srinivasan
Member
- Location
- Bangalore,India
View attachment e-tyre.doc
.. i have attached one small innovation of e-tyre for electric vehicle .. is it correct way of first step...
e-tyre innovation
- Thread starter srinivasan
- Start date
- Status
srinivasan
Member
- Location
- Bangalore,India
why no reply for this concept..is it already implemented one ?
iceworm
Curmudgeon still using printed IEEE Color Books
- Location
- North of the 65 parallel
- Occupation
- EE (Field - as little design as possible)
Correct first step of doing what?
Its a research project. The stuff PHDs, or DARPA projects are made of. I have not heard anyone on here that would have a background in organic chemistry, or ......what ever else it would take to give an informed response.
ice
T
T.M.Haja Sahib
Guest
srinivasan:
I already suggested you to put up your statement of how your product in the blueprint can be better than an ordinary dynamo in performance, cost etc., so that the discussion may move in a specific direction.
I already suggested you to put up your statement of how your product in the blueprint can be better than an ordinary dynamo in performance, cost etc., so that the discussion may move in a specific direction.
Oh! .... well I didn't realize... let me take a whack at it
That's probably a good idea.... If you want any kind of discussion at all. Are you getting enough outta this thing to run a wristwatch?
iceworm
Curmudgeon still using printed IEEE Color Books
- Location
- North of the 65 parallel
- Occupation
- EE (Field - as little design as possible)
Ah - ha We do have someone on here that can give an informed response. Good deal. I'll be listening and learning.Oh! .... well I didn't realize... let me take a whack at it
ice
jeremysterling
Senior Member
- Location
- Austin, TX
DO THEY BLING ON 15'S GLASSY SUPERPOKE SWANGERS
weressl
Esteemed Member
A patentable invention does not have to meet any of those criterias. To find a useful application, engineers and businessman need to step in.
BTW upon reviewing the concept, I thought of the reverse application. (Motion out of electricity)
Rampage_Rick
Senior Member
- Location
- British Columbia, Canada
You'd think the first law of thermodynamics would restrict you to generating less energy than lost via the additional rolling resistance of the tire...
Also, the inherent flex required for the design reminds me of the two-piece wheels responsible for the Eschede train disaster.
Also, the inherent flex required for the design reminds me of the two-piece wheels responsible for the Eschede train disaster.
T
T.M.Haja Sahib
Guest
This is not a patents portal. You are not a patents officer (I presume) either.
More jovially, the following phenomenon came to mind, which happened in the beginning of Space age era. School children were then used to send their 'designs' of spacecraft to the space research organizations. Interestingly, there were no logical inconsistencies in their designs. The scientists were amused. But some were annoyed: only if those children were aware of the vast amount of knowledge, experience, expertise, development of new materials, funds allocation etc., required to make such designs workable satisfactorily..........
You are both like those school children.:lol:
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
I agree that any energy harvested in the manner the OP describes would induce additional friction so the net sum would be less than 0.
There have been other attempts at harvesting energy with piezo by capturing energy made from the shocks of a vehicle moving up and down and even from the compression of shoe soles. Since neither had seemed to harvest enough energy to be useful, we may just have to take it as a given that piezo is not a very efficient form of changing mechanical to electrical energy.
If the OP disagrees, I suggest only that he do what I would do to prove my point. I would build and test the device.
Proceeding from theory to finished product totally with computer graphics neither creates nor proves anything.
Now, before we all jump to conclusions, a gentleman I know came up with an idea to make really small radio antennas using fractal shapes. He was a prof at a university in Boston at the time. The engineering dept. basically poo-poo'd his idea and stated all the physical reasons why his idea wouldn't work.
Chip, the prof, is a ham radio operator. He had to make an antenna no one could see, as where he lived outdoor antennas were not allowed. So Chip came up with the idea of changing the shape of the antenna geometrically in a shape called a fractal. Undaunted by the others, he built a fractal antenna and it worked.
He patented the idea and started a company called Fractal Antennas, got lots of government contracts and quit his job as a Boston U. prof to become CEO of Fractal Antennas.
Google Fractal Antennas. Chip is Dr. Nathan Cohen, W1YW.
Chip was very successful with his idea, but the crux of the biscuit is the fact that he actually built and tested a working and 'transparent' device as opposed to simply perpetuating un-proven theories..
There have been other attempts at harvesting energy with piezo by capturing energy made from the shocks of a vehicle moving up and down and even from the compression of shoe soles. Since neither had seemed to harvest enough energy to be useful, we may just have to take it as a given that piezo is not a very efficient form of changing mechanical to electrical energy.
If the OP disagrees, I suggest only that he do what I would do to prove my point. I would build and test the device.
Proceeding from theory to finished product totally with computer graphics neither creates nor proves anything.
Now, before we all jump to conclusions, a gentleman I know came up with an idea to make really small radio antennas using fractal shapes. He was a prof at a university in Boston at the time. The engineering dept. basically poo-poo'd his idea and stated all the physical reasons why his idea wouldn't work.
Chip, the prof, is a ham radio operator. He had to make an antenna no one could see, as where he lived outdoor antennas were not allowed. So Chip came up with the idea of changing the shape of the antenna geometrically in a shape called a fractal. Undaunted by the others, he built a fractal antenna and it worked.
He patented the idea and started a company called Fractal Antennas, got lots of government contracts and quit his job as a Boston U. prof to become CEO of Fractal Antennas.
Google Fractal Antennas. Chip is Dr. Nathan Cohen, W1YW.
Chip was very successful with his idea, but the crux of the biscuit is the fact that he actually built and tested a working and 'transparent' device as opposed to simply perpetuating un-proven theories..
srinivasan
Member
- Location
- Bangalore,India
let me suggest..good place to submit this article with detail. and how to register this is mine.. anyone can help for this kind of projects...
srinivasan
Member
- Location
- Bangalore,India
yes it may not be highly efficient but it is part of energy can be used for the electrical vehicle know
srinivasan
Member
- Location
- Bangalore,India
dynamo method is different. in dynamo method rubber tyre and tube only used ..but this is not replacing of dynamo. it is replacing of tyre and tube part only.. it's just like tubeless tyre. but the tyre is totally new design
ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
There ain't no free lunch. If you remove energy from a system it must be going in from somewhere else. If you want show that the energy you propose to capture is otherwise lost as heat, then you'll need to show that the tires run cooler as a result. Otherwise if it causes the tires to be a little more "spongy", then it's going to require more energy from the engine to move the car down the road, as shown by the DOT's data linking fully inflated tires to better gas mileage. If that's the case you haven't really harvested anything, just moved it around. At any rate, I believe that calling it an "innovation" is just a tad premature.
Last edited:
weressl
Esteemed Member
If you can show a like product, then you may be right. I belive that this would qualify to a patentable invention. (There are millions of patents that never see the daytlight in commercial use.)
ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
I guess it depends on what you see as an innovation. Even if it's never been done before, if it is of little or no practical use, it doesn't qualify in my view. As you say, there are tons of patented devices which have no real world application, and they aren't innovations (IMO) because they didn't change anything.
weressl
Esteemed Member
It is not the question what I see as an innivation, it is a matter of how patents, inventions and innovations are defined.
A patent (
The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1]
T
T.M.Haja Sahib
Guest
I am with ggunn. The OP does not describe any innovation, but just his invention. This is apparent from the definition of innovation as below.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html
ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
Your throwing of the dictionary at me notwithstanding (a cheap shot, BTW), the word "innovation" does not appear anywhere in what you posted. An innovation in my eyes is a game changing development, one which changes the course of technology and invention. The assembly line was an innovation. The steam engine was an innovation. The iPhone, iPad, and Macintosh computer are innovations. To call this an innovation, even if it's patentable and even if it works, is IMO at best premature.It is not the question what I see as an innivation, it is a matter of how patents, inventions and innovations are defined.
A patent (/ˈp?tənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention.
The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1]
Last edited:
- Status