Running Cars on Water?
Someone recently forwarded me a “technical report” that claims that it is possible to run automobiles on water — with this miraculous build-it-yourself gadget that converts water into hydrogen and oxygen, then converts it to fuel that you use in addition to gasoline. (It was being distributed by email to break the conspiracy that keeps us all from using water to run our cars!)
As much as I would love to believe that such a thing is possible, I know better. Of course, that’s because I’ve seen this sort of idiocy before. Back in the 1970s, when I was young, the equivalent claim was that there were 200-mile-per-gallon carburetors that had been suppressed by the automobile companies, at the insistence of the oil companies.
The first part of the claim was absurd. A number of studies over the years concluded that no more than 40% of the chemical energy contained in gasoline was being converted by the internal combustion engine into motion. Why only 40%? Because any chemical process is inefficient — and especially a chemical process as clumsy as exploding gasoline vapor. Once you have converted that chemical energy into rotation, you lose some of it because of friction in the driveline, wind resistance against the body of the car, and flexing of the tires. There was room for improvement — but there was simply no way that a 4,000-pound automobile (as was typical in the 1970s) was going to get 200 miles per gallon. Even a 100% efficient system (which is not possible) wasn’t going to do much better than 30 miles per gallon with such a large vehicle.
The second part of the claim was even more absurd. If you ran a car company and you had the option of selling a car that consumed vastly less gasoline than its competitors, why would you not sell it and gobble up the market? Volkswagen, back then, sold a car that was a bit better on gas mileage than many of the American barges of the period, and it sold rather nicely because of it. Imagine if you could have bought a 1973 Impala sedan that gave you 200 miles per gallon? How, exactly, would the oil companies have prevented GM from selling it?
One big reason we don’t have any miraculous mileage cars on the road is that people aren’t that interested. I own a near-miraculous car that gets up to 55mpg highway while providing quiet and smooth comfort for 4, is very reliable and fun to drive. The car? A 2002 VW Jetta diesel. Yet few people bought them. Unfortunately, VW listened to the marketplace, and the clamor for more horsepower. The result? A new, more powerful Jetta diesel that now gets only 40 something mpg’s
There’s a series of web videos that shows experiments on water with ‘radio exciters’ agitating the molecules and then an electric spark IGNITING them..
yes, you can burn water, if it’s agitated by radio frequency bombardment while you do it.
the problem? IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO EXCITE THE MOLECULES THAN YOU GET FROM THE BURNING.
it’s a net negative on power.
as is every idea to improve mileage since I’ve been alive.
Diesel improves mileage, because diesel fuel inherently contains about 20% more energy than gasoline per volume unit.
That’s why big trucks have always been diesel. They need the low-revolution power, the torque, to pull their huge heavy loads. Gasoline engines can’t do it efficiently, and waste a lot of money when used for large loads like the big trucks pull.
But there’s no free lunch, as they ssy.
The water-for-fuel scam has been around since the First World War.
What it boils down to is: acetone, usually too volatile to use as a motor fuel, can be
cut with water until it will actually fire reliably in an internal combustion cylinder.
The US Navy tested the magic compound on one of its engines and found, however, the the resulting
corrosion practically dissolves the innards of the motor in question…
Excellent analysis, Mr. Cramer.
These “miracle engine/miracle fuel” ideas surface every so often, in much the same way that “perpetual motion” devices do. What their advocates all have in common is a lack of education in basic physics.
Perpetual motion violates all three of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The “Water engine”, “200-MPG carburetor”, etc., do, as well.
All operate on the assumption of either (a) no net loss of efficiency due to friction, etc., or (b) perfect, 100% conversion of mass to energy, without accounting for the energy needed to initiate the reaction to begin with. The “water-power” idea is guilty of the latter; simply put, you will never get out of a water-cracking system (in terms of energy derived from combustion of hydrogen with oxygen) an energy value greater than (or even equal to) the energy needed to crack the H2O in O2 and H to begin with.
If you could even get close (over 40% efficiency is defined as “close” in this context), it would indicate that you were dealing with an inherently unstable compound that could and would decompose spontaneously without outside help. 100% efficiency (which is what most of the advocates of these “miracle gadgets” claim) has a name in physics; it’s called “total conversion of matter to energy”, and even nuclear fusion doesn’t achieve that. (The mythical “matter-antimatter” reactor of Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise would only be operating at about 60% efficiency- ask a high-energy physicist why, sometime; the answer is rather surprising.)
There is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen which can be “decomposed” easily, generating heat (and thus energy) in the process. It’s called pure, 100% H2O2; high-strength hydrogen peroxide, one of the most unstable and dangerous rocket propellants known. In fact, H2O2 can decompose spontaneously all by itself, if left alone; the list of things that will set off the reaction include changes in air temperature outside its container. It also reacts explosively with a variety of organic substances, which is why rocket propellant technicians (who use it to run turbopumps) treat it with the respect due any sensitive high explosive. (I.e., they don’t sneeze.)
The peroxide in your medicine cabinet, by comparison, is perfectly safe- because it’s diluted to about 3-4% strength with… 96-97% plain water. The fact that the bottle of disinfectant or hair bleach in the bathroom doesn’t go “pop” on its own is proof that the “water engine” is a physical impossibility.
There’s also the fact that if you even could crack water into O2 and H in an engine somehow, you’d have to handle the two as gases. Oxygen and hydrogen are only liquid at cryogenic temperatures. Hydrogen boils at 21 Kelvin (Absolute), which is the lowest vapor point of any liquid in the Universe. Oxygen goes from liquid to vapor at 90K. (0 Kelvin/Absolute, the complete absence of heat energy, is -473 Centigrade, if anyone is interested.)
Just to make things more interesting, in gaseous form hydrogen can migrate right through most types of gaskets you find in a car’s engine. The problem with combusting it is to get it to stick around long enough to be used. (Hydrogen burning turbines, etc., usually use gaskets of high-strength alloys- which are not cheap.)
It’s certainly possible to crack water into O2 and H and make it pay commercially; companies like Burdette Oxygen, etc. do it every day. In plants equipped to crack it, reduce it to cryogenic temperatures, and store it in insulated containers under refrigeration to maintain the low temperatures needed to keep the stuff liquid. These plants are big, immobile, and expensive; I don’t expect to see such things compacted to a size that would fit in a semi’s engine bay anytime soon, let alone the engine compartment of something as “politically correct” as a Smart Car. And even if it could be done, the price would induce “sticker shock” at about the Lamborghini level.
(No, Virginia, there really isn’t any such thing as a free lunch, especially not in economics, engineering or physics.)
Speaking of the TANSTAAFL Rule, the modern front-wheel-drive, fuel-injected, computer-controlled car is a case in point. While it’s true it’s certainly more efficient, it’s also more difficult to maintain, requiring computerized diagnosis in many cases. Plus, fuel-injection systems are inherently more complex and finicky to keep running than carburetors, and require a higher degree of technical excellence to build to begin with, if you actually want them to work.
Which means that you have a more expensive vehicle, which is more difficult to maintain, especially for people of limited means. the trend toward these “high tech” vehicles has not been a boon to the working poor, or people on pensions. Of course, to the ecologically-obsessed “cultural elite’”, those peons’ should all be riding public transportation, or better yet bicycles, anyway; only they, the “people who matter”, should be allowed to own cars. (Which should, of course, be chauffeur-driven.)
They used to say “What this country needs is a good five-cent cigar”. As a non-smoker, I’d say what we really need is a good under-$100 two-barrel carburetor. (Running on gasoline, or diesel fuel, if you please.)
As for the “six-cycle” engine, I’m not sure it can really be defined as patentable, or even new. It’s basically the system called “water injection” that was used to boost the operating pressure (and thus shaft horsepower) of aircraft engines going back to the Thompson Trophy air races of the 1920s and 30s. It was used by several air forces during World War Two, along with the later development of ethanol and/or nitrous oxide injection, to achieve the same result.
Neither one is a “new” idea, or even a “new” technology. Not even in automobiles; race cars and dragsters have used nitrous injection literally for decades. (Several racing series prohibit it, not for reasons of explosion danger but to keep track speeds within reason, especially on the turns.)
There really is nothing new under the sun.
clear ether
eon
Running water on cars will make for a clean running car.
“Back in the 1970s, when I was young, the equivalent claim was that there were 200-mile-per-gallon carburetors that had been suppressed by the automobile companies, at the insistence of the oil companies.”
And twenty years earlier and surely much earlier than that was this tale told.
People continue to be suckers for these scams because the vast majority of Americans are incapable of critical thinking!
Just try to have a serious conversation with anyone under 30 on any serious subject and you will see what I mean!
Fortunately, for most people this condition is corrected to some degree with age, so that 20-something ignoramous becomes a 30-something who has begun to think. By their 40′s most of them won’t fall for most scams, but there are still too large a percentage even into their 50′s who never learn. That’s why sweepstakes always make money!
Now, carry this condition over into politics and you see why we always get people elected who promise something for nothing! The same people who will fall for every scam are the ones voting en-masse for whicheve charlatan offers them the most at the expense of __________________ (fill in the blank with whatever evil entity is in vogue).
Clayton,
Because any chemical process is inefficient — and especially a chemical process as clumsy as exploding gasoline vapor.
Actually this is not the case – modern engines are remarkably efficient at burning gasoline. The inefficiency is due to the fact that IC engines use the Rankine thermodynamic cycle, basically you can use the energy between the pressure of the intake charge and the pressure of the exhaust, but much of the heat and some of the pressure gets wasted. In order to use all of the energy you would need to exhaust at the same pressure and temperature as the intake – not possible in the real world.
Dave;
Diesel improves mileage, because diesel fuel inherently contains about 20% more energy than gasoline per volume unit.
The energy content (higher heat value) of diesel and gasoline is similiar, Diesels are more efficient because they operate at higher pressure. Diesel fuel is used in Diesel engines because it’s less volatile, a requirement of the higher pressures involved.
eon
It’s certainly possible to crack water into O2 and H and make it pay commercially
Not as fuel – Hydrogen production from chemicals such as natural gas or petroleum is always wasteful, electrolysis of water used more energy to break the chemical bond than you get back when you burn it. Water it hydrogen that has already been burned (oxidized) you are meerly reversing the process. For this reason Hydrogen is only a way to store energy, it’s not an energy source in itself
“Front-wheel drive, by reducing energy losses to the rear wheels, helped”
Only trivially. Arguably there are more energy losses in FWD U-joints/torque converters than in a RWD driveshaft/differential system. The principal benefit of FWD is that it permits transverse engine mounting, and thus a more compact, lighter car.
If our ridiculous government had not made the growing of hemp illegal we could use it as a bio fuel, Henry Ford said it was better than gasoline for autos. He even used it to build a few cars, there is a famous photo of Ford banging on the body of one of his hemp built cars with a sledge hammer demonstrating that hemp was stronger and lighter and cheaper than sheet metal. Burns clean, grows in every state, could free our country from it’s addiction to foreign oil. Anything you can make from oil can be made from hemp. In France they use hemp to build houses, mix limestone with hemp and you make a block that is seven times stronger than concrete and five times lighter. Great for making paper products as well, could clean the air and save the forests. Guttenberg printed his bibles on hemp, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were first written on hemp, later on animal skin. Both Washington and Jefferson were hemp farmers, Ben Franklin printed hie newspapers on hemp, Canada grows hemp for food, clothing, building materials, and we can not even grow it here. When our politicians quit being bought and live up to the example our founders set when they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, then, and only then, will this country will regain it;s strength
There is no car that will effectively run on water, but Two points. One, we can run cars on grease left over from frying french fries. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/grease-car-conversion.htm
I’m not talking about growing plants to fuel our cars here. I’m talking about reusing a resource that is literally thrown away when we are done using it.
Two, engines today are far more efficient than they were in the past. The problem is Americans love speed and power, thus the efficiency does not translate to less consumption, it translates to more power for the same consumption as older vehicles. I have an altima that has more power than my 1996 Maxima did 190 HP vs 240 HP and the new car gets the exact same gas milage as the old.
Personally, I wish we would explore cleaner, cheaper, environmentally friendly alternatives that reduce our dependence of fossil fuels. Image what would happen if we could tell the Saudi’s to take their oil and shove it?
Just saying.
I’ve seen the plans for a couple of these ‘high mileage’ carburetors. One of them requires having fluid gasoline in a stainless steel wool in the air filter housing. The idea being that the engine ran off the fumes of the gas. It goes without saying that this would most likely be a great bomb in event of a colision! Another version utilises a system used successfully on motorcycles; an engine vacuum controlled constant velocity carb. These work fairly well, but the system was never used by autos; except for a few experementors.Then again; how many remember the Mobil Economy runs of years ago? High mileages were achived (200+ mpg) but the techniques used were not very practical for everyday commute traffic.
Eon:
An excellent post but I must correct one error. Diesel fuel is a distillate oil fraction. It doesn’t vaporize at normal temperatures and therefore must use some form of fuel injection. Modern diesels use direct injection which has the added benefit of zero fuel consumption when the engine is running above idle speed while left in gear.
Robert:
The EPA numbers on the common rail diesel engines used on the new Jetta are inaccurate. Consumer Reports long term evaluation of their 2009 Jetta’s MPG has risen to 48mpg highway. The EPA does not measure actual mileage but instead uses a computer model to convert emissions to a baseline MPG. They admit that their methodology is not really suitable for diesels. It also takes 10,000 miles for a diesel to begin to realize its full fuel efficiency. The EPA test objects don’t have anywhere near that many miles on them.
Next thing you know, they’ll be telling you that cars can run on vegetable oil.
ps. Not every piece of junk mail you receive merits a blog entry.
Diesel improves mileage, because diesel fuel inherently contains about 20% more energy than gasoline per volume unit.
Also because of the Carnot principle according to which the higher the difference between the hot and the cold sources the greter the percentage of the energy burnt is available for movement. Diesels run at higher temperatures than gasoline engines.
All you need to do is watch Mythbusters…they did an entire episode on this very subject…and guess what? None of these devices worked! Scupper me hide, who’d-a thought it!
In order to use all of the energy you would need to exhaust at the same pressure and temperature as the intake – not possible in the real world.
However, the six-stroke engine design takes advantage of this possibility. That’s why it is a neat idea.
In a few minutes I’m going out get into my 1982 VW pickup and drive 240 miles on 4.4 gallons of co2 neutral vegetable oil while reducing NOX discharge to near 0 by injecting cow urine into the fuel system. Yes cow urine.
At 62 and a non believer in the black art of turning water to fuel, I set out last year to disprove one of the more pervasive water/fuel hoaxes. I chose a single cylinder Volvo marine diesel engine for the test, followed the online available plans, filled the secondary fuel tank with 90% water and 10% vegetable oil, started the engine on diesel then switched to the water/oil mix, made several adjustments to the air intake valve and then sat down and waited for the thing to stop running, To hours later I shut it off. I followed with one additional 2 hour test run for my 64 year old neighbor.
I remain an ardent but somewhat confused non-believer…..but then 50 years ago on the farm I could never have imagined that I would some day be running cow piss in my diesels.
If our ridiculous government had not made the growing of hemp illegal we could use it as a bio fuel, Henry Ford said it was better than gasoline for autos. He even used it to build a few cars, there is a famous photo of Ford banging on the body of one of his hemp built cars with a sledge hammer demonstrating that hemp was stronger and lighter and cheaper than sheet metal.
Actually, Ford was supportive of alcohol based fuel. You can make it from hemp, or potatoes, or a number of other crops. There’s nothing particularly magical about hemp. It’s another fiber crop that can be processed. I am skeptical that hemp is stronger and lighter than sheet metal, unless it is part of an epoxy composite.
Rudolf Diesel’s design was originally intended to use peanut oil, but petroleum suddenly became available at a lower price.
Personally, I wish we would explore cleaner, cheaper, environmentally friendly alternatives that reduce our dependence of fossil fuels. Image what would happen if we could tell the Saudi’s to take their oil and shove it?
Me too. But wanting something doesn’t make it happen. Plugin hybrids like the Chevy Volt have enormous potential–but we better plan on building nuclear power plants to produce enough electricity. Solar panels still don’t make sense in most of America; wind power isn’t consistent enough (except in some areas). Alcohol from corn doesn’t make economic sense–but from sugar cane, it does.
I am very skeptical of subsidies to production, because they so rapidly turn into corrupt bargains (like the corn-based alcohol fuel industry). But providing some sort of enormous prize for a successful invention, as the Longitude Prize did, might be a strategy worth considering.
Next thing you know, they’ll be telling you that cars can run on vegetable oil.
ps. Not every piece of junk mail you receive merits a blog entry.
You would be astonished how many people want to believe “something for nothing.” That’s why I call it socialism for automobiles.
I don’t pretend to know much about this subject but wouldn’t it be possible to crack the hydrogen using solar power then use it for fuel? Set up a solar powered system that uses electricity to crack the hydrogen for fuel. If you need to condense it I guess you could do that too but it would take more time and sunshine.
Pump it into your car from your own holding tank in the morning. Let the system cook up a bunch during the rest of the day.
It’s not ‘free’ energy you’re using solar but it is hydrogen and the O2 can go back into the atmosphere.
I don’t pretend to know much about this subject but wouldn’t it be possible to crack the hydrogen using solar power then use it for fuel? Set up a solar powered system that uses electricity to crack the hydrogen for fuel. If you need to condense it I guess you could do that too but it would take more time and sunshine.
Pump it into your car from your own holding tank in the morning. Let the system cook up a bunch during the rest of the day.
It’s not ‘free’ energy you’re using solar but it is hydrogen and the O2 can go back into the atmosphere.
Hydrogen is a very tempting fuel, but the core problems are:
1. Hydrogen is a very small molecule, so it has enormous leak potential. You can secure it, but it is a lot harder even than gases like oxygen.
2. It takes a fair amount of electricity to break up the water molecule. For most automotive uses, it makes more sense to store the electricity directly into a battery. (Every energy conversion has some heat losses.) For long drives, sure, storage batteries just aren’t going to do the job–but that’s where a plugin hybrid (like the Chevy Volt) can make sense: you use the electricity for the first 40 miles, and gasoline (or whatever) to recharge the battery beyond that point.
3. I find the whole idea of fuel cells to do the hydrogen/oxygen combination very satisfying, because it is so elegant. But still: if you have that much electricity, why not just store it in a battery?
“Diesel fuel is used in Diesel engines because it’s less volatile, a requirement of the higher pressures involved.”
Not quite correct. Gasoline Diesel engines and methanol Diesel engines have been built and tested. Rudolf Diesel intention was to build an engine which can run on any fuel and some original Diesel engines ran on powdered coal
(something you cannot do with a carburated Otto-cycle engine). Since many fuels have a high vaporization/combustion temperature, Diesel engines have a higher compression ratio (thus higher temperature) than the carburated
engines.
Mr. Cramer:
You repeat a myth. Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on heavy oil not vegetable oil. A French company did that all on its lonesome. Diesel strongly objected to the misuse of his engine. Also vegetable oil is not carbon neutral despite what its advocates claim biofuels is not effective in reducing CO2 emissions which are already 25% lower then a gasoline engine of the same displacement. Bio-diesel also contains less energy then dino-diesel so it requires more fuel to go the same distance.
Moho:
You have even less knowledge of science then you do of politics and economics. Why did you bother to comment on this subject? Take my advice and stick to Jew and Palin bashing.
You repeat a myth. Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on heavy oil not vegetable oil. A French company did that all on its lonesome. Diesel strongly objected to the misuse of his engine.
Source? I saw this mentioned on a documentary on the History Channel (okay, not necessarily one of the most trustworthy sources).
Also vegetable oil is not carbon neutral despite what its advocates claim biofuels is not effective in reducing CO2 emissions which are already 25% lower then a gasoline engine of the same displacement. Bio-diesel also contains less energy then dino-diesel so it requires more fuel to go the same distance.
I’m curious how biodiesel could not be carbon neutral, since it is grown and burns entirely in the present. (I think the whole global warming thing is, at best, a delusion, if not an intentional fraud, so it is mostly curiosity that causes me ask.)
I am not surprised that biodiesel could contain less energy than “dino-diesel.” Of course, if you make it from leftover cooking oil, it might not matter.
Of course you can run a car on vegetable oil. It won’t get as many miles to the gallon as gasoline or diesel, but filtered spent cooking oil is fuel from garbage, so it’s cheap.
I found this a particularly hilarious but very exemplary bit of right wing stupidity. No matter how much physical evidence there is for something, you simply refuse to acknowledge it. I suppose, imprisoned in a suburban cul de sac, its possible to believe anything.
You repeat a myth. Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on heavy oil not vegetable oil.
Tell these delusional bastards, who run a successful bio-diesel fueling station in my neighborhood.
http://www.biofueloasis.com/
Mr. Cramer:
It’s not carbon neutral because you have to process it which takes energy. Don’t confuse Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) with bio-diesel. WVO uses previously produced vegetable oils which still require some refining (energy) to make it suitable for use in an engine and besides you still have to consider the energy input from farm to factory to KFC in the equation. The only way that a bioproduct is carbon neutral is if you burn it in place.
Anything more then B05 (5% bio) is not recommended for direct injection engines because the bio component contaminates the lubricating oil and reducing its effectiveness. You get increased wear and tear on your engine as a result.
Moho:
Your stupidity knows no bounds. Nobody said that you couldn’t run a diesel on vegetable oil. Rudolf Diesel just didn’t design his engine to do so. You can run an turbine powered M1 tank on French perfume. It doesn’t mean that it was designed for it.
Let me decode part of my call sign for you.
TDI stands for Turbo Direct Injection, i.e., a term associated with the VW Jetta or Golf diesel powered automobile.
I will leave the rest of it to you as an exercise. Think you can solve it?
Not a good idea to ridicule someone who has vastly more experience in a subject then you do.
Not a good idea to ridicule someone who has vastly more experience in a subject then you do.
Really? It seems to have worked out just fine. Your point is called “a distinction without a difference”. Really, why would anyone bring up something like this? You can run a diesel car on vegetable oil; the fact that it takes a minor modification is of almost no importance given that Cramer’s original post is about a mythical minor modification that allows a regular engine to run on water. Do you waste everyone’s time like this, Uncle Opie?
Mark Holtzapple and others at Texas A&M have developed fuels from organic garbage:
“The MixAlco process begins with biomass—which includes garbage; biosolids from wastewater treatment plants; and green waste such as lawn clippings, food waste and any type of livestock manure—that is treated with lime and then fermented using microorganisms in soil to form organic salts. Water is removed, ketones are formed and hydrogen is added to create mixed alcohols, which are then combined with existing gasoline.”
http://rgs.tamu.edu/publications/considering-the-alternatives
Bill: We could use hemp oil for fuel, sure.
But to replace crude oil we’d have to not only convert every vehicle in the US to a diesel, we’d have to plant every square inch of the country.
I ran the numbers the last time someone suggested that to me; using oil-per-acre numbers from advocates told me that there isn’t enough land mass in the United States to grow enough hemp to fuel our rolling stock. Even if we planted every inch, and somehow hemp grew in the deserts and mountaintops and we didn’t mind destroying the national parks and all wildlands (and not growing any food!), and if we somehow had enough water to irrigate and a way to harvest it all… it still wouldn’t be enough.
And it’d be far more expensive than fossil fuels.
If you really want to push “alternative fuels”, hemp and biofuel for the whole fleet are simply a non-starter – there can’t be enough, short of algae-farms in the seas on a scale so vast that Greenpeace and the other hippie supporters would explode if you even suggested it.
The only solution that works is nuclear power on a large scale.
It’s cost effective, clean, safe, doesn’t use up the entire country or world’s arable land, and lets you use either raw electricity or generate hydrogen via electrolysis (and it also lets you, say, run desalination plants to make more fresh water, rather than using up every last spare drop, like growing a nation worth of hemp).
Everyone wins. Environmentalists get a much smaller impact than any other source of power, both in land used and emissions of all sorts. Everyone gets cheaper electricity and more of it. Automotive enthusiasts get lots of torque and horsepower in new cars using electricity or hydrogen – and the legacy fleet and hydrocarbon enthusiasts have plenty of fuel available for fun and for driving until the cars wear out, which is good for poor people too.
11. anona…
The constant-depression carburettor has been around for over seventy years; particularly the S.U. carburettor used on virtually all British cars of the pre & post WW-2 period, and the Stromberg CD carbs that superceded them due to the impracticality of the S.U. when faced with smog limits.
It doesn’t take a minor modification to run a diesel on WVO or other biofuel. You put it in the tank and in runs the car. You can also run a diesel on #1 (kerosene), #5 (home heating oil just don’t do it the winter) jet fuel (not recommended) so what.
Mr. Cramer stated that the diesel engine was designed to run on Peanut oil but petroleum became available at a lower price. That simply isn’t true. He invented a heavy oil engine which was simpler and more efficient then a gasoline ICE.
Here is the relevant quote:
“…at the Paris Exhibition in 1900 there was shown by the Otto Company a small Diesel engine, which, at the request of the French Government, ran on Arachide (earth-nut or pea-nut) oil, and worked so smoothly that only very few people were aware of it. The engine was constructed for using mineral oil, and was then worked on vegetable oil without any alterations being made.”
Source: http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/96
So we have Diesel in his own words saying it was designed to run on “mineral oil”, i.e., petroleum.
One again Moho’s bluff and bluster shows him to be of inferior intellectual capability.
Actually Stan Myers who dies of food poisoning shortly after meeting with defense officials concerning placing into experiment did in fact build a dune buggy that ran on WATER see the link here…>http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
But there are still people still experimenting with this technology which does in fact work depending on the vehicle and the type generator and electrolyte used for the process. You can make one for your self with nothing more than two #12 AWG copper wires connected to a 12 volt or 9 volt or even a a 6 volt battery into distilled or even any water along with baking soda of about 1/2 teaspoon and you will see bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen coming off the wires and these are highly explosive but using copper and 12 volts along with little catalyst like no more than 1/2 teaspoon you should be safe but do experiment in a well ventilated environment not subject to open flame. (See a Smack booster at the next link)…>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-SsdYJNhiE
Go to you tube and search smack booster or browns gas or HHO generators and learn some thing>
Tdivina:
Your own words continue to damn you, you idiot.
On this page, you’ll learn more about biodiesel, and about the process of converting a used Mercedes Benz diesel to run on vegetable oil, in this case Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO), collected from the fryers in regular restaurants. The process described in this article, and much of its content, was inspired by another article written by Lyle Pearl of Santa Fe, NM. You can also download and read Lyle’s original article in PDF format to supplement this article.
We need something that runs on used printer paper.
Moho:
Look dummy, I never said that you can’t run a diesel on WVO or virgin Bio. I know people do it all the time. I wouldn’t recommend it for modern direct injection engines because of the potential for increase engine wear and short engine life which would negate one the primary reasons for owning a diesel. If you knew how to read you would see I was only disputing the claim the Rudolf Diesel designed his engine from the start with vegetable oil in mind. You should stick to talking points provided to you by Soros enterprises you don’t have the IQ points to carry on a technical discussion.
Liberals like to deal with the abstract world instead of reality, although reality keeps intruding. Cars running on water is another pipe dream for the Utopia Soviet Collective or President Obama’s ObamaLand.
About 100 years ago (I could not find corroboration, even after praying to St. Google.) there was an automobile that actually ran on water. It was a scam, but it ran.
What the owner did was put solid carbide into the “gas” tank, push it out of the garage so the rubes could add water, then drive away on the acetylene produced by the chemical reaction. It ruined the engine.
The scam was designed to fleece rubes for investment capital.
Moho-
Does your reading comprehension suck so bad that you can’t figure out what tdiinva is saying? Or are you just a contemptible troll who likes to pick fights by insulting people base on deliberate misquoting of what they said?
moho,
tdiinva is not an idiot. Your distinction without a differnence comment was the best you have made in this thread, but it was still underwhelming. Mr. Cramer is a historian. He made a historical claim based on what he heard on the History Channel. tdiinva disputed the accuracy of the claim on a narrow point. Historians love that sort of distinction, so it is not without a difference. As for the rest of your argument with tdiinva, he is winning. Overwhelmingly.
tdiinva,
moho is not an idiot. He is a bulldog, and will hold on to a point of debate well past the point that other dogs let go. This is a virtue when he is right, and a failing when he is wrong.
Yours,
Tom DeGisi
I love when MOHO makes straw man arguments just so he can use ad hominem arguments. The best one here is how right wingers are stupid instead of being intellectually honest and just saying people in general.
Hemp would make a great biofuel base since it needs less to grow in the way of fertilizer and land space. Its the same reason its a better crop for textiles over cotton and paper fiber over trees.
Engines can be made to run man many fuels even waste petroleum oil if one wanted. The problem becomes logistics. If you have a home refinery for veg oil that’s great as long as you can get waste veg. oil. But for those selling fuel you would need a dozen pumps dispensing a dozen fuels to cover the possible contraptions out there. There are taxes also to be paid to the government that keeps small scale operations from being applied. The biofuel based on crops could be used best if the corn lobby didn’t have so much power. Instead regional crops would used. Corn in some placed, algae in others, switch grass and hemp in the ares best suited. CNG and propane are also great fuels that we have loads of here in America. But again limited distribution points becomes an issue.
But I saw it in a Youtube video…
“Mr. Cramer is a historian. He made a historical claim based on what he heard on the History Channel.
LOL.
So does this mean we won’t be getting free health care?
Somewhere I have a book titled “The Greatest Cons of all time”. The book is about highly successful con artists. Obviously Ponsi has a chapter, but one of the more interesting chapters was about a gentleman who made a fairly nice living with a water as fuel scam. He took both Tom Edison and Henry Ford as investors. He would allow anyone to inspect a car, and verify that it was a normal auto with no hidden fuel tank or anything like that, and that the fuel tank was empty. He would then pour pure water into the tank and add a small vial of olive colored fluid that smelled like almonds. The car ran perfectly.
He would conduct the demonstration for any potential investor. No one was ever able to disprove that he really running the car on the water mixed with his magic chemical. He needed investors to further develop his invention and to get ready to go into production. Many people invested, but he was never quite ready to bring his miracle fuel to market. When he died, there was no clue as to the formula, and he had spent all the money.
Chemists have come up with various mixtures that can be added to water, and then burned in an internal combustion engine, particularly the low compression, low octane engines of the day. The only problem is that these chemicals are far more expensive than gas. Both Edison and Ford got conned, They were so amazed with the fact that they had seen a engine run on water (not really it had chemicals added) that it didn’t occur to them that it wasn’t cost effective. Water is cheap right?
Of course you can run your car on water! You just need very buoyant tires, or it’ll sink.
Seriously, though… I’ve had people tell me about some wonderful invention that’s being suppressed by evil corporations. Supposedly, they bought the rights to the patent and are just sitting on it, resolving never to let it get into public use.
I’ve taken to asking what the patent numbers are.
Patents are public documents. In order to get protection under patent laws, you have to file a complete description of your invention, complete enough so that someone can tell how to make the thing. If a 200 MPG carburetor exists, and the patent has been bought by Exxon, I should be able to look up the number, tell exactly how to build one, and at least in principle, build one for my own private use.
It might be a violation of the law, but if one or two people do that, they’re not likely to be caught. And if one or two million do that, good luck prosecuting them all.
Bubblehead:
No, people continue to fall for these scams because they don’t know science. You can think as critically as you like, but if you don’t know the basics, you don’t have a foundation to think from.
Mr. Cramer is a historian. He made a historical claim based on what he heard on the History Channel.
Sad to say, History Channel isn’t much worse than some of the academic historians out there on accuracy. I also made that point in a comment as part of a discussion of non-petroleum sources for fuel. I’m told that the “Rudolf Diesel intended it for peanut oil” claim is false. I don’t see any need to defend a claim from a History Channel documentary.
Moho, you need to work on your reading skills. tdiinva didn’t say that you can’t run a diesel engine on vegetable oil. He was saying that the claim about Diesel designing his engine to run on peanut was incorrect (although this is apparently a widely distributed error).
I don’t generally give a lot of weight to the History Channel, but it didn’t seem completely absurd. There were a lot of interesting solutions to the mobility and fuel problem at the start of the automobile era: electric cars; steam engine cars; alcohol fuel.
One approach that looks promising is running cars on sunlight — used by bacteria to produce isobutyraldehyde.
Late-night infomercials peddle penis-enlargement ‘supplements’ for cryin’ out loud!
If only cars could run on stupid then all of our problems would be…!
Cramer: “Plugin hybrids like the Chevy Volt have enormous potential…”
To be picky, the Volt is not called a hybrid as its engine will not recharge its batteries. What are called hybrids have some appealing either-or capabilities while with the Volt it’s that you will either make it back home to recharge or you won’t.
Why does Moho always have to call others names ? It really does not do anything but create animosity, and really makes him appear to lack the ability to maturely engage in the healthy exchange of ideas. Perhaps his is just a lonely unfulfilled life and he has a deep seated resentment that he releases on others because he never got the love and attention he desired as a child. Poor baby.
“People continue to be suckers for these scams because the vast majority of Americans are incapable of critical thinking!
Just try to have a serious conversation with anyone under 30 on any serious subject and you will see what I mean!
Fortunately, for most people this condition is corrected to some degree with age, so that 20-something ignoramous becomes a 30-something who has begun to think. By their 40’s most of them won’t fall for most scams, but there are still too large a percentage even into their 50’s who never learn. That’s why sweepstakes always make money!
Now, carry this condition over into politics and you see why we always get people elected who promise something for nothing! The same people who will fall for every scam are the ones voting en-masse for whicheve charlatan offers them the most at the expense of __________________ (fill in the blank with whatever evil entity is in vogue).”
You mean the kind of critical thinking that allows one to operate on the assumption that millions of people must have the same mental processing, simply because they belong to an age cohort?
i take it you must be in your early twenties, if the level of “critical thinking” evident in this post is indicative of a general trend in your mind.
Not only that, but even if oil companies bought the patents to such inventions, the patents would pass into the public domain after a certain amount of time (somewhere between 10-25 years). After that, they’d have no ability to suppress such information, and it would be freely available how to do it. The more logical thing is to lease such a patent out and get rich beyond the dreams of avarice for the duration of your patent, even if losing it puts you out of business.
If you ever get tired of ad hominum attacks, Google “Fish Carburetor” which will explode some of the myths in this thread. Too bad that we have to live on this planet when we could join some of you on Planet Unicorn where the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply.
Perhaps his is just a lonely unfulfilled life and he has a deep seated resentment that he releases on others because he never got the love and attention he desired as a child. Poor baby.
That’s one possibility, and certainly I may not be aware that this is what causes the animosity I have towards people I identify as idiots. However, in your case, I can assure you that I am solely motivated by your baseline ganglionic intellect when I call you an idiot. Its almost a duty to truth at this point.
I used to own a Toyota Dealership. I spent over a decade working my way into that. I have sold more cars then you will see tomorrow.
Most people DON’T buy cars for transportation. They buy them to impress other people, to get a better looking sex partner ( think it’s an accident most car commercials have either a hot babe or Mr Studly in them?) or from the satisfaction of driving something cool. Maybe 5% buy a car for transportation. Yes, they all use it for transportation, but that isn’t why they write that check every month. Prestige, style, performance were the main factors the millions spent on research found. Until that attitude is changed, nothing else will.
If all you want is transportation, get a bicycle.
GM went under because the bean counters took over and bean counters NEVER understand that people buy the sizzzle, even while they are eating the steak.
BTW, the first cars were steam powered. If you don’t understand that, steam comes from water. So the first automobiles were water powered.
http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/dudgeon.html
1853. They were replaced by petrol because it is the more efficient.
Moho is pugnaciously ignorant when he isn’t being aggressively stupid. It’s just his nature. That and I think he learned his debating skills on Slashdot.
Why do potheads like scams so much? Between miracle hemp and medical marijuana, they aren’t fooling anyone. (except your typical Obama voter…)
“However, in your case, I can assure you that I am solely motivated by your baseline ganglionic intellect when I call you an idiot.”
You should say that in the mirror a few times. Then it would unquestionably be true.
What are called hybrids have some appealing either-or capabilities while with the Volt it’s that you will either make it back home to recharge or you won’t.
Or the gas engine will start and recharge the batteries and run the electric motor. For long trips (more than 40 miles), the gas engine is a good solution; for the vast majority of short trips, recharging from house current will work very nicely. And even for trips of 80 miles, you won’t be using LOTS of gasoline to recharge the batteries, because the engine will be operating at optimum RPM for efficiency. It’s much like a diesel electric locomotive–but with a battery.
I’ve driven a Toyota Prius, and I was very impressed with it–but it seems like unnecessary complexity to have both electric and gasoline motor (depending on mode) driving the wheels. And the Volt and similar cars is likely to be, for most urban and even most suburban drivers, a very, very good choice. It will need more battery capacity for many rural drivers, however. But where are most of the miles driven? In urban and suburban settings.
To be picky, the Volt is not called a hybrid as its engine will not recharge its batteries.
I found this so bizarre that I did some hunting, and it appears that only regenerative braking recharges the batteries on the Volt. The gas engine runs the electric motor, and maintains the current charge of the battery, but doesn’t recharge it. I presume that there’s some good reason for this.
John, you’re confusing the working substance for the fuel. The working substance is any fluid that absorbs and releases heat, expanding and contracting inside the pistons to generate mechanical energy. The working substance merely stores and transfers energy, it doesn’t actually release any energy, nor does it react with anything.
I am not a scientist, and I can’t tell you anything you haven’t already read about the subject of whether water, hydrogen fuel cells, or other alternative power, can be used to run a car. I have several observations, though, pertinent to this subject.
One is that if we do contrive to generate power to transport ourselves without oil, this won’t solve the problems we have with Arabs or Muslims. If we make their oil worthless, they’re likely to be more pissed at us, not less.
Another observation is that while yes, it’s likely that a car from the 70s with very good gas mileage would have been seized by the car companies for competitive purposes, here on Pajamas some time ago there was an article recounting the story of the novelist Herman Wouk’s brother, who had a working hybrid in the 70s, but was harassed into stopping his project by the EPA. So while a car company might have adopted such a vehicle, it’s not a given that they would have.
David n,
you say that reducing dependence on middle east oil would probably serve to make our enemies abroad more angry at us. You are probably right, but it stands to reason that if we are not dependent on those nations, we will have less incentive to compromise our principles in order to feed the countries oil addiction. It is hard to oppose a regime if you are in bed with it.
One is that if we do contrive to generate power to transport ourselves without oil, this won’t solve the problems we have with Arabs or Muslims. If we make their oil worthless, they’re likely to be more pissed at us, not less.
I don’t care about a dofg being pissed once it jhas had jhad its teeth removed. And we could warn them that if one Arab/Muslim is caught with a firecracker in his hands we would answer with nukes. Oh, a,d have them givze back the money we handled to Palestiansn during 60 long years while the Saudi “princes” were having one air-coànditionned harem after another being built and not giving a dime.
Cramer: “The gas engine runs the electric motor, and maintains the current charge of the battery, but doesn’t recharge it. I presume that there’s some good reason for this.”
The reason is to extend the driving range to, IIRC, 200 some odd miles.
I waited long for GM to reveal that. I think it a deal-killer as the vehicle must be recharged and is unusable until charged.
A plug-in hybrid, OTOH, still runs during a power outage and would be of some utility during any gas shortage or rationing. Only both unpleasantries would…uh…ground it.
For those of you who were offended by my remarks, I apologize; I can see how my comments could give offense. I assure you all that was not my intent.
By way of explanation, in my 50+ years I have been repeatedly disappointed in the level of technical or scientific understanding of those I interact with. I seem to have become cynical.
I grant there are many young people who are bright and well-educated (after all, who’s filling MIT classrooms?) I spoke in general terms of the people I have talked to; hardly a scientific sampling.
So, apologies all around.
One is that if we do contrive to generate power to transport ourselves without oil, this won’t solve the problems we have with Arabs or Muslims. If we make their oil worthless, they’re likely to be more pissed at us, not less.
For a short period of time, this would be hazardous. But over time, the Middle East would become a much more poorer place than it is now. There would still be resentment, but without Saudi money funding radical Islam in the West, it would decline rapidly.
The reason is to extend the driving range to, IIRC, 200 some odd miles.
I waited long for GM to reveal that. I think it a deal-killer as the vehicle must be recharged and is unusable until charged.
A plug-in hybrid, OTOH, still runs during a power outage and would be of some utility during any gas shortage or rationing. Only both unpleasantries would…uh…ground it.
It isn’t unusable until charged, as long as it has gasoline in it. It becomes effectively a gasoline automobile if you don’t have a way to recharge it. In practice, what will be the common use cases?
1. They commute 10-15 miles to work. They recharge it every night when they get home.
2. They commute 30-40 miles to work (much less common). Their employer will provide extension cords to recharge it while at work. Even if you don’t get a full recharge in eight hours, you get enough of one that you may get most of the way home before the gas engine starts.
3. People on long trips will get 40 miles before the gas engine starts. When they stop for lunch, they plug in the car for recharging. Because you won’t get much of a recharge in ten minutes, it is an incentive to have a proper sit down meal, instead of a drive-through. An hour recharge isn’t going to be a full recharge–not even close–but it will get you a few miles.
I suspect that no one is going to buy a Volt for long trips. (I’ll keep my Corvette and Jaguar for those circumstances.) I can see people buying them for category 1 and 2 driving–and for category 3, it is slightly more efficient than a conventional gasoline car. Since the vast majority of driving in this country is category 1 and 2, that’s likely to be a substantial net reduction in gasoline consuumption.
Why do potheads like scams so much? Between miracle hemp and medical marijuana, they aren’t fooling anyone. (except your typical Obama voter…)
Because marijuana is a religion. I can understand the argument that hemp can be used in a lot of places that other fiber plants are used. It may even be the case that hemp can be grown in places that a lot of other fiber plants can’t be grown. There is, however, an adulation of the plant that yes, isn’t fooling anyone but other potheads.
Unfortunately, marijuana has some serious risks–like a 40% increase in psychosis rates later in life for those who were regular users–rising to 100% increase in psychosis rates for those who used it weekly. Now, the average pothead isn’t going to suffer mental illness–we’re talking about increases from a baseline of a couple percent of the population–but it isn’t a trivial problem. (Alcohol has even a worse problem on this, by the way.)
Cramer: “It isn’t unusable until charged, as long as it has gasoline in it. It becomes effectively a gasoline automobile if you don’t have a way to recharge it.”
Not the Volt. Not if what I’ve read is so.
In a parallel-hybrid there is a conventional drive train and an electrical drive train. This meets your description. It does not have to be recharged.
In a series-hybrid the gasoline engine serves only to charge the batteries to power the sole, electric drive train. It does not have to be recharged.
The Volt runs on battery power until the batteries drop to some charge level. The gasoline engine then kicks in to charge the batteries enough to extend the driving range. At the end of that extended range you are SOL without a recharge.
If any of the above is incorrect then I will stand corrected but I think you need to do some more hunting on the Volt.
1. They commute 10-15 miles to work. They recharge it every night when they get home.
2. They commute 30-40 miles to work (much less common). Their employer will provide extension cords to recharge it while at work. Even if you don’t get a full recharge in eight hours, you get enough of one that you may get most of the way home before the gas engine starts.
3. People on long trips will get 40 miles before the gas engine starts. When they stop for lunch, they plug in the car for recharging. Because you won’t get much of a recharge in ten minutes, it is an incentive to have a proper sit down meal, instead of a drive-through. An hour recharge isn’t going to be a full recharge–not even close–but it will get you a few miles.
I don’t know where you’re getting your statistics Clayton, but most people I know and work with fall in the 25+ mile commute category. I’ve also read reports on the Volt in magazines like Car and Driver and it is less than promising for the majority of Americans.
As to #2, employers don’t give you gasoline to get to of from work (unless its a company vehicle) why on earth would they pay for the electricity to charge your car? Especially in the face of Cap and Trade being passed. Then add to that “preferential treatment” and associated lawsuits, “why do you charge employee X’s car but not mine?” and you won’t see many if any employers charging their employee’s cars no matter how far they drive. You’re indulging in “pipe dreams” if you actually think otherwise.
Everything I’ve read about the Volt says you won’t want it for anything other than short trips, long trips are out of the question. This is mainly due to the terrible performance of the vehicle once the battery runs out and the gasoline engine starts charging the batteries. Also there isn’t much to support #3 either. On long motor vehicle trips you a) have the time and will eat a sit down meal as respite from the car or b) are pressed for time and will either eat on the run or make it a quick sit and eat to stretch the legs, knock out the restroom, and then get back on the road.
On top of that electric vehicles are unsuitable for many Americans like myself, where 40 miles will barely make it to town and back. Nor do they cover the 20% of vehicles that are pickup trucks and 11% that are SUVs. In addition electric won’t cover the power requirements of the trucking industry, airlines, or military. We aren’t going to be magically weaned off the oil teat when the Volt appears.
Pile on top of that our aging and inefficient power grid, lack of power generation capability, government mandated push for unreliable power such as wind and solar, and we just don’t have the capability for electric vehicles. I’ve heard it mentioned that even 10,000 Volts or plug in hybrids will cause problems for us. In addition there will basically be no more “peak hours” as every single hour must be maximum output to recharge the electric vehicles.
Without a plan and major investment and planning replacing the internal combustion engine with electric cars is just more rainbows & unicorns for the masses.
Real Deal: “Without a plan and major investment and planning replacing the internal combustion engine with electric cars is just more rainbows & unicorns for the masses.”
The only plans to have worked with the masses have involved eliminating the masses. But commercial vehicles, such as the teeming hordes of USPS, UPS and FedEx vehicles in Manhattan, might find a workable plan. Charge then overnight during the times of lowest electrical demand. Could actually be a boon for Con Edison.
But then, there’s that hydraulic-hybrid stuff.
I’d also like to add that for urban areas where the Volt and cars like it would probably be the most useful its going to be a total nightmare.
1) If you don’t have a garage or designated parking in front of your home how will you charge your car?
2) If you do have parking in front of your home or a designated spot in a garage with an outlet for charging how do you prevent electricity theft, kids unplugging your car, or just cutting the cord?
3) Most row homes in cites do not have outside electrical outlets that I’ve seen, heating and cooling losses due to improperly sealed windows will up energy demands as well.
They need to focus on quick switch batteries that are replaced in a system similar to propane tanks at places like Lowes, BJ’s, or Home Depot, you purchase the first one and then swap out to a charged one when it is empty.
Actually you can get all sorts of information concerning HHO or Hydroxy or Brown’s Gas named after Yull Brown at the following link it is a PDF and quite lengthy but everything you need to know both pro and con about hydroxy is within the online data. http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Hydroxy%20Boosters.pdf
I don’t know where you’re getting your statistics Clayton, but most people I know and work with fall in the 25+ mile commute category. I’ve also read reports on the Volt in magazines like Car and Driver and it is less than promising for the majority of Americans.
I suppose it depends where you live. Here in Boise, large numbers of people do live within 15 miles of work.
As to #2, employers don’t give you gasoline to get to of from work (unless its a company vehicle) why on earth would they pay for the electricity to charge your car? Especially in the face of Cap and Trade being passed. Then add to that “preferential treatment” and associated lawsuits, “why do you charge employee X’s car but not mine?” and you won’t see many if any employers charging their employee’s cars no matter how far they drive. You’re indulging in “pipe dreams” if you actually think otherwise.
Because:
1. Electricity is actually quite cheap. We pay about six cents per kilowatt-hour here.
2. It is likely to be regarded as a “fringe benefit”–something that will be attractive to employees, and pretty cheap for employers to provide.
3. You can be sure that if cap and trade turns into a problem for this, this will be yet another wart added to the law, at great complexity.
Everything I’ve read about the Volt says you won’t want it for anything other than short trips, long trips are out of the question. This is mainly due to the terrible performance of the vehicle once the battery runs out and the gasoline engine starts charging the batteries. Also there isn’t much to support #3 either. On long motor vehicle trips you a) have the time and will eat a sit down meal as respite from the car or b) are pressed for time and will either eat on the run or make it a quick sit and eat to stretch the legs, knock out the restroom, and then get back on the road.
What I can find says that the gasoline engine doesn’t charge the batteries–only powers the motor and keeps the battery at whatever level of charge is required for battery life.
I suggest that people driving Volt-like cars will probably change their habits a bit–doing more sitdown meals to take advantage of oppportunities to recharge.
On top of that electric vehicles are unsuitable for many Americans like myself, where 40 miles will barely make it to town and back. Nor do they cover the 20% of vehicles that are pickup trucks and 11% that are SUVs. In addition electric won’t cover the power requirements of the trucking industry, airlines, or military. We aren’t going to be magically weaned off the oil teat when the Volt appears.
Pile on top of that our aging and inefficient power grid, lack of power generation capability, government mandated push for unreliable power such as wind and solar, and we just don’t have the capability for electric vehicles. I’ve heard it mentioned that even 10,000 Volts or plug in hybrids will cause problems for us. In addition there will basically be no more “peak hours” as every single hour must be maximum output to recharge the electric vehicles.
Without a plan and major investment and planning replacing the internal combustion engine with electric cars is just more rainbows & unicorns for the masses.
Charge then overnight during the times of lowest electrical demand.
You overlook another point I made, overnight suddenly becomes a peak demand period as well since you now have millions of vehicles plugged in to the power grid. There are a ton of issues with electric cars that are not addressed. In addition what are you going to do about the thousands of taxis that run round the clock? Do you realize how many electric cars a cab company would have to buy in order to operate with their current hours?
In addition the so called “green” properties of electrics and hybrids comes into question as the process for making the batteries, the cost of replacing the batteries, the disposal of said batteries, additional power generation needs, and upgrading the power grid are taken into account.
The current capabilities of these vehicles combines with a lack of supporting infrastructure just doesn’t cut it right now. Also the real environmental impact of these vehicles is often obscured by their proponents.
I’d also like to add that for urban areas where the Volt and cars like it would probably be the most useful its going to be a total nightmare.
1) If you don’t have a garage or designated parking in front of your home how will you charge your car?
Not sure where you live, but most everywhere that I have owned a home this wasn’t a problem. Apartment dwellers might have a problem, and some condo owners, too. You don’t a perfect solution that works for everyone to have it still be a win.
2) If you do have parking in front of your home or a designated spot in a garage with an outlet for charging how do you prevent electricity theft, kids unplugging your car, or just cutting the cord?
What prevents them from smashing your side view mirror right now? It’s a cost of living in liberal controlled areas, and there’s not much you can do about it–nor does the electricity cord change anything.
Theft of electricity? How expensive do you think electricity is? A typical circuit breaker is 15 amps; at 110 volts, that’s 1650 watts, or 1.65 kilowatts in an hour. Here in Idaho I pay $.06 per kilowatt-hour–so that if one of these electricity thieves comes in and steals an hour, I’m out ten cents. If they do it all night long–wow, I’m out a whole dollar! I’m inclined to think that few people are going to do that, unless you live in a truly insane place.
3) Most row homes in cites do not have outside electrical outlets that I’ve seen, heating and cooling losses due to improperly sealed windows will up energy demands as well.
That’s fixable.
They need to focus on quick switch batteries that are replaced in a system similar to propane tanks at places like Lowes, BJ’s, or Home Depot, you purchase the first one and then swap out to a charged one when it is empty.
Unlike propane tanks, which you replace every few months, these would require daily replacement. Not practical.
On top of that electric vehicles are unsuitable for many Americans like myself, where 40 miles will barely make it to town and back. Nor do they cover the 20% of vehicles that are pickup trucks and 11% that are SUVs. In addition electric won’t cover the power requirements of the trucking industry, airlines, or military. We aren’t going to be magically weaned off the oil teat when the Volt appears.
Nor has anyone said that cars like the Volt are going to do that. Where I live, the Volt simply doesn’t make sense, largely because of deep winter snow. But for tens of millions of Americans, it makes perfect sense.
I see no reason why pickup trucks and SUVs can’t be made with a similar system.
Just because the green idiots love the idea, doesn’t mean that it is intrinsically wrong.
The Volt runs on battery power until the batteries drop to some charge level. The gasoline engine then kicks in to charge the batteries enough to extend the driving range. At the end of that extended range you are SOL without a recharge.
Or refilling the gas tank.
Actually you can get all sorts of information concerning HHO or Hydroxy or Brown’s Gas named after Yull Brown at the following link it is a PDF and quite lengthy but everything you need to know both pro and con about hydroxy is within the online data. http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Hydroxy%20Boosters.pdf
Ah yes, a website devoted to what they call “suppressed energy technology.” A very credible source indeed.
You overlook another point I made, overnight suddenly becomes a peak demand period as well since you now have millions of vehicles plugged in to the power grid.
Most unlikely, since peak demand in the afternoon is vastly higher than demand from 11:00 PM until about 5:00 PM. Plug in ten million cars across the country drawing 15 amps, 110 volts each, and the total increase in demand is about 16.5 megawatts. Relative to the current peak demand problem, that’s not a big deal. Even 100 million cars (which is unlikely)–that’s only 165 megawatts nationally.
There are a ton of issues with electric cars that are not addressed. In addition what are you going to do about the thousands of taxis that run round the clock? Do you realize how many electric cars a cab company would have to buy in order to operate with their current hours?
Do you realize that there can be dozens of different solutions, and they aren’t mutually exclusive? I don’t expect gasoline automobiles to go away in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my children. For many functions, gasoline engines are marvelously effective.
In addition the so called “green” properties of electrics and hybrids comes into question as the process for making the batteries, the cost of replacing the batteries, the disposal of said batteries, additional power generation needs, and upgrading the power grid are taken into account.
Without question. As long as the government doesn’t subsidize production (as the environmentalists just LOVE to do), the actual costs of the batteries and their recycling will be a pretty good identifier as to the actual net energy benefit.
There is certainly a need to upgrade the power grid: nuclear power plants, for example. Solar is still too expensive to justify itself (hence the silly tax credits), but at about $2/watt for photovoltaic panels, it is cost effective–especially for providing peak power to run air conditioners on sunny afternoons.
> and the clamor for more horsepower.
The reason people want more horsepower is that they like not having problems getting onto a crowded interstate. They like being able to pass a semi in a passing lane on an incline.
Foolish people.
You’re welcome to have your own standards. But make sure you grasp that the “clamor for more horsepower” isn’t just mindless and stupid. It has a rational justification which follows logically from certain precepts. If you wish to start with different precepts, more power to you, but that’s not the only set of precepts to start from nor the only sensible way to weight the results.
> Personally, I wish we would explore cleaner, cheaper, environmentally friendly alternatives that reduce our dependence of fossil fuels. Image what would happen if we could tell the Saudi’s to take their oil and shove it?
We can already almost justify doing that. Tar sands and Oil shales available in the USA and Canada represent greater reserves than all the oil taken out of the ground in all history.
The question is, do we want to use the reserves now, or do we want to wait until oil is rarer outside the USA, worth 2x to 3x the current value, and we can become a net exporter with a huge influx of cash to pay off those inflated dollars we’ve borrowed on so far?
You have to think longer term, and Americans tend to suck at that.
.
The thing is, there are no ‘silver bullets’. That cute little bucket of volts that works in New York won’t get it for my cousin in Texas that lives about 40 miles away from where he works. It’s 20 miles to the nearest store. Urban areas have different needs as well as mass transportation. Rural areas have to have fast, comfortable vehicles.
The real issue here is will the market place decide or will government mandate what people drive?
The Market place decided long ago that the petrol powered ICE was the way to go. Have things changed so much that the market will produce a different decision this time? I don’t think so.
Clayton Cramer said:
Most unlikely, since peak demand in the afternoon is vastly higher than demand from 11:00 PM until about 5:00 PM. Plug in ten million cars across the country drawing 15 amps, 110 volts each, and the total increase in demand is about 16.5 megawatts. Relative to the current peak demand problem, that’s not a big deal. Even 100 million cars (which is unlikely)–that’s only 165 megawatts nationally.
15 amps, 110 volts = 1650 wats
10**8 cars * 1.65*10**3 watts =1.65 * 10**11 = 165 * 10.9 = 165 GIGA watts ie one thousand more what you calculated.
Some problems become a big deal once you apply correct maths don’t you think
10**8 cars * 1.65*10**3 watts =1.65 * 10**11 = 165 * 10.9 = 165 GIGA watts ie one thousand more what you calculated.
Oh dear, yes you are correct about the arithmetic error. Still, with ten million plugin cars (which is more likely in the near future), that’s 16.5 gigawatts. That’s a lot of power, but still pretty minor compared to current use. In 2001, we consumed 1,140 billion kWh, or 1,140 trillion watt-hours. Dividing by 24 hours per day, 365 days per year (8760 hours), that’s an average consumption of 1.14 trillion watt-hours / 8760 = 1.3 x 10^11 watts average power production. Ten million cars recharging at night would consume about 13% of the average power output of the current grid. Since peak power production is considerably higher than the average, this doesn’t look like a problem. At 100 million cars, yet, this might be a real problem.
But make sure you grasp that the “clamor for more horsepower” isn’t just mindless and stupid.
More horsepower alone isn’t a problem. I have a car that gets 30-33 miles per gallon with the cruise control set at 55 mph.
If I decide to use all of its horsepower (such as passing on a two lane road, or merging onto a busy highway), the mileage drops precipitously. But I seldom do that. A 2000 pound car with 300 horsepower, driven the way that most people drive most of the time, will get very close to the same gas mileage as a 2000 pound car with 100 horsepower. Weight is the enemy.
There’s one other point which kills the suppressed-200-mpg-carburetor legend.
If this technology exists, why was it never used by Communist countries?
They didn’t respect capitalist patents anyway, and they had no interest in burning more oil.
Or by Japanese automakers?
They might be bound by U.S. patents, but between patent expiration and parallel development, they could have built their own versions – and Japan imports all its oil.
Or by the hundreds of thousands of shade-tree mechanics in Third World countries?
Can anyone seriously claim that Exxon or Shell was going to sue every crossroads repair shop in Pakistan or Brazil or Tanzania that installed a magic carburetor?
In theory, cars can be run on any type of stored energy. But for an electric car, you have to generate and then store the energy. For a gasoline car, the energy is already stored, you just have to release it. Add in the fact that there’s already the gasoline infrastructure in place and its pretty easy to see why there won’t be a cost effective electric car for decades. Even if we were starting over from scratch today, its hard to tell what would be the best way to go.
hey, i saw this car invention in the Philippines. the inventor was never given credit so a japanese company bought the concept and idea from the investor.