• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    You’re eating the air resistance anyway so probably not the worst idea if it generates a more than negligible amount.

    • Martin@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      It will increase air resistance, so you don’t gain anything (a turbine will need more power to spin when there is an electric load).

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        It will increase air resistance,

        Not if you position it, say, in front of the car so that you’re getting energy without getting hit without much additional force. If you somehow don’t need to see, the whole front of the car can be turned into a turbine. Now obviously we’re not making a perpetual motion machine here, but this could theoretically be the air resistance equivalent of regenerative braking.

        • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          Still increases air resistance. It gets hit by air, and that pushes it back into the fuselage.

          Larger aircraft commonly have a ram air turbine (RAT) or Air Driven Generator (ADG) to provide some electrical power and hydraulics in certain emergency situations.

          On CRJs, it’s right up the front: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxgPrpjByTE

          Still delivers a percent or two penalty to fuel burn, and the tiny little generator doesn’t even come remotely close to making up for that.