Thread 105870535

Could propellers be installed onto EVs to recharge their batteries while they're driving on highways? There's literally free wind the faster they drive, and could also provide extra "thrust".

If the wind is supposed to be pushing the propeller to generate electricity, then no, it will provide extra "drag", retard.

>>105870584
Fighter jets like the F-18G have jamming pods which are powered entirely by a single propeller at the front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-99

>>105870535 (OP)
>/g/ in 2025
>WHERE IS MY FREE ENERGY?

>>105871059
That's literally what the US military does:>>105870758

>>105870535 (OP)
no, but you can install magnets in front of a car to pull it forward

>>105871077

nothing says that its free
the loss from the drag is probably negligeable compared to the jet engines.
there is always a loss though.

it would make more sense to put solar cell panels to avoid drag altogether.

electricity should be free and a human right

>>105871089
just harvest the energy straight back from the wheels that you just powered.
that will show them

>>105871089
The F-18G literally doesn't have enough power generation thus the ALQ-99 jamming pods are powered by the propeller at the front

>>105870758
This is just a roundabout way to harvest energy from the main engine.

>>105871333
The F-111 didn't need a propeller since Its engines were powerful enough to power the jamming pods

This is either a lazy troll or the dumbest thread on the internet

is this the thread?

>>105871570
You know it.

>>105871432
Ask the US military:>>105870758

>>105871737
Ask them what? Why they prefer to power the pod via a propeller instead of the Jet's avionics? All that energy comes from jet fuel regardless!

>>105870758
Yeah, so the drag that I mentioned is used to create electricity. It does not
>provide extra "thrust"
like OP thought.

>>105871089
chat is this real?

>>105870758
>>105871737
Fighter jet uses it because of redundance not because it's efficient. It'll work independently of plane's power situation and they consider the wasted energy a fair price to pay for some combat advantage. It wastes more power than it collects. Why would you want that on civilian daily use vehicles?

>>105871968
In the F-18G is not redundancy, the aircrafts engines aren't powerful enough to power the ALQ-99 because the latter was initially designed for the EF-111 which was a bigger aircraft with way more powerful engines

>>105871968
Maybe It could work as another way of getting some of the charge back on EVs just like regenerative braking?

>>105872199
if you're out of electric on an EV it's annoying and you have to call a tow or whatever.
if you're out of electric on a (modern) plane you're dead.
Do you want to put all your eggs in the same basket?

>>105872199
Imagine constantly braking just to get back some of what you spent
That's what adding drag to recover some energy through a propeller is like
You're adding, say, 1% of braking, all the time, and have to accelerate more to compensate. You're not getting back as much as you're spending.

use the temperature gradient created by the hot engine and the cool wind to recharge the battery, no additional drag

>>105870535 (OP)
sign up for a physics class at your local college anon!

im glad the ev meme is dying
what a waste of time taliking about dead batteries is