On 15/02/2011 00:27, Yigit Turgut wrote:
> I know that this simply violates conservation of energy thus I wanted
> to share with you so if one can spot the missing piece and explain how
> come this is possible.
>

Sorry, none of that makes much sense without some proper information=20
i.e. numbers/workings, diagrams, video etc.
For instance - what type/rating are the batteries? How do you *know*=20
that more than 40% of them should have been used during the testing?=20
Were you actually monitoring power draw/levels during testing?
How do you come to the conclusion that "efficiency is greater than 1"?
If motion is not produced by the wheels turning, where do you think it=20
is coming from? How *exactly* does it differ from any other car? You say=20
"even before doing any calculations.." - did you actually do any?
I'm sure there is a reasonably simple explanation for whatever you think=20
is "missing", but you need to take a methodical, scientific approach to=20
working it out (or provide enough reliable data for others to do so)




--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.