There’s a certain post that floats around the Internet with some regularity, and it caught my eye. It shows us a Chevy Bolt with what appears to be some kind of generating apparatus attached to the rear wheel. The post states that the rotation of the car’s wheel is used to recharge the EV’s battery as it drives along, avoiding charging stops and paying for electricity! Genius, right?
And yet, we know that’s too good to be true. If slapping an alternator on the rear wheels was enough to make electric cars run forever, everyone would be doing it. We’d never burn a drop of petrol again.
You might be wondering, though, precisely why this doesn’t work. Or, you might have a rough idea, but you want to be able to definitively explain to family and friends why this isn’t the magical solution to all of America’s transport woes. Today, we’ll dive into thermodynamics and examine what’s really going on here. Don’t worry—it’s easy! Plus, we’ll even try and figure out why someone might have built this in the first place!
Thermodynamics Is Not a Dirty Word
Let’s start by examining what we have here. We have the rear wheel of the car connected via a belt drive to what appears to be an alternator or generator of some sort. When it spins, it makes electricity. That electricity could of course be put to use charging a battery.
That all makes sense. But does this mean we should all be putting generators on our EVs to drive forever? Well, no. Because no matter how much energy you get out of the generator, you’re spending more power to turn it using the car’s motor. It’s simply not possible for the generator to produce more energy than the Bolt’s motor had to spend to get it turning in the first place.
Let’s make a diagram. I’m using the terms “kinetic energy” and “mechanical energy” to mean basically the same thing—energy from motion. It’s a little simplified, but it should give you an idea of how this all goes down.
It all comes down to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of energy. In very basic terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one kind to another, but you can’t create new energy.
This is why perpetual motion machines, free energy machines, and this “wheel generator” concept don’t work, and simply cannot work. If you had some kind of rotating machine which rotated forever, and you could get some kind of work out of it – say, by having it turn a generator – it would be creating energy. That’s simply not possible, due to the laws of physics. For the same reason, you can’t put a generator on your car’s wheel, recharge the car’s battery via the electricity generated, and drive forever.
In the case of the Bolt, the electric motor converts the electrical energy from the battery into motion. It accelerates the vehicle and spins the generator. The generator then turns rotational energy back into electrical energy again. All the energy coming out of the generator originally came from the EV’s battery itself. The generator didn’t make any energy, it just converted energy from one type to another.
A further lesson that thermodynamics teaches us is that every time we convert energy from one type to another, we lose some. For example, a light bulb turns electricity into light, but we also lose some as heat. Combustion engines turn chemical energy into motion, but they also have losses through heat and noise.
It’s the same case here. The energy from the EV’s battery is converted multiple times, each time with some level of efficiency less than 100%. The EV’s motor doesn’t turn 100% of the battery energy into forward propulsion, and the generator doesn’t turn 100% of the rotational energy it harvests into electricity. Even if you feed its output back into the EV battery, you’d be getting less energy out of the generator than you were spending to turn it in the first place.
Simply put, turning the generator adds to the load on the vehicle’s drive motor. The EV’s motor has to work harder to push the car down the road because this generator is now on the back siphoning energy off the rear wheel. It’s thus drawing more energy from the traction battery than it otherwise would if there was no generator hanging off the wheel. Whatever energy you get out of the generator will be less than you’re spending to turn it.
But What About Regenerative Braking?
It is worth remembering, as well, that EVs have ways of turning rotational kinetic energy into electricity anyway. It’s called regenerative braking, and in itself, it perfectly explains why a wheel-attached generator won’t give you free unlimited energy.
When an EV engages regenerative braking, it essentially turns its motor into a generator that is attached to the wheels. What happens? Applying the load of the generator to the wheels slows the vehicle down. It turns the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy to charge the battery. The generator can’t run without slowing the vehicle down. The electrical energy has to come from somewhere!
Naturally, there are some losses involved in the conversion. You can’t accelerate up to speed, then regeneratively brake, and get all the energy back. Some energy is lost in overcoming rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, and some is lost through electrical resistance in the electronics and as heat through the motor. Similarly, as the generator converts rotating motion to electricity, there are more heat losses in the electronics, motor, and battery in turn.
Sure, you might say that this rear wheel generator would generate electricity if the vehicle was going downhill, using no battery power to accelerate the vehicle. Yes, that’s true. But the Bolt’s electric motor is already capable of acting as a generator in that case anyway. Plus, you’re still not getting energy for free. You had to spend energy to get the Bolt to the top of a hill in the first place before you could reap the energy by rolling back down.
Many Such Cases
There are all kinds of “simple” and “free” sources of energy touted in snappy little videos on the Internet. For example, one touted the idea of putting turbines inside water pipes to get “free” electricity from the flow of water. Of course, this would be completely pointless for a great many water pipes, as their flow is generated by the city’s water pumps. The pumps would have to work harder to overcome the resistance presented by the turbines, using more energy than the turbines could generate.
Another example that is often bandied about is the use of an “HHO gas generator” to make a combustion-fueled car more efficient. This involves using a car’s electrical system to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. The mixture is then fed into a car’s intake to promote “cleaner” or “more efficient” combustion. Here’s the thing, though—even if the gas injection did improve combustion, you wouldn’t be getting out ahead. The energy required to split the gas would outweigh any potential energy you’d get back out of it when it passes through the engine.
What’s Really Going On
The post shown at the start of this article is actually not the original. Somebody saw the photo of this vehicle and made an assumption about what was going on. Then, they spun their tale of free recharging that apparently Big EV was too stupid to implement.
The original photo was actually made by a user called rhinnaflor on Reddit, a full five years ago. Posting to r/whatisthisthing, they asked as to the use of this contraption. There are some compelling theories in the comments, and they don’t violate thermodynamic principles.
Belt contraption attached to the rear wheel of a Chevy Bolt
byu/rhinnaflor inwhatisthisthing
AJ_Mexico pointed out that the Chevy Bolt may be a “dingy” vehicle that is typically towed behind an RV. With modern cars, it’s often recommended to tow them while switched on. However, this can drain the vehicle’s 12-volt battery over time if it is towed for many hours. The theory was that the system attached to the rear wheel was a simple alternator that had been hooked up to keep the Bolt’s 12-volt battery charged while it was being towed with its rear wheels on the ground. This wouldn’t do anything for the main traction battery, and thus it wouldn’t improve the vehicle’s range. It’d just keep the 12-volt battery topped off, though you’d normally expect the Bolt’s traction battery would do a fine job of that already.
Naturally, this energy still isn’t free. The mechanical resistance of the generator would make the RV towing the Bolt expend more fuel—marginally—than if the generator wasn’t connected. Of course, there are easier ways to handle this task, too. One could simply fit a 12-volt solar battery tender to the Bolt, or hook up some kind of power line from the RV’s own supply. These would be much simpler.
Others suggest it might be some kind of instrumentation for data collection, but I’m not sure I buy that. It’s a very janky install, and the belt drive wouldn’t be super great for accurately tracking the wheel’s motion without slipping. It’d only be worse in wet conditions and when there’s any amount of suspension travel.
If we zoom in further, though, this case gets more mysterious. There appears to be a fuel filler neck, or maybe some kind of cabling, tucked under the rear bumper of the car. Commenters speculated as to whether some kind of standalone combustion generator might have been installed underneath as a range extender, but the jury is out as to the truth.
It’s very difficult to definitively pin down what is going on in this image. Our best guess is that it’s some kind of wheel-powered electrical generator, but for what reason, we can’t say. If you’ve seen anything like this before, or you know the car in question, perhaps you could shed some light on the matter for all of us.
Ultimately, I hope you found this article educational. You should have a better idea of why you can’t get unlimited range from slapping a generator on your car’s rear wheels. You might even feel confident enough to call out others who bandy about these long-disproven ideas. As much knowledge as there is out there on the Internet, free energy and perpetual motion ideas will seemingly never die. All we can do is call them out and have a chuckle when we see them.
Image credits: via Reddit, via AliExpress, Chevrolet
My favorite depiction of a perpetual motion vehicle was an image of a car being pulled forward by a giant cartoon magnet suspended from the car by a pole. Wile E. Coyote would have been proud.
Do we really need a detailed explanation of why adding an alternator to your tire doesn’t turn your car into a perpetual motion machine?
I don’t mean to be a jerk, but anyone who thinks this would work is an idiot.
I’m feeling mildly insulted by the implication that readers of this website (i.e. me) need an explanation of why this wouldn’t work.
Don’t take it personally!
We have lots of highly educated readers on this website, lots of people that work in engineering, physics, or other fields.
We also have people educated in different disciplines, talented in all kinds of different ways who maybe didn’t take high school physics.
They can spot something like this, and know that it’s silly, but they might not be able to articulate why. This article’s for them!
Fair enough. I suppose there is value in explaining the science to those who intuitively know it won’t work but can’t articulate why. This reminds me of an irritable professor I had in medical school. He had a giant sign in his office that said “teach the ignorant… ignore the stupid.” Not knowing basic concepts is fine if you never had a reason to have learn those concepts. Not attempting to learn basic concepts because you assume you already know everything is not okay.
I’m still surprised there are actual adult humans who look at something like this and think it is a brilliant idea. Those people are probably best ignored.
I was recently driven by an actual degree qualified engineer in his e-Golf. He was worried about range so continually accelerated then coasted so he could “charge up on regen”.
Me and the other passenger were also degree qualified engineers, but couldn’t get him to accept that conservation of energy is a thing.
Do we really need a detailed explanation of why adding an alternator to your tire doesn’t turn your car into a perpetual motion machine?
I don’t mean to be a jerk, but anyone who thinks this would work is an idiot.
I’m feeling mildly insulted by the implication that readers of this website (i.e. me) need an explanation of why this wouldn’t work.
Don’t take it personally!
We have lots of highly educated readers on this website, lots of people that work in engineering, physics, or other fields.
We also have people educated in different disciplines, talented in all kinds of different ways who maybe didn’t take high school physics.
They can spot something like this, and know that it’s silly, but they might not be able to articulate why. This article’s for them!
Fair enough. I suppose there is value in explaining the science to those who intuitively know it won’t work but can’t articulate why. This reminds me of an irritable professor I had in medical school. He had a giant sign in his office that said “teach the ignorant… ignore the stupid.” Not knowing basic concepts is fine if you never had a reason to have learn those concepts. Not attempting to learn basic concepts because you assume you already know everything is not okay.
I’m still surprised there are actual adult humans who look at something like this and think it is a brilliant idea. Those people are probably best ignored.
I was recently driven by an actual degree qualified engineer in his e-Golf. He was worried about range so continually accelerated then coasted so he could “charge up on regen”.
Me and the other passenger were also degree qualified engineers, but couldn’t get him to accept that conservation of energy is a thing.
Clearly perpetual motion machines are fantasy. But what’s the longest an attempt at a super efficient one could actually run for. Seconds, minutes, days?
It depends how you define the Work that your machine is doing (make it something very very small), how much energy you start with or the energy sink that the machine is actually pulling from (something big), and how much you can minimize friction and other losses.
This is a fascinating example, running for 160 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Clock
The earth has been going around the sun for 4.5 billion years, or 6,000 years if you’re not good at science.
Clearly perpetual motion machines are fantasy. But what’s the longest an attempt at a super efficient one could actually run for. Seconds, minutes, days?
It depends how you define the Work that your machine is doing (make it something very very small), how much energy you start with or the energy sink that the machine is actually pulling from (something big), and how much you can minimize friction and other losses.
This is a fascinating example, running for 160 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Clock
The earth has been going around the sun for 4.5 billion years, or 6,000 years if you’re not good at science.
The water main generators could work, but there’s a few problems.
Many municipalities create water pressure by using gravity, i.e. a tower. They pump water up into the tower all day long, while demand is low. Then, every weekday morning demand for water goes nuts and the towers empty. Theoretically, you could harness energy from this falling water just like a hydroelectric plant does. This is the only time of day it would work because it’s the only time of day that the water is actually flowing, as opposed to just being statically pressurized.
But oh yeah, the water needs to be chlorinated, otherwise nasty stuff can get in there. Whatever generating equipment you stuff into the water main needs to be able to deal with that. Plus, you’d have to figure out how to get the electricity out of the main and into the grid. This would essentially make the ductile iron water main live, along with every fixture attached to it. So you reach for the faucet and get electricuted.
Um, wouldn’t solar panels and wind turbines just be a whole lot easier?
A correction here: pumps run at night to fill up water towers, as that is when demand is lowest.
There are many ways to convert the kinetic energy of water flow in a pipe into electricity without energizing the pipe. An electric impeller pump is basically doing the reverse and doesn’t add any shock risk to the pipe. A modern hydroelectric dam is literally doing this. And any energized metal water pipe in ground contact would have the voltage disappated, as it’s literally what millions of home electrical systems use as their ground path.
That makes sense. But the EPA will never let anyone fool around with the potable water supply.
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
The water main generators could work, but there’s a few problems.
Many municipalities create water pressure by using gravity, i.e. a tower. They pump water up into the tower all day long, while demand is low. Then, every weekday morning demand for water goes nuts and the towers empty. Theoretically, you could harness energy from this falling water just like a hydroelectric plant does. This is the only time of day it would work because it’s the only time of day that the water is actually flowing, as opposed to just being statically pressurized.
But oh yeah, the water needs to be chlorinated, otherwise nasty stuff can get in there. Whatever generating equipment you stuff into the water main needs to be able to deal with that. Plus, you’d have to figure out how to get the electricity out of the main and into the grid. This would essentially make the ductile iron water main live, along with every fixture attached to it. So you reach for the faucet and get electricuted.
Um, wouldn’t solar panels and wind turbines just be a whole lot easier?
A correction here: pumps run at night to fill up water towers, as that is when demand is lowest.
There are many ways to convert the kinetic energy of water flow in a pipe into electricity without energizing the pipe. An electric impeller pump is basically doing the reverse and doesn’t add any shock risk to the pipe. A modern hydroelectric dam is literally doing this. And any energized metal water pipe in ground contact would have the voltage disappated, as it’s literally what millions of home electrical systems use as their ground path.
That makes sense. But the EPA will never let anyone fool around with the potable water supply.
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
The people that think things like this might work are the same people who think they can triple their fuel economy by putting one of those vortex generators between the intake and throttle body.
No, to triple it you need the generators in sequence so the air has no opportunity to NOT be a vortex.
That’s where they screw up. Everyone knows the vortex generators are supposed to be installed in the exhaust pipe, a minimum of 2 inches from the cat converter. People be stupid.
The people that think things like this might work are the same people who think they can triple their fuel economy by putting one of those vortex generators between the intake and throttle body.
No, to triple it you need the generators in sequence so the air has no opportunity to NOT be a vortex.
That’s where they screw up. Everyone knows the vortex generators are supposed to be installed in the exhaust pipe, a minimum of 2 inches from the cat converter. People be stupid.
I had a generator to the wheel on a bicycle as a child. ( They still sell them) A rider would flip it down to contact the rim, to run your headlight. The faster the rider peddled. The brighter the light. I think that may be in part where the idea comes from. However. A train locomotive can move 1 ton of product 500 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Using a motor to drive a generator for power. I read where Chevy Volt has that theory working to make it more efficient. I don’t understand why all manufactures don’t utilize train drive tech. Of course a train also has the benefit of less friction to track than these oversized tires on new cars. A train ( if you look at train tracks next time your out walking) you will notice they are convex the shiny part in the track that you see between the rust on the track is all the train contacts. (About an inch and a half of shine.) Have you noticed how tires have gotten wider, adding more road friction as energy becomes more efficient from engines and electric cars. I don’t think anyone is designing tires to increase energy savings.
Everybody does.
https://www.michelinman.com/auto/browse-tires/by-category/efficiency
https://www.goodyear.com/en_US/tires/assurance-fuel-max/28.html
https://www.bridgestonetire.com/our-tires/tire-brand/ecopia/
https://www.hankooktire.com/us/en/tire/ion/evo-as.html
Meeting the OE benchmarks for ride, comfort, handling AND low rolling resistance is one of the most challenging parts of new tyre design currently. It is very difficult to make a tyre with acceptably low rolling resistance whilst still hitting performance metrics for handling.
The OE low rolling tires on my Fusion hybrid were entirely adequate as far as ride, comfort, and handling.
However, they were completely worthless at the first hint of snow. The slight MPG hit versus true four season capability, worth it.
Yep, and this would be because the OEM has put only a low priority on snow performance relative to other metrics.
Always wondered this. The UP class presenter I went to some years ago said 660ish miles to move a ton with a gallon, but regardless, each of those figures is fantastic. I’ll never be able to afford one, but those figures are what excite me about that Ram coming out. Train tech coming to the street.
It ain’t dumb if it works. And trains have been a testbed of the theory for a little bit.
I had a generator to the wheel on a bicycle as a child. ( They still sell them) A rider would flip it down to contact the rim, to run your headlight. The faster the rider peddled. The brighter the light. I think that may be in part where the idea comes from. However. A train locomotive can move 1 ton of product 500 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Using a motor to drive a generator for power. I read where Chevy Volt has that theory working to make it more efficient. I don’t understand why all manufactures don’t utilize train drive tech. Of course a train also has the benefit of less friction to track than these oversized tires on new cars. A train ( if you look at train tracks next time your out walking) you will notice they are convex the shiny part in the track that you see between the rust on the track is all the train contacts. (About an inch and a half of shine.) Have you noticed how tires have gotten wider, adding more road friction as energy becomes more efficient from engines and electric cars. I don’t think anyone is designing tires to increase energy savings.
Everybody does.
https://www.michelinman.com/auto/browse-tires/by-category/efficiency
https://www.goodyear.com/en_US/tires/assurance-fuel-max/28.html
https://www.bridgestonetire.com/our-tires/tire-brand/ecopia/
https://www.hankooktire.com/us/en/tire/ion/evo-as.html
Meeting the OE benchmarks for ride, comfort, handling AND low rolling resistance is one of the most challenging parts of new tyre design currently. It is very difficult to make a tyre with acceptably low rolling resistance whilst still hitting performance metrics for handling.
The OE low rolling tires on my Fusion hybrid were entirely adequate as far as ride, comfort, and handling.
However, they were completely worthless at the first hint of snow. The slight MPG hit versus true four season capability, worth it.
Always wondered this. The UP class presenter I went to some years ago said 660ish miles to move a ton with a gallon, but regardless, each of those figures is fantastic. I’ll never be able to afford one, but those figures are what excite me about that Ram coming out. Train tech coming to the street.
It ain’t dumb if it works. And trains have been a testbed of the theory for a little bit.
Every time I meet someone who insists that I should “give people the benefit of the doubt”, I see something like the title image, and I lose so many brain cells that I forget I was just told to give people the benefit of the doubt
Every time I meet someone who insists that I should “give people the benefit of the doubt”, I see something like the title image, and I lose so many brain cells that I forget I was just told to give people the benefit of the doubt
I haven’t read the article, because I don’t need to.
/Old man rant on
However, the fact it needed written makes me genuinely sad for the human race. When did intelligence become a dirty word? Why do we celebrate people who clearly despise the education and science that got our civilization to where it is? I’m not sure, but I feel like not long ago, dumb people knew they were dumb, and at least desired to improve and not advertise it, and respected experts. Now we celebrate stupidity, and it’s growing like a plague.
/Old man rant off
I can understand it’s confronting to know that some people believe in these things.
But there are lots of people that get this is silly, but maybe they don’t understand exactly why. Not everyone had the chance to take high school physics, or pick up an engineering degree.
This article is for someone that’s curious and wants to know more. There’s lots of them out there!
Oh, I understood the intent. Educate the masses! You are doing good work!
I haven’t read the article, because I don’t need to.
/Old man rant on
However, the fact it needed written makes me genuinely sad for the human race. When did intelligence become a dirty word? Why do we celebrate people who clearly despise the education and science that got our civilization to where it is? I’m not sure, but I feel like not long ago, dumb people knew they were dumb, and at least desired to improve and not advertise it, and respected experts. Now we celebrate stupidity, and it’s growing like a plague.
/Old man rant off
I can understand it’s confronting to know that some people believe in these things.
But there are lots of people that get this is silly, but maybe they don’t understand exactly why. Not everyone had the chance to take high school physics, or pick up an engineering degree.
This article is for someone that’s curious and wants to know more. There’s lots of them out there!
Oh, I understood the intent. Educate the masses! You are doing good work!
“It all comes down to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of energy. In very basic terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one kind to another, but you can’t create new energy.”
E=mc2
Checkmate, bitches
Except that mass is still just a form of energy, as the equation states.
I suppose if we dig deep into cosmology we can find all sorts of weird things that violate this, e.g. dark energy, antimatter annihilation, etc.
Matter/Antimatter does not violate thermodynamics. It would be the fastest way to convert mass to energy though!
Dark matter / dark energy? Who the F knows…
Oh I was thinking about the pairing and annihilation that occur right above event horizons. Since energy and mass aren’t conserved if some from those pairings fall into a black hole, the radiation shall count as free energy… Though it’s more of an accounting trick than anything.
Right… Hawking radiation it’s called.
So far dark energy seems to be the best candidate for free energy out of nowhere. I remember the Hi-Z team announced it back in the 90s. It was nuts.
But, even in Hawking radiation, the energy is conserved. Hawking showed that the energy of the escaping particle is essentially taken from the black hole. The black hole will lose energy (therefore lose mass) from this type of radiation. This was one fascinating conclusion of Hawking’s work, it means that, eventually, once the cosmic microwave background radiation (the “ambient” energy of the universe) falls below a certain point, that Black Holes would actually lose more energy to Hawking radiation energy than they would collect. This would result in Black Holes eventually “evaporating” away. (in Trillions of years?)
So the current theory seems to be that energy is not lost into a black hole forever, it is merely temporarily stored in the Black Hole, to be slowly returned later, at the end of time…
was waiting for that, but as JB996 says – effectively, mass is just energy
Last week my kids were taking their middle school physics final when I was watching a documentary on dark energy with them. I had to repeatedly tell them that as far as they are concerned, mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed… Nor converted.
Excellent guidance for middle school.
7th grade teacher: If I drop an apple from 1 meter high, how long until it hits the ground?
Little Billy: So we use the gravity of the earth, and accounting for wind resistance… assuming the apple is a sphere… But how do we account for the apparent extra mass from Dark Matter permeating space around our galaxy, and it’s gravitational effect on the Apple? And how do we factor in the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe due to Dark Energy, which would therefore act to expand the spacetime between the Apple and the surface of the Earth, increasing the distance during the time that it is falling?
7th grade teacher: How much energy will the apple have when it hits the ground?
Little Billy: Sure, I can calculate the apple’s kinetic energy, but surely I should calculate the apple’s total energy, since mass is energy. Shouldn’t I add the energy of the rest-mass in the apple using E=mc^2. But… the apple is moving, so I should probably use the relativistic mass of the apple, which is larger than the rest-mass due to it’s velocity, therefore E=m_rel*c^2… If I can just remember the relativistic mass equation gamma…
Little Billy: Man, physics is hard! This sucks.
Funny, I recall Little Billy/Johnny jokes having very different punchlines.
“It all comes down to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of energy. In very basic terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one kind to another, but you can’t create new energy.”
E=mc2
Checkmate, bitches
Except that mass is still just a form of energy, as the equation states.
I suppose if we dig deep into cosmology we can find all sorts of weird things that violate this, e.g. dark energy, antimatter annihilation, etc.
Matter/Antimatter does not violate thermodynamics. It would be the fastest way to convert mass to energy though!
Dark matter / dark energy? Who the F knows…
Oh I was thinking about the pairing and annihilation that occur right above event horizons. Since energy and mass aren’t conserved if some from those pairings fall into a black hole, the radiation shall count as free energy… Though it’s more of an accounting trick than anything.
Right… Hawking radiation it’s called.
So far dark energy seems to be the best candidate for free energy out of nowhere. I remember the Hi-Z team announced it back in the 90s. It was nuts.
But, even in Hawking radiation, the energy is conserved. Hawking showed that the energy of the escaping particle is essentially taken from the black hole. The black hole will lose energy (therefore lose mass) from this type of radiation. This was one fascinating conclusion of Hawking’s work, it means that, eventually, once the cosmic microwave background radiation (the “ambient” energy of the universe) falls below a certain point, that Black Holes would actually lose more energy to Hawking radiation energy than they would collect. This would result in Black Holes eventually “evaporating” away. (in Trillions of years?)
So the current theory seems to be that energy is not lost into a black hole forever, it is merely temporarily stored in the Black Hole, to be slowly returned later, at the end of time…
was waiting for that, but as JB996 says – effectively, mass is just energy
Last week my kids were taking their middle school physics final when I was watching a documentary on dark energy with them. I had to repeatedly tell them that as far as they are concerned, mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed… Nor converted.
Excellent guidance for middle school.
7th grade teacher: If I drop an apple from 1 meter high, how long until it hits the ground?
Little Billy: So we use the gravity of the earth, and accounting for wind resistance… assuming the apple is a sphere… But how do we account for the apparent extra mass from Dark Matter permeating space around our galaxy, and it’s gravitational effect on the Apple? And how do we factor in the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe due to Dark Energy, which would therefore act to expand the spacetime between the Apple and the surface of the Earth, increasing the distance during the time that it is falling?
7th grade teacher: How much energy will the apple have when it hits the ground?
Little Billy: Sure, I can calculate the apple’s kinetic energy, but surely I should calculate the apple’s total energy, since mass is energy. Shouldn’t I add the energy of the rest-mass in the apple using E=mc^2. But… the apple is moving, so I should probably use the relativistic mass of the apple, which is larger than the rest-mass due to it’s velocity, therefore E=m_rel*c^2… If I can just remember the relativistic mass equation gamma…
Little Billy: Man, physics is hard! This sucks.
Well that’s no fair. Thanks for nothing, Laws of Physics!
Well that’s no fair. Thanks for nothing, Laws of Physics!
Sure, maybe that’s what happens in Australia, but you people can’t even get your toilets to swirl in the correct direction, so I don’t know how reliable your information is.
The Simpsons bit where the embassy in Australia has special equipment to ensure that the toilets spin in the “correct American way” is hilarious.
Sure, maybe that’s what happens in Australia, but you people can’t even get your toilets to swirl in the correct direction, so I don’t know how reliable your information is.
The Simpsons bit where the embassy in Australia has special equipment to ensure that the toilets spin in the “correct American way” is hilarious.
I actually agree with some other people in the comments that this is more likely a very hacky range extender. That may actually work but is a bad idea for a number of other reasons, namely safety. I hope for that person’s sake that thing that appears to be a filler neck isn’t connected to a jerry can lashed under the rear bumper!
I’ve seen a lot of hacky ideas with horrible safety. One of the classics was someone who put a jerry can and a pump in the frunk of their i3 to feed the REx tank… en route
Yikes!! It’s one thing when they do it on the Flexiny YouTube channel to get old cars running. They just tool around their property off road. Doing it on public roads is nuts
I actually agree with some other people in the comments that this is more likely a very hacky range extender. That may actually work but is a bad idea for a number of other reasons, namely safety. I hope for that person’s sake that thing that appears to be a filler neck isn’t connected to a jerry can lashed under the rear bumper!
I’ve seen a lot of hacky ideas with horrible safety. One of the classics was someone who put a jerry can and a pump in the frunk of their i3 to feed the REx tank… en route
Yikes!! It’s one thing when they do it on the Flexiny YouTube channel to get old cars running. They just tool around their property off road. Doing it on public roads is nuts
Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.