I would think the wind resistance to operate the turbine would offset any energy gained from its operation.
—I would think the wind resistance to operate the turbine would offset any energy gained from its operation.—
No shi@ Sherlock. (No offense)
The whole thing is laughable. Next we’ll have an article from china about a guy pulling up in a wagon and selling a miracle elexer that cures everything. Lame 19th century old-west reference...
The more sophisticated the culture, the more complex the ruse must be. That is why I referred to the 1950’s Popular Science. If this was on the cover of a modern one, they would get laughed out of existence.
I mean, clearly this vehicle is really being powered by a “controllable gravitational focus receiver”. The Propeller is just a scam because it looks really cool.
As do the fins.
Bingo.
Perpetual motion devices are still frowned upon by the Patent Office.
Wouldn't it make more sense to streamline the nose of the car and reduce the air friction instead of trying to recapture the energy through a “turbine” that looks surprisingly like an old three speed fan?
The fan only helps at speeds above 40mph so for stop and go commuting it is worthless.
I would think the wind resistance to operate the turbine would offset any energy gained from its operation.
Give this guy a break! Don’t let laws of physics ruin this Chinaman’s dream. This could change the world.
It isn’t a “perpetual motion” vehicle. It is designed to recover some of the energy otherwise lost to friction when moving through the air. What that amounts to is hard to say. Maybe 5%?