Climate Change VW eUps Barcelona Spain

Published on December 9th, 2013 | by Zachary Shahan

30

8 Reasons Electric Cars Kick Your Car’s Boot

“Boot” = “trunk” in British English. It also sounds a bit like butt. Hence, the headline.

It’s no secret at all to people who own or have driven electric cars — electric cars totally kick the ass (or boot) of their gasmobile cousins. It’s not simply a matter of how nicely they drive, but there are probably a dozen reasons why we see them as being much more awesome. I’ll quickly run down 7.

1: It’s all about the pickup, baby!

From 0–60 MPH, they may not always take the top spot, but one of the most wonderful things about electric cars is their awesome pickup (aka, torque or acceleration). They offer “instant torque,” which lets you jet off the line, and often reminds me of that Star Trek spaceship jetting into hyperspeed or whatever that was called. The feeling is great, and it’s even more awesome than if a gasmobile could do it because it’s smooth and quiet at the same time. Smooth power is hard to beat!

Furthermore, it’s not just about the feeling. This excellent acceleration is super useful when doing normal driving. It makes accelerating into traffic so much easier. This offers a major improvement on what I find to be one of the least pleasant things about driving — the stressful times when you need to make a quick dart into ongoing traffic or across lanes in which traffic is going in the opposite direction.

For more on the enjoyable pickup that comes with torque-lucky electric cars, check out:

  1. Electric Cars Are Totally Bloody Awesome (Missed Messaging)
  2. Chevy Spark EV Commercial Boasts Of More Torque Than A Ferrari
  3. 2014 Chevy Spark EV Test Drive (CT Exclusive)
  4. Chevy Spark EV Kicks Chevy Spark Gas Ass, Consumer Reports Finds
  5. BMW i3 Review (+ VIDEO)
  6. Volkswagen e-Up! Review (Full Review + Test Drive Videos)
  7. Nissan Leaf vs Volkswagen e-Up! vs BMW i3 (Exclusive EV Reviews)
Nissan Leafs Barcelona Spain

Nissan Leafs spotted in the wild in Barcelona, Spain.
(This image is available for republishing and even modification under a CC BY-SA license, with the key requirement being that credit be given to Zachary Shahan / EV Obsession / CleanTechnica, and that those links not be removed.)

2: Goodbye to gas stations!

Stopping at the gas station and pumping gas = fun(!!), right? Of course not. Smelly, dirty, noisy — these are not places you want to spend weeks and weeks of your life. But they are, if you drive gasmobiles a lot. With an electric car, you can bypass that forever (more or less). In the huge majority of cases, electric car owners just plug their cars in at home in the evening (or, more common is actually to do it every other day) and then unplug the next day when they leave. The convenience of not having to go to gas stations is hard to quantify, but if you feel comfortable coming up with an hourly value for your free time, and figuring out how much time you spend at gas stations, I encourage you to give the quick math a shot!

Oil-Kills-2

3: Hello, clean air.

Some people claim to actually enjoy the smell of gasoline. But even if they do, that shit is tearing up their insides. And diesel exhaust do the same, with a number of studies proving that it causes cancer.

Electric cars? They emit nothing. :D

VW eUps Barcelona Spain

VW e-Up! electric cars at Arc de Triompf in Barcelona, Spain.
(This image is available for republishing and even modification under a CC BY-SA license, with the key requirement being that credit be given to Zachary Shahan / EV Obsession / CleanTechnica, and that those links not be removed.)

4: Global warming Jedi, they are.

Yes, bikes trump EVs in the global warming Jedi world. But if you’ve decided that you want an automobile in your household, nothing beats an electric car. Of course, if you are charging up on solar or wind power, your car has no emissions. But even if you charge on the grid, your emissions are much lower than that of a gasmobile. Also, those emissions aren’t in your house, neighborhood, etc.

Ford and SunPower inaugurate program pairing EV Focus with rooftop solar system to keep it charged


5: You can plug your can into the sun!

Want to be a true cleantech rockstar? Go solar and charge your car on energy from the sun. Gallons and gallons of light (actually, an insane number of sun rays) are waiting for you. Free to use. Clean as can be. And mighty rockstar-ish.

nissan leaf winning

6: Save massive moola!

By the way, electric cars top the list of the most fuel efficient cars on the market. They don’t just top the list — they are the list. All top 10 (and more) of the most fuel efficient cars are plug-in electric cars. With ratings like 119 MPGe, 118 MPGe, 107 MPGe, they even leave conventional hybrids in the dust.

All of that means that you are landing huge fuel savings. Furthermore, electricity is in the lowest demand at night (when most people charge their electric cars), which allows many drivers to get extremely low electricity prices at the times they charge. Of course, free public charging stations are also available in some place. And(!), if you decide to take advantage of #5 and go solar, you can save thousands or tens of thousands from your free solar fuel.

Oh yeah, you’re also helping the country to save massive amounts of money, as you’re helping to keep us out of oil wars, reducing our need to maintain a military presence in a ridiculous number of countries, and reducing oil imports from countries that don’t like us.

BMW-i3-charging-station

BMW i3 at EVS27 in Barcelona, Spain.
(This image is available for republishing and even modification under a CC BY-SA license, with the key requirement being that credit be given to Zachary Shahan / EV Obsession / CleanTechnica, and that those links not be removed.)

7: Smooth, quiet.

Well, I noted it above when talking about the smooth and quiet yet powerful acceleration that electric cars offer, but it’s worth being completely clear here: electric cars are smooth and quiet essentially all the time. If you’re addicted to the rumbling of an inefficient engine, just get over it — enjoy the peaceful, easy, enjoyable zen of a quiet and smooth electric motor.

BMW i3 Barcelona Spain

BMW i3 at Arc de Triompf in Barcelona, Spain.
(This image is available for republishing and even modification under a CC BY-SA license, with the key requirement being that credit be given to Zachary Shahan / EV Obsession / CleanTechnica, and that those links not be removed.)

8: Essentially maintenance free.

I know you love it when you have to take your car into the shop. Who doesn’t? Oil changes, broken pumps, old tubes, complicated engine problems, transmission disaster… unfortunately (if you’re masochistic), that’s all gone with electric cars. Electric motors are super simple and don’t need any of that. The only thing you’ll likely need to change are your windshield wipers, tires, and every 8 years or so, your battery (but, at that point, you’re likely to have already moved on to a new car.

Even your brakes are likely to last much, much longer thanks to the regenerative braking options that are the norm in electric vehicles.

So, I think those are 8 pretty darn good reasons to go electric. But feel free to chime in if you want to add some more (there are more out there).

Bonus for the Guys: Girls dig you more

If you’re a dude, you may also like to know that surveys have found girls are more into guys who drive clean, green, intelligent cars than guys who drive gas-guzzlers. Not a bad bonus feature.




Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

is the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular cleantech-focused website in the world, and Planetsave, a world-leading green and science news site. He has been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and he has been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, and wind energy for the past four years or so. Aside from his work on CleanTechnica and Planetsave, he's the Network Manager for their parent organization – Important Media – and he's the Owner/Founder of Solar Love, EV Obsession, and Bikocity. To connect with Zach on some of your favorite social networks, go to ZacharyShahan.com and click on the relevant buttons.



  • Ethan

    Electric car disadvantages:

    Very long fully charge time
    low range
    expensive
    unreliable
    these cars last for something like 5 years!
    almost nowhere to charge to public

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      1- not that important when you charge up at home over night (every other night, normally).
      2- “low” is relative here. the range of the Nissan LEAF is enough for ~50% of the population without them having to change their driving habits at all. Model S: much larger %. Chevy Volt or Ford Energi model: not an issue.
      3- not really. higher upfront costs, but often (probably most of the time), lower lifetime costs. i’ve run the numbers in dozens of scenarios with different cars, and it’s actually now hard to find a scenario (for the most competitive cars) where electric isn’t cheaper.
      4- now this one is a joke! :D electric cars don’t have a ton of moving parts that gasmobiles have, and are thus much more reliable. don’t need oil changes, don’t have transmissions that can break, brakes last longer, don’t have countless tubes that can bust, don’t need mufflers since they are naturally quiet, and so on and so on.
      5- again, either a ridiculous joke or you don’t know much of anything about modern electric cars.
      6- there are currently 7,954 dedicated EV charging stations in the US, and a minimum of 19,265 public charging outlets. charging stations now about double what they were a year ago, and growing fast.

  • Glamorouspk

    Cold temperatures have adverse effects on batteries, slowing down the
    incoming and outgoing flow of energy and inevitably losing some in the
    process. The 250-mile average range of an electric car in normal climate
    conditions can see its performance reduced by 70-miles on a single
    charge in average winter conditions. The colder it gets, the shorter
    than range.

    It was expected, as the EV is still need much more time to replace traditional cars, for now everything works so wonderfully in dreams!

    Cars

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Not many countries colder than Norway, and electric car models were the #1 top-selling cars there in September and October. A lot of Norwegians are loving their electric cars nonetheless. :D Electric cars now account for about 12% of Norwegian new car sales, and are expected to do much better in 2014.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      And I should also note (esp if you are making your business in cars) that technology adoption follows an exponential growth curve… so watch out: http://evobsession.com/electric-cars-may-50-way-market-domination/

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered “windmobile,” based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

    After SunWind “dried up” in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

    And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing “NO FUEL ENGINES” based on “Virtual Photon Flux;” and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered “NO FUEL ENGINES” based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava Energy was developing water-fueled engines based on “collapsing hydrogen orbitals” (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing strictly-ambient-heat-powered “NO FUEL ENGINES” (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

    But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the make-believe pretenses of Mark Goldes.

    Goldes’ forty-year career of “revolutionary invention” pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience, pseudophysics, and relentless flimflam.

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” has engaged for many years in the very dishonest and unscrupulous practice of soliciting loans and donations under an endless series of false pretenses, that it is developing and even “prototyping” various “revolutionary breakthroughs,” such as “NO FUEL ENGINES” that run on ambient heat alone – or run on “Virtual Photon Flux” – or on “Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals” – or even on the acoustic energy of sound from a horn.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe strictly ambient heat engine is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has been understood by physicists for at least 180 years. There is no “new science” that has ever determined such an engine to be possible.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe “Virtual Photon Flux” engine is based on the idea that accessible electric power “is everywhere present in unlimited quantities” – which we know to be false.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe “Collapsing Hydrogen Orbital” engine is based on Randell Mills’ theory of “hydrino” hydrogen, which every scientist knows to be false.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe horn-powered engine is based on the pretense that a magnetized tuning rod could somehow “multiply energy” – a ludicrous notion, which is obviously ruled out by the law of conservation of energy.

    Aesop Institute has never offered the slightest shadow of evidence that it is actually developing or “prototyping” any of these make-believe physics-defying “revolutionary breakthroughs.” All it has ever offered are mere declarations that it is doing so – unsupported by any proof whatever, of any kind whatever.

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    Let’s look at another example of Mark Goldes’ wonderful offerings in “revolutionary new technology:”

    The amazing “POWERGENIE!”

    One of the most laughable of Mark Goldes’ many pseudotypes is his “POWERGENIE” horn-powered generator. The brilliant idea of this revolutionary breakthrough is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of the horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

    We’re not making this up.

    POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained – from the patent:

    [The device incorporates] “an energy transfer and multiplier element being constructed of a ferromagnetic substance… having a natural resonance, due to a physical structure whose dimensions are directly proportional to the wavelength of the resonance frequency…

    “In this resonant condition, the rod material functions as a tuned waveguide, or longitudinal resonator, for acoustic energy…

    “Ferrite rod 800 is driven to acoustic resonance at the second harmonic of its fundamental resonant frequency by acoustic horn 811…”

    - But the patent doesn’t tell us who will volunteer to blow the horn at the rod all day. Perhaps it will come with an elephant.

    Mark Goldes claimed in 2008 that this wonderful triumph of human genius would bring his company, Magnetic Power Inc, one billion dollars in annual revenue by 2012. Magnetic Power is now defunct, having never produced any “Magnetic Power Modules” – just as Goldes’ company called “Room Temperature Superconductors Inc” is also now defunct, having never produced any “room temperature superconductors.”

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    In Mark Goldes’ patent application for his ludicrous “POWERGENIE” horn-powered tuning-rod engine, he described the tuning-rod as “an energy transfer and multiplier element.”

    But of course, for the tuning-rod to “multiply” energy, it would need to disprove the law of conservation of energy.

    Goldes’ use of the term “energy multiplier element” reflected his pretense that the “revolutionary breakthrough” of the amazing “POWERGENIE” could disprove the law of conservation of energy, by presenting the world with a working “energy multiplier.”

    Goldes even claimed in 2008 that the POWERGENIE had been demonstrated already in an electric car, driven 4800 miles by his energy-multiplying horn-powered tuning-rod.

    But it seems that most people, for some reason, had difficulty accepting the notion that the law of conservation of energy could be proven false.

    And Goldes no doubt noticed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics – that “the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase with time and can never decrease” – is much less clear to most people than the conservation of energy.

    So now, after leaving aside the pretense that he could somehow “multiply energy” with a magnetized tuning-rod, Goldes has chosen to focus, instead, on the pretense that he can disprove the Second Law with an engine powered only by ambient heat.

    There is no “new science” in any of Goldes’ “revolutionary breakthroughs.” There is only pseudoscience and pretense – and nothing new, at all.

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    Mark Goldes’ proofless claims regarding his make-believe strictly ambient heat engine do not represent any new technology, or even a new pretense – they merely represent a rather old pretense.

    “Before the establishment of the Second Law, many people who were interested in inventing a perpetual motion machine had tried to circumvent the restrictions of First Law of Thermodynamics by extracting the massive internal energy of the environment as the power of the machine. Such a machine is called a “perpetual motion machine of the second kind”. The second law declared the impossibility of such machines.”

    “A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved… This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.”

    Goldes’ make-believe strictly ambient heat engine would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, as defined above. Goldes is not developing any such engine; he is merely developing a pretense – as usual.

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    The Kelvin-Planck formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as follows:

    “No cyclic process driven simply by heat can accomplish the absorption of the heat from a reservoir and the conversion of such heat into work – without any other result (such as a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir).”

    Now, as you will see, the Clausius formulation of the Second Law may be stated with fewer words:

    “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.”

    In fact, we can show that the Kelvin-Planck formulation may be deduced from that of Clausius. In the words of Enrico Fermi:

    “Suppose that Kelvin’s postulate were not valid. Then we could perform a transformation whose only final result would be to transform completely into work a definite amount of heat taken from a single source at the temperature t1. By means of friction we could then transform this work into heat again and with this heat raise the temperature of a given body, regardless of what its initial temperature, t2, may have been. In particular, we could take t2 to be higher than t1. Thus, the only final result of this process would be the transfer of heat from one body (the source at temperature t1) to another body at a higher temperature, t2. This would be a violation of the Clausius postulate.”

    Can anyone make a teapot that boils water by absorbing heat from blocks of ice?

    • Mark Euthanasius

      Physicz Headquarterz, of course they can’t. The Second Law is a law because all macroscale attempts to falsify it have themselves failed. If Mr. Goldes had a method to construct a working passive refrigerator as he has falsely claimed in the past and falsely claims now, nature as we know it would be a vastly different than it is.

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    Max Planck, in his “Treatise On Thermodynamics,” explains how the Second Law of Thermodynamics “may be deduced from a single simple law of experience about which there is no doubt.” Here is the “single simple law of experience” he proposes:

    “It is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a complete cycle, and produce no effect except the raising of a weight and the cooling of a heat-reservoir.”

    This “law of experience” is very similar to a principle suggested by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin):

    “It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.”

    The “simple law of experience” offered by Planck is therefore commonly known as the “Kelvin-Planck statement” of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But we see from Planck’s “Treatise” that Planck himself did not quite regard it as a statement of the Second Law, but rather as a “starting point” or postulate from which the Second Law may be deduced.

    Here is Planck’s rendition of the Second Law itself:

    “The second law of thermodynamics states that there exists in nature for each system of bodies a quantity, which by all changes of the system either remains constant (in reversible processes) or increases in value (in irreversible processes). This quantity is called, following Clausius, the entropy of the system.”

  • Physicz Headquarterz

    Mark Goldes’ latest adventure in flimflam is to declare that a “FUEL-FREE TURBINE invented by a Russian scientist runs on atmospheric pressure.”

    But when we read the patent, we find that actually the turbine does NOT run on atmospheric pressure – it requires compressed air. This is clearly indicated even in the article by Kondrashov posted by Goldes on his flimflam website. Kondrashov says:

    “To create a sample of such an engine, you can use ready-made devices, such as a load-bearing element – a low-power turbine module turboshaft turbine engine, and to compress the air… any type of compressor…”

    Kondrashov filed his patent application in 2003. No patent was awarded.

    The proposed turbine was dependent on an external supply of compressed air – not just air at atmospheric pressure. Kondrashov’s basic idea was to use part of the power of the turbine to produce additional compressed air to be used to supplement the external supply. Is there any value in this idea? No. It will actually result in a net loss of energy rather than a net gain. It is exactly analogous to trying to use a generator to power a motor to spin the generator to power the motor to spin the generator. It doesn’t work.

    Mark Goldes assures us in his note prefacing Kondrashov’s article that “We understand the science behind this jet engine.” But since he incorrectly describes it as an engine powered by “atmospheric pressure” – which it certainly is not – in fact he shows that he doesn’t even understand that the engine requires a supply of compressed air in order to spin at all.

    • Physicz Headquarterz

      I meant to say, “When we read the patent Application…” No patent was ever awarded.

    • Mark Goldes

      The lies and distortions posted by this individual, an internet troll, in defiance of the facts, have the potential to ruin millions of lives and could potentially cost the world many billions of dollars.

      The new technology on the AESOP Institute website provides hope for humanity. To quote Bill Nye, The Science Guy: “the planet will always be here. But will we?”

      When this new technology is tested and independently validated there will be a great rush to the other side of the opinion boat, a great “hurrah” as fossil fuel is replaced in
      hundreds of applications.

      In the word of the inventor of the NO FUEL PISTON ENGINE: “Once a prototype of this remarkable engine is validated, the thermodynamic analyses coupled with about two centuries of mechanical experience will put us on track to commercialization of
      energy available from the environment without cost – ranging from the “one hamster power” of the first prototype – to tens of thousands of
      horsepower. Variations will run railroad
      locomotives and ocean freighters and stationary electric power plants.”

      “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” Stephen Hawking

      See http://www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more. My coordinates are on the website, feel free to contact me.

      • Kelfin Planck

        Anyone who reveals the truth about Mark Goldes’ forty year career in flimflam will be accused by Goldes of “telling lies.” But Goldes is the one who has posted thousands of comments falsely declaring that he is developing “revolutionary breakthroughs” – when all he has ever developed is one elaborate pretense after another.

        There is not “new technology” in any of Goldes’ pretended make-believe “prototypes.” There is only pretense and flimflam and pseudoscience, and nothing more.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        Mr. Goldes you have made false claims that your companies possessed “revolutionary technologies” for many years. None of your claimed “revolutionary technologies” has ever been proven. You have falsely claimed any number of magnetic free energy devices, later ambient heat free energy devices, and non-existent sub ground state hydrogen free energy devices that would result in automobile engines that do not require fuel. Each and every of your technology claims has been false.

    • Mark Goldes

      Wrong. The engine does not run on an external supply of air. Kondrashov states the engine provides the compressed air, and this critic ASSUMES it is supplied from another source. The critic is only coming from the
      traditional point of view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an absolute barrier; everything he says flows from this assumption, including the false reading that the compressed air must be supplied to the engine. Of course, a generator that runs a motor to spin a generator won’t work; Kondrashov is not doing anything like this hokey idea. Again, the critic is assuming things without investigating what he’s reading.

      The description of the Kondrashov engine running on atmospheric pressure is an
      oversimplification. It is intellectual property and we won’t divulge the fine details. To stand
      firm in the face of these wild statements, we are clear how Kondrashov made his jet engine work, and those details are privately identified. In time, through patent application or otherwise, it will be revealed to all.

      • Kelfin Planck

        I didn’t “assume” anything – and we don’t require any “fine details” to see that there is no “breakthrough” here. All the detail we need is in Kondrashov’s patent application. It seems you have never read it. Why don’t try reading it – maybe then you’ll understand that the proposed engine is not powered by “atmospheric pressure” as you imagine:

        http://www.google.com/patents/US20070114330

        Under “Claims 1:”

        “…kinetic energy of the obtained joined jet mass is used for creating a moment of rotation on the power shaft, characterized in that the working medium is presented by external gaseous masses, which before being fed to the jet device for forming an active jet are compressed in a compressor to the calculated level of pressure sufficient for creating rarefaction in the adding device…”

        Somewhere else he says:

        “To set the above engine in operation, it is necessary to create pressure of working medium (e.g. air) in pneumatic accumulator 18. The compressed air is fed through check valve 19 and/or 20. On the calculated pressure level being reached, valve 21 is switched in use, which provides a calculated duration of flowing of compressed air out of the jet nozzle with a preset periodicity.”

        “…compressed gases instead of combustion products are used as the working medium…”

        There are many other statements that make it plain that “atmospheric pressure” does not power the engine.

        This application was filed in 2003 and was not awarded any patent. In fact it does seem to contain several inconsistent and self-contradictory statements. What is very clear is that nothing but compressed air is ever going to make the engine start turning. So you can choose whichever interpretation you prefer: either it’s a compressed-air engine that requires an external source of compressed air but at least is able to start spinning, or it’s a compressed-air engine with no external external source of compressed air that will never begin to spin at all. To be as generous as possible to Kondrachov I chose the first interpretation. But as I tried to explain with an analogy, Kondrachov’s idea of supplementing the compressed air supply by using the turbine itself to produce more compressed air is not going to prove effective. Maybe that’s why no patent was ever awarded.

      • Kelfin Planck

        In his “List of Drawings,” Kondrachov mentions “inlet valves 26, 27.” If you look at the drawing you can easily see these inlet valves. They are obviously inlet valves for compressed air. As you can see, they lead to what Kondrachov calls “pneumatic accumulator” 18 – a compressed air tank. If the engine does not require any external supply of compressed air, what do you think the inlet valves are for? And what is going to make the turbine ever start spinning in the first place? Exactly I said before: Kondrashov’s basic idea was to use part of the power of the turbine to produce additional compressed air to be used to supplement the external supply. This is obvious not only from the patent application but even from Kondrachov’s article. You claim you “understand the science” of the engine – but you haven’t even grasped it at the most basic level.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        Mr. Goldes: You have no working engine period. You have a 40 year history of pitching flim flam to gullible investors. Each time you pitch one of your nonsense claims you make the false representation that a commercial product is just around the corner. No such thing has ever been true.

      • Kelfin Planck

        In his patent application, Kondrashov states:

        “To set the above engine in operation, it is necessary to create pressure of working medium (e.g. air) in pneumatic accumulator 18. The compressed air is fed through check valve 19 and/or 20.”

        Kondrashov’s “List of Drawings” refers to “check valve 19 for feeding the working medium compressed by external devices.” As shown by the previous quote, the “working medium” is air. Therefore it is evident that “external device” would be an air compressor, just as I said.

        You claimed in your note attached to prefacing Kondrashov’s article that “we understand the science” of the engine – but your many incorrect statements, contradicting Kondrashov, show that in fact you do not understand the engine at all.

        • Mark Goldes

          Mr. Critic, I apologize for missing your opening statement where you say Kondrashov is supplementing the engine with an outside source of compressed
          air. With your persistence in latter posts about the compressed air supply, I forgot your original comment. Implying a misquote is a
          standard of honesty is completely inappropriate.
          We all make mistakes.

          For you to say that ports 26 & 27 are the compressed air inlets, when port 19 is the only way high pressure air can be inserted into the
          engine, shows your hasty assessment and inappropriateness to critique
          this invention. Even if this is a mistake of yours, it still is a poor indication of your suitability to assess the
          invention. I do not gripe that you made a mistake; I do resent that you assume a posture of having superior knowledge. You have hereby disqualified yourself!

          The description of Kondrashov’s engine as a Brayton Cycle was to
          orient the public readership following this exchange to the comparable mechanism in standard technology. If you recall, it was clarification
          that the compressor was inside the engine, not
          definitely outside, that Kondrashov may have been talking exclusively about the inner compressor. Implying necessary fuel in the cycle by the label of a Brayton Cycle is trying to twist my words.

          Demanding conventional performance is not the same thing as inquiring how this invention could possibly work. You are trying to demand what it isn’t instead of finding out what it is.

          Without letting this spiral into further argument, I finalize
          this reply, addressing the public.

          Readers: beware of persistent attacks. Anyone who wishes to challenge the science of a new source of
          energy must keep the discussion collegial.

          Persisting that something is
          impossible is not collegial,
          Would you like this fellow to review your invention or new product without looking at or clearly understanding the details?

          Remember, Lord Kelvin stated
          airplanes were nonsense, just 4 years before two bicycle mechanics proved the greatest scientist of the 1800s was wrong. Kelvin said human flight like a bird was impossible. Minds are like parachutes; they only
          work when they are open.

          Those interested might enjoy SECOND LAW PAPER ADDED on the AESOP Institute website.

          • Kelfin Planck

            Mark Goldes has recently started declaring that a “FUEL-FREE TURBINE invented by a Russian scientist runs on atmospheric pressure.”

            But when we read the patent application, we find that actually the turbine does NOT run on atmospheric pressure – it requires compressed air. This is clearly indicated even in the article by Kondrashov posted by Goldes on his flimflam website. Kondrashov says:

            “To create a sample of such an engine, you can use ready-made devices, such as a load-bearing element – a low-power turbine module turboshaft turbine engine, and to compress the air… any type of compressor…”

            Kondrashov filed his patent application in 2003. No patent was awarded.

            Mark Goldes assures us in his note prefacing Kondrashov’s article that “We understand the science behind this jet engine.” But since he incorrectly describes it as an engine powered by “atmospheric pressure” – which it certainly is not – in fact he shows that he doesn’t even understand that the engine requires a supply of compressed air in order to spin at all.

            Although Kondrashov does pretend in some of his statements that the turbine will be powered by “atmospheric pressure,” in fact it is evident from his application that the proposed turbine is made to spin only by the use of compressed air.

            In his patent application, Kondrashov states:

            “To set the above engine in operation, it is necessary to create pressure of working medium (e.g. air) in pneumatic accumulator 18. The compressed air is fed through check valve 19 and/or 20.”

            Thus, Kondrashov indicates that an external compressor must be used to fill the turbine’s compressed air tank before the turbine can be started. But he seems to expect that once the turbine starts to spin, there will be no further reliance on the external compressor – the spinning turbine itself will compress the air that is making the turbine spin. So despite his own false description of the turbine as making use of “low-grade atmospheric energy,” what Kondrashov actually presents in his patent application is a perpetual motion machine in the form of a self-powered air compressor. This is probably the reason why no patent was awarded. It is exactly analogous to trying to use a generator to power a motor to spin the generator to power the motor to spin the generator. It doesn’t work.

  • Mark Goldes

    Thanks for a great article!

    NO FUEL PISTON ENGINE and FUEL-FREE TURBINE at http://www.aesopinstitute.org describe
    engines that need no fuel and open the door to decentralized power, as well as hybrid cars that have unlimited range – paying for themselves by selling
    electricity to utilities.

    The challenge is to accelerate the development and mass production of these hard-to-believe new technologies.

    No government funding is needed. A small segment of the private sector will move prototypes toward completion and independent validation at modest cost.

    Once proven, the market dimensions insure the fast activity required to supersede coal and all fossil fuels.

    These engines will utilize two huge sleeper sources of green energy – namely atmospheric heat and atmospheric pressure.

    Nikola Tesla suggested the use of atmospheric heat in 1900. Jacob Wainwright, an unsung American scientist, wrote paper after paper starting in 1902 showing how it might be done. Both were ignored until recently.

    An American inventor has designed a piston engine (patent pending) that uses atmospheric heat. A Russian inventor developed the early version of the turbine designed to run on atmospheric pressure.

    Imagine the impact on the sale of hybrid-electric cars as a result of these highly improbable innovations.

  • randygrenier

    Mean, clean, driving machines! Cool article.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks! :D

  • Energysage

    We think electric cars are great. However you can save even more when you combine solar panels on your home with the car to double your savings! http://bit.ly/13ps3Ml

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Yep, #5 & 6 on our list :D

Back to Top ↑