Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Normal isn't your first language, is it?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



NO fuel consumption!

Pave roads with induction leads in them: drive without using fuel!
  (+2, -13)(+2, -13)
(+2, -13)
  [vote for,

Do you know the electric toothbrushes that charge themselves, but don't have any electrical contacts with the charger itself? That's called induction - transmitting electricity without contact.

Now, you know the problem with the electrical vehicles currently available/under development? Right! Range. Plus, they have to constantly haul 2 tonnes of batteries with them, which is rather inefficient.

Now, combine the two: an electric engine powered by induction leads which are paved in the road you drive over! Bonuses: lightweight vehicle, and practically unlimited range!

ZaPH0D, Nov 20 2001

streetlight motion detector http://www.halfbake...20motion_20detector
See my annotation to this idea from [egnor]. [hippo, Nov 20 2001, last modified Oct 17 2004]

(?) (Yay!) http://www.halfbake...flying_20cars_20yay
Make it fly too [lubbit, Nov 20 2001, last modified Oct 17 2004]


       Peter: Yah, given. But at first, only wire high-traffic roads - gives high 'value-for-money' so to speak..   

       RT: Think of bi-fuel cars (not unheard of): Burn fuel for long distance, consume battery power for short trips. This would give you your freedom to go wherever (gas), but still save when on high-traffic main roads (electric). Also, tram-lines and such would be too much of a freedom steeler.
ZaPH0D, Nov 20 2001

       //drive without using fuel//   

       Surely you mean "drive without needing to carry fuel in your car."
PotatoStew, Nov 20 2001

       Yes, fuel will be consumed. It's just a matter of where. Transmitting the energy produced by that fuel would certainly be less efficient than being able to produce it locally. When using that energy to move a transit system, the effect of a failure in the system would be magnified greatly--not just on the segment that is down, but on those segments with traffic destined for the damaged area.   

       Novel idea, but not really new, and impractical.
Guncrazy, Nov 20 2001

       Shouldn't it be "behold, no fuel consumption" instead?
pottedstu, Nov 21 2001

       we could all mfd it and then it would be "Behold, no 'no fuel consumption'"
lewisgirl, Nov 21 2001

       Another Zaphod--how distressing--oh well, parallel universe and all. Just teleport, baby. Use your own gas.
zaphod12, Nov 21 2001

       And above all, be froody.
phoenix, Nov 21 2001

       Why not push your car? I recommend a compact.
thumbwax, Nov 22 2001

       Pedal it. Get a bicycle crank and chain and couple it to the wheels. You must not classify what you eat as 'fuel', though.
neelandan, Nov 22 2001

       Other foolproof methods for driving without fuel:   

       1. Live at the top of a hill. Less effective when coming home.   

       2. Get a large number of fat friends in the back of the car. If they jump out the back, the principle of the conservation of momentum will ensure the car moves forwards. However, you may class fat people as fuel.   

       3. Detonate a tactical nuclear weapon behind your car. Considered by NASA as a possibility for space travel, but requires heavy shielding. Nuclear materials are also technically fuel.   

       4. A big spring on the front of your house.   

       5. Something involving gyroscopes.   

       6. Ski poles.   

       7. A photon sail. The pressure of the sun's rays will produce a small but real acceleration. Whether this is enough to overcome friction is uncertain.   

       8. A wind sail. Land yachts are lamentably underused.   

       9. Something involving buttered toast, cats and rotating gravity by 90 degrees.   

       10. Employ an army of sulky teenagers to lean against your car, all pushing the same direction.   

       Send money and patent lawyers now.
pottedstu, Nov 22 2001

       Eric Laithwaite already did that, [Rods].
angel, Nov 23 2001

       'what else burns apart from patent lawyers' 'err...more patent lawyers'
chud, Feb 09 2002

       There's a system like this in The Gold Coast by Kim Stanley Robinson, if anyone's ever read it.
magnificat, Feb 10 2002

       Umm, My physics is a little shakey, but won't Lenz's law defeat the purpose of the induction coils? If the speed of the Vehicle was related to the current being inducted, the vehicle would speed up, causing more induction, causing more speed, ad infinitum, causing perpetual energy & motion (A law-of-nature-no-no), EXCEPT for Lenz's law, which states that the current will be inducted in a direction opposing the original. I'm probably wrong, though.
QuadAlpha, Feb 11 2002

       This is a "perpetual motion machine" idea. The power for the induction would have to be on all the time, probably wasting a lot of energy. I'd prefer a proper mass transit system.
Turok, Feb 11 2002

       As a side benefit, you could just sprinkle pieces of metal on the road to melt ice, and when too many cars were on the same section of road, they would necessarily slow down, as they all tried to draw current from the same source. And the upshot is when you're stranded by a power outage, anyone who comes to help will be stranded too, so at least you'll have someone to talk to.
dangerousdan, Feb 11 2002

       What would be the effect of these induction coils if I tried to ride along the road on a steel bicycle. Would I have to fight the magnetic fields, would my bike heat up or start generating electricity ?
MichaelW, Jul 04 2002

       sorta reminds you of minority report. those wierd roads. it'd be really hard to get away from the police though
ShnargleMonster, Mar 03 2003

       Ever noticed the correlation between ideas with exclamation marks in the title and fishbones? (urinating dog, urinating dog)
Zircon, Mar 04 2003

       In matters of propulsion a corollary is pondered... How would one stop the vehicle?
ato_de, Mar 05 2003

       Amazing how much brain power is wasted here shooting down ideas. Giving some serious thought to this idea... Induction can't be used solely so the cars would have to have some energy storage capability, perhaps not much. Not all roads would have induction capability so this is probably a hybrid approach. Likely, trasmitting induction coils would be in sections and not all all simultaneously energized. Some sensing technology would be employed to energize the appropriate coil. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The same sensing technology would be used to bill you for your energy consumption. If we are talking about costs and efficiencies here, someone should calculate the energy spent to move the "average half tank" of gasoline the estimated 4 trillion miles per year that Americans drive (EPA estimate for year 2000). In a hybrid, this is offset of course, because there will be some fuel and some battery weight.   

       Any serious comments?
whatif, Jul 19 2003

       The fuel is mostly used in building the vehicle, typically at least 5 times as much as will ever be used by the vehicle. ie the miner must drive to the ore mine etc. Therefore anything with two motors must use more fuel than something with one. Keep that old car polished and on the road for real fuel savings.
MeWeBe, Apr 24 2007

       Have you any reliable references to back that up?   

       Don't forget to recycle the car at the end of its life too; then, the miner no longer has to drive to the ore mine.
david_scothern, Apr 24 2007

       But prolong the life of the old beater as long as possible before recycling. Even slightly higher tailpipe emissions are better than the energy waste to tear apart and melt down the old hunk-a-junk.
Hunter79764, Apr 24 2007


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle