Creeds:
The cap system is what feeds back power, into the alternator.
If by "cap" you mean "capacitor", then it is not a feedback device. It acts as an integrator in a circuit. Yes, it STORES energy, but that energy has to come from somewhere else.
Try to look at the possibility of your power voltage poll, as acting like a reservoir.
Yes, I understand that. But a reservoir does not CREATE energy. It only stores it. The issue is not about storage with solar cells. It is still about the law of conservation of Energy. One way to write it is:
Power Output of vehicle = (Force to overcome rolling friction, static friction, and aerodynamic drag) * (Vehicle Velocity)
Power Input to vehicle = (Total Solar Panel Voltage) * (Total Current Draw of electric engine)
and finally:
Power Output = Power Input - Heat Loss due to Energy Conversions
None of this speaks to energy storage and capacitors.
If you go from this point, then you are able to feed back power into the system.
No my friend, I'm sorry but that does not obey the laws of physics.
I'm telling you all that I know now.
OK then how about this: Why don't you come down to SoCal next spring and sit through my ARO 101 Introduction to Aerospace Propulsion Systems class? You'll have a better grasp on the equations after the course if you do.
If they gave you a roll of NASA or other high quality solar cells, could you fit this to cover the standard auto and then modify them to make that pool of energy, that you could work and electric vehicle from?
Not with the current NASA solar cells, no. Here, let me give you some equations and figures to help you understand:
1) Let's say we could get by with an engine+auto that is fairly stingy on power requirements. Small car engines can be rated as low as ~120 Horsepower. That is equal to 89,484 Watts. (or 89.5 KWatts)
2) If we simply ignore the conversion losses that WILL be present in the automotive system, that means we would need a MINIMUM of 89.5 KWatts to come from the solar cells in order to power the car and make it go.
3) For comparison, the solar cells on my roof generate a MAXIMUM power output (at high noon on a sunny, clear day) of 3.8 KWatts.
4) The area occupied by my solar array on my roof is approximately 425 square feet.
5) The efficiency of the solar cells I have in my array are approximately 14%. The best NASA solar cells are said to have efficiencies of approximately 22%. That yields an efficiency scaling ratio of (0.14/0.22) = approximately 0.636.
6) This efficiency scaling ratio means that the NASA solar cells should be able to generate the same power as my solar array (again, at noon on a sunny day) with LESS area than my array. The amount less is given by the scaling ratio.
7) Apply this scaling ratio and this means NASA cells could generate 3.8 KWatts with 0.636*425 = 270.3 square feet.
8) The maximum area available on an economy car that is (for sake of argument) 4.5 feet wide by 6 feet long is 27 square feet, AND that assumes you could also use the windshields to generate power! That is a factor TEN TIMES smaller than what NASA cells would need JUST to generate what my roof generates!
9) If you calculate the area that would be required for NASA cells to generate the required 89.5 KWatts needed to power the car, you would see that you need a surface area exposed to the sun of... hold your horses....
Approximately 6360 Square Feet! If you built a square car, that would mean the car would have to be 79.7 x 79.7 feet!
Creedo, I hope this short engineering analysis helps you understand just what kind of problems that must be surmounted before your idea can be workable. Even if you scale down the required horsepower to something really stingy, say 80 horsepower, you can do the numbers and see there is still a problem with today's technology.
I hope this helps,
RMT