I've been working on an idea for a while now. Just need to get past the whole Zero point energy thing. (Have some kinks there) Anyway, my idea would be a lightweight vehicle completely electric. (Powered by said ZPE device) The vehicle would use tracks like a tank rather than tires. Metal links on the track with a rubber belt for contact with the road. The tracks would increase traction by several hundred percent (5 inches of tire front to back per tire.on the ground vs 6 feet of track on the ground per side.) which would increase acceleration, decrease breaking time, and allow the vehicle to go through areas a current car can not. (Mud, snow etc). I would use electric motors to power the wheel turning the tracks rather than a drive shaft driven system.

Any comments, suggestions?

Richard wrote:

I've been working on an idea for a while now. Just need to get past the whole Zero point energy thing. (Have some kinks there) Anyway, my idea would be a lightweight vehicle completely electric. (Powered by said ZPE device) The vehicle would use tracks like a tank rather than tires. Metal links on the track with a rubber belt for contact with the road. The tracks would increase traction by several hundred percent (5 inches of tire front to back per tire.on the ground vs 6 feet of track on the ground per side.) which would increase acceleration, decrease breaking time, and allow the vehicle to go through areas a current car can not. (Mud, snow etc). I would use electric motors to power the wheel turning the tracks rather than a drive shaft driven system.

Any comments, suggestions?

Aside from the fact that deriving energy from ZPE is science fiction, and that treads instead of tires enormously increase friction and ruin roads, I think you have just invented an electric tank.

Whether the idea is feasible or not, you do realise that any chance of being granted a patent is out the window if you tell people about your idea?

I often wonder why people come online to ask about their potential inventions. Fair enough if you have questions, but I'd try ask it in an indirect way.

Benville wrote:



2) I really don't have a better suggestion on the tires vs. treads. Tanks are the way they are for a very special reason, they need to be universally off-road capable. As a note, I have often thought about using narrower tires of larger diameter to satisfy my traction concerns.

A wider tire will give you more surface area to drive on. Think of it as using the same concept of snow shoes. Race cars use wide tires for traction reasons, offroad trucks are the same. As are any tractors that use tracks...a wide surface area is their mantra.



Another analogy could be described as taking a butter knife and trying to dig into the butter with the blade vs the flat edge. You'll slice into the butter more easily with the blade edge than you would with the flat of the knife. Friction being the key physical difference. Larger diameter can't hurt either, it adds more surface area, but width is important.

What you desire in a tire is static friction as opposed to dynamic friction. In static friction the force (torque) applied to the axle does not exceed the coefficient of friction times the weght pushing the tire against the road. Race cars need more surface area contact to prevent loss of static friction. That being said you do not want to make the frictional coefficient any larger than necessary as losses increase proportionally. This will be evident to you if you touch the track of a bull dozer after it has pushed around for a few minutes. The tracks become warm from losses. You also see this in your car as you drive your tires heat up.

What my thinking is, is the tire has many flaws. A small hole and it need repair. go off the road and break the seal and you risk ruining your rim and tire not to mention the wrecker to get you out and fix it.

If you check out http://www.teslamotors.com you can see a working electric vehicle which has a two speed gearbox. It is stated the second gear was not necessary but was put in.

The tracks I am thinking of would not be made of steel as those on tanks. A steel chain would be used with a rubber bealt attached. With a proper suspension it will wear roads no more than a car tire does. When a car tire hits a pot hole the tire goes into and out of the hole making it bigger as the tire digs its way out (Though minutely over time the holes get bigger). A track system would keep the wheel in the air more or less keeping it from digging the whole so much.

As for the patent....well... this is not the ones I have seen, I have seen one in the back of popular mechanics or science on an old Jeep. This one is close though

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/mattracks/mattracks-make-your-suv-a-t ankwith-tracks-220648.php

So your entire reasoning for running a car on snowmobile treads is to eliminate flat tires and potholes?



Doesn't it sound a little ridiculous when saying it aloud to yourself?

Not just those two reasons. True there would be greater friction and more energy needed to run the motors. (As I said to begin with we have an imaginary ZPE device....infinite energy) Anyway, let us say you are at an intersection and you see someone jump out in front of you. With four tires you have a great chance of sliding (Depending on how fast you are going) With tracks the time to come to a stop will be reduced. Better stopping time in near any situation. Traction in the winter on roads without the need for studded tires. Basically use the same type of tread all year round getting rid of the need to change tires for the season. In doing so not so many tires would need to be manufactured thus reducing the environmental impact used tires have. Turning radius would be near zero. Turning on a dime would be a reality. The tighter turning radius could also aid in preventing an accident. Better mobility with the traction to handle it.

Granted the sliding effect of a track propulsion turning will wear possibly more than tires while turning. I doubt this would be much more than your highschool kid putting off smoke shows.

The simple fact is that those vehicles exist in one form or another right now. Do you remember watching the shining when the old guy was tring to get up to the hotal before Jack hacked up the kid, remeber what he was driving a tracked vehicle. In the movie Tomb Raider when Angelina and freinds went to the dead area, remember the tracked vehicles that drove thru the freezing ocean then back onto land with their tracks, remember the half track vehicle of WWII fame. Those are all tracked vehicles and there is a reason they are avoided in todays army with the exception of the tank. They are not efficient, their milage sucks compared to wheeled vehicles. Yes you can make a claim and you are correct they can turn on a dime, and not worry about a pot hole (or a small bombshell hole), but unless you have come up with some new and significantly improved design that has not been tried by every industrialized countries engineering workforce for the last 67 years. If you are going to design a viable product in the engineering field, it has to be able to be constructed, it has to be an improvement over what is already available, and it has to be cost effective (in the practical sense it has to cost less than what is currently availble).

Yes they can turn on a dime but at basically a stand still you can't maneuver very well at speed. I suggest you go test drive a track vehicle before you spend any more time on this.

I don't think the turning at high speed would be a big issue. Tanks turn just fine while moving and look at the weight they have. Also I recall tracks being used in some of the old monster truck car crushing shows. I believe Bigfoot had one. Yep.

http://forums.modulardepot.com/media-center/47495-vid-take-427-c hain-drive.html

As for the steering mechanisms now, I am not sure who makes it but I know there are large tractors for farmers which utilize a steering wheel to turn the tracks operating both from one control mechanism rather than individually.

My thoughts are not to patent a new machine. Rather to bring these types of vehicles to the common commuter.