[ownthesky]

These are NOT some form of turbine found at the side of a house stuck all over the train and I completely agree with you, that would be absolutely ridiculous. Rather they are basically just piece of thin metal pipes under the width of the train with groves in them {like the gripping part of a screwdriver} or a flat piece of metal {like the tip of a flat head screwdriver} and that's it. Just enough to catch the energy of the wind funneling underneath the train and then taking that power and sending it to the batteries. Also, I never said these were some form of new perpetual motion machines but rather they would simply be a way to extend the battery trains range.

I am NOT saying this is a great idea and , in fact, none of the ideas I have put forward maybe practical. That is the whole point of this thread.........to discuss alternative forms of train technology and there is no such thing as "one size fits all" which includes catenary. Seeing ML cannot manage to put a pole in the ground in a decade, there is no reason to believe they will be able to do it within the next 7 years and that assumes they have any real intention of doing it in the first place as ML has proved time and again, they have absolutely no trepidations about lying to the public. If Toronto wants electrified rail with all the benefits that come with it then they better start looking at alternatives to catenary or they are going to be waiting a VERY long time.

The perpetual motion machine aspect is that I don't see how this does what you're claiming- there's no free lunch, you can't generate electricity from the work the train has performed (pushing air out of the way) without creating more work for the train. The "wind" that a train experiences is the relative speed between the air mass it enters and the speed of the train itself. Any wind captured also exerts a force on the train, slowing it. It wouldn't "extend" the battery, it would rob the train of kinetic energy. You're speaking about a way to turn the kinetic energy of a train into electrical energy using a rotor/stator, which already exists to push the train, it's how regenerative breaking works in any electric vehicle. Why would a train need a secondary system to perform the same function? Locomotives have used dynamic brakes to slow their loads by dumping heat from electric resistors into the air for decades.

Do you have a link to this system in existence somewhere?

 

[lenaitch]

The perpetual motion machine aspect is that I don't see how this does what you're claiming- there's no free lunch, you can't generate electricity from the work the train has performed (pushing air out of the way) without creating more work for the train. The "wind" that a train experiences is the relative speed between the air mass it enters and the speed of the train itself. Any wind captured also exerts a force on the train, slowing it. It wouldn't "extend" the battery, it would rob the train of kinetic energy. You're speaking about a way to turn the kinetic energy of a train into electrical energy using a rotor/stator, which already exists to push the train, it's how regenerative breaking works in any electric vehicle. Why would a train need a secondary system to perform the same function? Locomotives have used dynamic brakes to slow their loads by dumping heat from electric resistors into the air for decades.

Do you have a link to this system in existence somewhere?

Indeed. If nothing else, a basic explanation of how

piece of thin metal pipes under the width of the train with groves in them {like the gripping part of a screwdriver} or a flat piece of metal {like the tip of a flat head screwdriver}

produces energy.

As for:

There is system where a VERY small diesel engine {the size of a small car} is part of the train but it isn't connected to any moving parts of the train. It is run exclusively to charge the batteries. When the battery storage runs below 50% {give or take} then the small diesel engine kicks in to recharge it and when combined with regenerative breaking the battery train can effectively run all day.

This is like a hybrid auto, but I fail to see how a VERY small diesel engine could keep up with the power demand on batteries operating a train. HEP locomotives already have a separate generator just to provide power to the non-motive requirements of a passenger train, and it isn't particularly small. There is a known relationship between mechanical horsepower and electrical energy so if you knew the rate at which the battery needed to be charged (not accounting for regenerative braking) you could determine the size of generator required.