What I see on his photos are at least 2 (third one likely in reverse, where his finger is pointing) reasonably powerful electric motors on a ~~single toothed belt~~ pair of toothed belts.
I think there's no combustion engine left in that car. I suspect he combined them because the van wouldn't ride well with only 10 KW.
I would have loved to have / build something like this but in my well regulated european country it’s near impossible to get this street legal certification.
Yep. :( The certification manual here, in a moderately regulated European country, is about 250 pages long. Fortunately, not all chapters apply to moped-cars. If one really really wants, moped-cars are the way to break through the barrier.
It seems like he used the engines of electric "raiders" (ride-on lawnmowers, that is - small tractors). I cannot fathom why and how he used 3, but the tools in his shed suggest he can build anything. That's one impressive shed.
You're correct. Only the roof is likely to give significant power. Been there and done that, on the opposite side of the planet though. :)
Nice stuff, sadly - not for my latitude. Most likely I couldn't keep these critters alive beyond October, and would have trouble restarting the culture until May. Maybe with heavy thermal insulation and the vermiculture filter somewhat underground... but then again, sometimes when the snow melts, everything that's underground and is not sealed, gets flooded.
Depends on the person - I have seen households where a person uses less than 20 liters per day. :)
Besides, seawater can be used to wash oneself or flush a toilet - I think it's the use of drinking water that makes a difference.
Trying to figure out how my heat pump supposedly supports WiFi... in unfathomable and non-standard ways. It's available as an access point, I can associate and ping it, but no TCP ports listen and no UDP port responds. Nothing cool, undocumented features down to the rocky bottom. When you buy a heat pump and plan to automate its use, check out supported protocols before making a decision. :)
It's actually a bit more complicated. :) They made vessels from copper when they could - copper is a superb heat conductor. But copper gets toxic fast when you cook acidic food. It gets worse if you don't clean your copper vessels. Wikipedia tells:
Copper is reactive with acidic foods which can result in corrosion, the byproducts of which can foment copper toxicity. In certain circumstances, however, unlined copper is recommended and safe, for instance in the preparation of meringue, where copper ions prompt proteins to denature (unfold) and enable stronger protein bonds across the sulfur contained in egg whites. Unlined copper is also used in the making of preserves, jams and jellies.
Despite not having adequate chemistry or medicine, people in old times had a clue - they saw that copper sometimes fouled and turned green, and suspected this was not good, preferring tin-lined copper vessels as the economical alternative to silver-lined copper vessels.
(Needless to say, industries of that time didn't produce stainless steel - maybe some alchemist blacksmith knew enough to make it, but it was not a thing.)
Lining copper pots and pans prevents copper from contact with acidic foods. The most popular lining types are tin, stainless steel, nickel and silver.
...but the chemistry of the time being what it was - shoddy - sometimes tin was contaminated with lead (Pb), sometimes it was deliberately adulterated with lead, and shit happened.
In the middle ages, guilds had a system of proof marks and inspectors to ensure craftsmen wouldn't add too much lead to tin alloys. The Nuremberg standard for example specified 1 part of lead against 10 parts of tin, but in Luzern, Switzerland, a problematic alloy was used.
As for Romans...
However, the use of leaden cookware, though popular, was not the general standard of use. Copper cookware was used far more generally and no indication exists as to how often sapa was added or in what quantity. (Grape syrup)
If Chat gave me a broken answer, I would appreciate if someone said "hey, look - it's broken here".
The solution is obvious: wind energy can be collected outside a building, on an empty field, or at sea for maximum emptiness. Which is what people already do.
instead of having me listen to your gripes
Not my preferred way of dealing with criticism. You wrote a proposal (well, you let Chat write a proposal and presented it). I read it through, and considered if it was OK. I found parts that weren't and said so. If you don't want to listen to that, why did you post?
I am splitting a hair, but the goal is pointing out - Chat is nice at producing text and searching for information, but unreliable at actually evaluating if something would work. Unless you're extremely good at asking, it will spew proposals that won't work.
P.S.
As for non-rotating wind generators, yep, I've read about them. They aren't efficient. In the equations determining performance, there is a term named "swept area". For a non-rotating generator, swept area is the surface of its profile viewed from upwind/downwind. For a rotor, swept area is the surface of the circle reached by blades. The difference is huge.
Yep. I've done an L2e, and some day I will manage an L7e. :)
Interference testing was not needed. The motor wattage and motor controller wattage labels were examined. I could have dropped in more power in a mood for forgery, but I was in an honest mood. :)