. Conversion is best done to a stick. That 385 lb monster is capable of direct drive, however, and can be bought with a yoke for GM universal joints, so the transmission could be discarded altogether.

Frank Germano has an ace site where he also connects Tesla Turbines and Viktor Schauberger together (and keely,russell and other things). he seems to believe there is definitely a connection

gives more comfort. and smooth ride

Why not air suspension?

it was done infinity q45a, had this kind of suspention in early 90s, was not too reliable, my friend had one, it would shut off for no reason, and come on the same way, many ppl tryed to fix it, but no use, as far as i know this was a tough nut to crack even for a dealer. but the idea was good, execution poor.

rabidcat,
the idea of single motor is good, as far as i know vast majority od electic cars had 1 motor, i'd like to go with 2, for awd one in the front one in the back, no tranny needed, and traction is better when all wheels drive, it could be done with 1 motor, but gearboxes driveshafts, comlicate the car.
how easy is it to control rpms on pm motor? i don't think as easy as el. motor,pmm it would be good for genset. this way you don't even need to burn anything. could even put up solar panels on the roof, they are more eficient now, with use of polimer film, and can be any color, if we only knew how tesla made his black box.
since ic engine is gone, heating and cooling will have to be done differently, ev1 usese heat pump, i think not the best way, heavy and complicated, there is technology that produces it differently, i know it is used on russian subs, an element heats up or cools down depending on curent, hz, passed thru it, the only element would be a a small coil, in place of heating core, minus evaporator, this el. coil can be used for both, just like chillers, no freon, compressors...ect. i does thou draw a lot of curent. but current stage of developmen of this i don,t know, i would assume it more eficient than before.
half or more of this thech exsists today, why is it not used, i guess department of energy has the answer.

Its gonne be a bit hard to stop at a stop light and start going again. Not a bad idea.

it will still have brakes,(i'd do away with hydrolics, a brake pads can be pushed against the rotor by a 2 wages, slanted pieces, ther will be less force requird to move them, no need for hydro booster, memory alloys can be as boosters) it will also have batterys, mixed with supercapasitors, for large current draw , like at take offs, with all that tech ppl wouldn't like the car if it barrely moves.
i'd simplyfy dashboard too a lot of guages can be in HUD just like gm had on old bonevilles, and caddys, rear veiw cameras instead of mirrors, last time i broke my mirror i bought one on junk yard for $100. a small camera with low light capability costs less nowadays. strange uh? lcds are cheap too.
memory alloys can be used in place of air springs, you can drop or raise the car with a pushbutton, no air comp. regulators, just single part changing shape, simple cheap, light.
lights would be leds, tail or head, more to come later.

how would you brake?

PM motor vs. series wound:
Series has brushes & commutator; brushes wear, and under extreme conditions the commutator may lift. Since e-cars are becoming a viable alternative, it's now easier to find parts for same, and some manufacturers are keying comms so they are quite stable. GE makes large brushes that will last a long time, 60,000 mi or more.
PM is actually not a DC motor, it requires commutation the same as a series DC; however, the commutator is electronic, and instead of just turning a winding on and off, the controller makes AC out of the battery current. This is usually 3 phase, although it may be 2 phase. There is a fair amount of torque ripple with PM motors, and that's the main reason for AC sine conversion. The thing to remember is this: considering the large currents involved, the controller must be able to handle these; that means the drives must be quite large (usually IGBT or power FETs). A single IGBT can be had that will do this, however, remember that the IGBT has a bipolar transistor AND a FET inside, and that complicates the drive for it; base voltage must vary around the high voltage rail, which may be 200 volts or so. A further disadvantage is the fact that when the drive stops (let your foot off the accelerator), large currents are generated that will come back to the controller. Since the controller is a complex device and probably drives the fields directly, you must put some protection in between, and probably shunt the generated power back into the batteries. This was one of the problems GM had with the EV (it was nicely solved, though). All this makes the PM option substantially more expensive than the series.
Regenerative braking is almost a must in an electric. With a series motor, the stator and armature windings are in series, which precludes regenerative braking, or at least limits it. It is best to modify the series motor so that the stator can be controlled independently of the armature. Doing this allows voltage application to the stator, and the motor then becomes a generator to give regenerative braking. Making such a modification also allows a switch from series wound to parallel wound, and a parallel is a bit more efficient than a series wound. So you could switch to parallel for a cruise, and back to series for the power. However, there are controllers that allow for regenerative braking.
As for cooling, the controllers will have cooling fans for themselves. If the controller is FET, cooling will be less, since the inherent qualities of FETs are to dissipate less power themselves. IGBT uses a bipolar, and the bipolar does dissipate some power, and it will get hot. Remember that the controller of a PM is a phase/voltage control, and the series is a voltage control. The way this occurs is that the controller will switch on and off (in both types), and the on time determines the voltage. The PM of course, uses three of these, the series uses one. Naturally, the PM controller will be hotter.
As for the motor, the windings will need cooling. All motors suitable for automotive use will have air cooling, and the only caveat is that the cooling air should be dry, so the air intake and exhaust should be routed such that environment wet doesn't enter the motor. It shouldn't be necessary to cool beyond that, if it's done right. If it turns out more cooling is needed, add more air capacity (blow harder, using an external fan). The heat could be channeled into an exchanger to warm the passenger compartment. Don't use it as is.
As to solar panels, the panels would be no more than a supplement, as they don't put out enough power to run the car. A couple of sunny days will give enough power to run the car maybe 40-50 miles under city driving conditions. Remember that city driving is the electric's cup of tea; less power is used while moving, and no power is used while sitting at a stop light. Also, if regenerative braking is used, much of the power used to accelerate can be recovered when you stop.
The heating/cooling element of which you speak is a diode; you'll find it used in picnic coolers and so forth. It isn't particularly efficient, just small and simple. If you really need cooling, use a Rankine tube.
As to using two motors, there are advantages. The motors can be smaller, less expensive. However, two synchronized controllers would likely be necessary, but again, those can also be smaller.

There is another type of motor that might be of interest, although it is not (to my knowledge) available in large sizes. That is the switched reluctance motor. This offers no magnets at all. The rotor is usually ferrite, not magnetized, and is driven by switch. However, the drive is far different than a PM motor, since the concept is far different. Phasing is there, but it's on or off, instead of sine, so the control is simpler. It can be done with FET drive, and is more efficient. It requires no brushes, and there is no back emf. Voltages are lower, and currents are higher; in a controller, this means only that more FETs are added to handle the current. Texas Instruments has a PDF file on switched reluctance drives; if you can't find it, pm me and I'll send it along. The major disadvantage of the SR motor is that it is a little noisier, and also there is larger torque ripple. Adding a small flywheel will solve the problem.
If there is real interest in this, I invite pms, and there are things about this I haven't said here, to avoid conflict. But there are ways...

the same way i brake now, just differnt set up of a caliper, slanted wages move towards each other, thus increacin thikness, and pushing brake pad against rotor, forces needed is smaller, with right leverage of actuators, could be manual sys. or assisted by memory alloys.
since el motors themselves do some braking, it could suplement braking sys and simplify it since forces to stop would be smaller.

Check out the Searl effect... or anything to do with free energy. They've already got flying saucers that go as fast as Mach 20. Also, magnets can last for up to 400 years or more!