Lets see where the conspiracy lies in refrence to big oil.
In refrence to the thread talking about Hydrogen. This technology is real and you don't have to buy a new car to utlize it.
Read through and you'll see what I am talking about.
10% of the gas that runs through your engine is burnt in the Cat-Converter. So really only 90% is actually being utilized before the loss due to thermal, drag, and various other factors. In other words you really only use 9 gallons out of a 10 gallon tank with a standard midsized sedan in america that is getting 30 mpg for the actual motion of the vehicle. The rest is lost to heat, drag, etc as well as a portion of the Hydrocarbon that gets burt up in the catalytic converter instead of being utilized in the engine. 5-10% of the fuel is what is lost by this.
At $3.69 a gallon where I live it takes $40.00 to fill mySaturn SL2 up. Of that $40.00 I am really only utilizing $36.00 of the fuel burnt. And of that $36.00 only 20% is actually converted into motion of the car or in other words $6.40 worth of potential energy. It's like pissing my money away at oil producers expense because the car was designed that way.
Let's delve into a little history. When the the Ford model-T was invented at the turn of the century it had a EPA of 25 mpg. Yes the first car made has better gas mileage than a lot of cars on the road today. To put it into perspective over the past century we have had many technological advances such as the Splitting of the atom, Putting a man on the moon, Creating the Microchip, Flight, Breaking the sound barrier, The Internet, yet our fleet of automobiles still can't get better gas mileage over all is a designed in factor to make a car not get the most out of the fuel avallable.
Now bear with me here and you can see that there is a major conspiracy with big-oil. Average Combined EPA for the the entire fleet of cars, trucks, suv's and such today in america is around 22.5 to 23 MPG.
That is the average of the 243,000,000 million passenger vehicles in america today.
This is pitiful and their is no excuse other than big oil is suppressing technology.
So this brings me back to my original point. The amount of useable HHO is viable in the cracking of the water through electrolysis giving enough to power a vehicle on water alone. When you mulitply the cells you get even more. This can all be accomplished with your car's alternator and requires no more energy than what it takes to power say a 600 watt amp for a car stereo system.
The hydrogen conversion I have actually witnessed with my own eyes is real. You can look it up yourself.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/diy-convert-your-ca...
This is the solar powered version.
The one I saw was a 50/50 mix version so the cat and the exhaust wouldn't have to be removed because of rust and also the the head porcelian coated to prevent rust in the engine.





















I'm not sold on this
I think it is just taking energy from the charging system. Its a viscous circle of of zero enhancement. However making a car run 100% on hydrogen, and filled by a solar home built hydrogen generator sounds good to me.
My next car is a Electric '32 Ford Hi Boy (Fiberglass kit). The car kit is cheap, light weight and cool. The electic motor, controller and batteries are about $10k for the good stuff, 80 mile capacity. And for the long trips, I plan on towing my Honda EU3000 in a cool looking tear drop trailer.
We live in So. Utah and cruising Zion, Bryce and Brian on sunny days is a blast, and to do it cheap will be even better.
Total cost estimated is $20k, you can barely buy a Hyundai for that. I'll take the cool / green factor.
Sounds like a good plan.
Let me know how it works out. I am interested.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
----------------------------------------------------------
We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
thanks for posting
:)
Here is the problem with that -
Look at the corn prices since ethanol was put forth to save us all. If think oil is overpriced, just wait till we start using our water to run our cars and all hell will break loose.
All I can say is thank god I live on a great lake.
Bring back steam engines.
This way all I have to do is plant trees on my property, make charcoal and I am on my way.
another angle
Think about this angle:
Back when drag racing first started in the '50s- what was the top ET or mph in the 1320? just over a 100 at what 12 secs? now look at it, 4.4 seconds at 335 mph.
Think of the cumulative time and manpower used to make a vehicle go so much faster/quicker. Now imagine that brain trust used to make a vehicle become so much more efficient.
Though- I still like the smell of nitro-methane in the morning.
I think the grassroots area of the automotive world is beginning to investigate this as well. And that is where we will see real unadulterated progress I think.
Efficiency
It's all about efficiency.
If you can convert whatever energy/fuel into work more efficiently, you'll do better in energy/fuel economy. It's that simple.
Internal combustion engine has major problems with efficiency and that's where our problems lie with existing cars. If we could come anywhere near 100% efficiency(which we cannot) with our existing engines, we'd have alot less to be concerned about.
There are going to be conversion/transfer losses. That is unavoidable. The trick is to find systems that have lower losses which are possible to utilize for our intended applications.
There is alot of desire from people running around getting pulled into scams to get some kind of "free lunch". No free lunch. But, it is possible to cut your losses, and that is the sensible direction to follow. And cutting losses CAN mean new technologies that don't use fossil fuels. I don't mean to say that oil-based fuels are a requirement at all. All I'm saying is that whatever it is, it needs to have efficiencies much higher than we are seeing now, to get our step forward in the direction we want to go.
IF we could get our power requirement much lower, and still do what we need to do, then we could open up the use of alternative power generation to supply those reduced power needs.
A basic example that is strictly speculation might be if we could get a real good electric motor of about 1hp(746 watts) and direct drive the wheels of a very light and aerodynamic commuter vehicle, it could be possible to achieve decent road speeds AND generate enough electric power from body-integrated solar photovoltaic panels to run the system. Some new kind of lightweight batteries would really be nice for this, because we will need to store power, and today's batteries are heavy. It might not accellerate very fast, nor do any more than maybe 45mph max, but its a possibility.
It might not meet everybody's needs, and it might not be popular, and it might not meet all the road safety regulations for crash tests and stuff. But, it doesn't take much actual power to run a very streamlined small vehicle at 45mph. It's done with human power(hpv racers) all the time, which is alot less than 1 hp.
As technology improves for solar power generation, storage battery types, and electric motor efficiencies, it might become easier to accomplish this kind of thing with a somewhat larger and heavier vehicle for family purposes.
Yes these are all good
And you make great sense. I am trying to point out how Big Oil has been really screwing America by suppressing design technology. Thanks for the post. I understand you can't utilize 100% efficiency but it can be a whole lot better than what is there now.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
----------------------------------------------------------
We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
AJ had this link,
I built MK-48 torpedo's in the USN but I'm no motor head... Just some of the stuff AJ likes to tose out there?
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=cyprusmete
What you believe to be true, is true to you... "until you change your mind"
Running cars on water is a scam
It is physically impossible for the electrolysis reaction to be self-sustaining. You will be battery limited. You might as well make a pure electric car.
However, your discussion of other efficiency concerns is (reasonably) valid. All internal combustion engines are limited by something called the Carnot cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle) Given our past discussion of physics, Oruval, I'm not going to get into it here.
However, I will say that unless we're talking about something that is making a fundamental change to the carnot cycle parameters of the engine, you're probably just pissing into the wind and spending millions of dollars on a fraction of a percent of thermal efficiency. That's not an oil company conspiracy, that's just thermodynamics.
As a mechanical engineer with significant project work in alternative energy, here's my two cents on what the future of vehicle power looks like:
--Short term (<10 years), hybrids are the best answer. They can use existing infrastructure and don't require significant re-writing of vehicle regulations or maintenance procedures.
-Mid term (10-30 years), we might start looking at electric. Two crucial developments have to occur to make electric cars viable. 1) We have to come up with a better source of electrical generation. It doesn't help any to take a gas burning car off the road if the power plant down the street just has to crank out more pollution. My money for solving this problem would be split between nuke plants (I happen to know the NRC is hiring lots of folks right now) and distributed generation (wind, roof mounted solar, etc). 2) Battery technology still has a bit of a ways to go. We've got to find a battery technology that is light enough to give us comparable performance to today's IC cars. It also has to be safe in a crash and not take up too much space (soccer moms don't want batteries in the way of their groceries). If we can get those two things taken care of on a large scale, electric cars become quite viable.
-Long Term (>30 years): Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles MIGHT be viable. I'm still not convinced, but they have a chance. There are a lot of roadblocks. Ones that come to mind are: infrastructure (gotta have hydrogen stations on every street corner), immaturity of fuel cell technology, safety of fuel cell/hydrogen storage, lack of "know-how" in fuel cell repair among car techs. Also, depending on how well we solve the electric car problem, fuel cell cars might never be needed.
So, there's my attempt at seeing the future. You'll notice a common theme there... in order for any new technology to get significant market penetration, it is going to have to be a "form fit function" replacement of current ICE cars. The rich moron isn't going to switch over to a hydrogen hummer if he doesn't think it has as much torque or acceleration as its gas-powered equivalent. I think that resistance to change among the American populace will remain firmly entrenched for quite a while unless there is some sort of paradigm shifting event. Short of $20/gal gas, I'm not sure what that event would be.
I have a different opinion on the future
I think you're spot on when it comes to water electrolysis...it's a circular reaction and would generate a net loss of energy. When someone claims otherwise...make sure your wallet is in your front pocket.
I agree that the immediate future is hybrid technology, and the (forget what it's called) technology that shuts off the fuel injection to cylinders that don't need it. I think Toyota has a model that does this.
I think hybrids are the future as well...I've read a lot about the Chevy Volt, where the wheels are driven by electricity powered by on board batteries, and these batteries are recharged either through plug-in or from an on board engine. Until we have better means to store electricity, I think this is where we are going. You could pretty easily charge the batteries with a short running cycle from the engine, and it could shut off until needed again.
The far future, once we've had time to develop more effective batteries, is the pure plug in car. It wouldn't be inconcievable to have a rapid charge system, where you could stop at a gas station and quick charge your battery in 5-10 minutes, enough power to get you a few hundred miles.
As far as the amount of pollution and energy generated by power plants, you have to understand how efficient it is to generate power at a central location. You can have a number of options for generation, clean coal, diesel, nuclear, hydroelectric...etc.
This energy spike has dumped a lot of money into electric storage research, and we should see in our lifetimes that research come to fruition.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but,
where do we disagree?
It seems to me our opinions are very similar.
Oh...I didn't really specify
Sorry...lost track of what I was disagreeing with and got on a tangent.
My difference in opinion is the hydrogen fuel cell. I really don't think it's viable...it would require massive infastructure and massive investment with long term returns, and I just don't see it happening.
Also...I have a problem with having a tank of liquid hydrogen under my butt while crusing along at 80 mph. I'd feel much safer with a massive battery.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Actually, I agree
There are a LOT of hurdles for the fuel cell vehicles. I agree concerning the tank of pressurized hydrogen... makes me nervous.
Assuming battery technology continues to develop and we can find a decent battery solution with acceptable failure modes, I think the plugin car is the most likely long term solution as well. That was what I meant when I said something about how depending on how well we solve the electric car problem, we may never need the fuel cell.
Battery v. H
DUDE!!!! Cruising & crashing with the H on board would be the BOMB!!!
OK...I'll admit, that was pretty lame.
Know anything about biodiesel?
Well, its really not biodesiel. No convertion neccessary, its just vegetable oil and the secret ingredient....literally... and it goes directly into the furl tank of any diesel engine car,truck, boat, trailor... Is it real? I just discovered it about 2 weeks ago
Semper Fortis
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
The best variant of that is
The best variant of that is pure vegetable oil, which will run diesel engines with an easy, minimal conversion. My tractor can run on canola oil--it says so in the owner's manual. That's how accessible veggie diesel is--in my opinion, it's the answer to our problems. (Although Big Oil and its corporate shills in the media will never tell that to the public.)
. SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Sure! Biodiesel is not a scam.
Proceed with caution on conversion. There is no secret ingredient that I know of.
h-daddy
explanation...
"80% of the gas that runs through your engine is burnt in the Cat-Converter. So really only 20% is actually being utilized. In other words you really only use 2 gallons out of a 10 gallon tank with a standard midsized sedan in america that is getting 30 mpg."
I think what you are refering to is the standard estimate that about 20% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline ends up as motion of the car. My students always ask, What happens to the other 80%?
Answer...heat, electricity,noise, vibration
h-daddy
Wrong explanation. Do you know what an EGR valve is?
It recirculates the gas that dosen't get burnt and keeps the engine chamber at optimal temp.
But honestly 80% of fuel used is what is burnt in the catalytic conveter. Literally the fuel is not all completely burnt before it leaves the combustion chamber. I am not talking about the motion vibrtion or heat loss. I am saying that 80% of the fuel is burned up in the cat. Imagine ligting a pool of kerosene. It dosen't just all poof at once. it slowly burns off. Out of the amount of atomized fuel that is in the combustion chamber literally only 20% is ignited. Have you ever smelled a engine without a cat-convert?
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
----------------------------------------------------------
We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Oruval, Oruval, Oruval...
I couldn't help but notice....
when we're talking about energy efficiency, kerosene "doesn't just poof at once" and "slowly burns off" but when we're talking about 9/11 conspiracies, you rant and rave that the kerosene couldn't have generated much heat because it would have burned up so quickly. Which one is it??
You've got a real problem will consistency, mate.
Oh Come off it man.
Kerosene wasn't able to sustain or reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel! Kerosene is a slower burning hydrocarbon. Pour a Kerosene on a piece of steel and "not have it atomized and forced in a jet engine" then ignite it. See if it gets anywhere hot enough to melt that piece of steel. Now shut up and go away. I am talking about minimal fractions of a second in a combustion engine. Not a bunch of jet fuel scattered around. Yes most of it burnt up in the intimal impact the surrounding steel in the tower works as a heat siphon. That's what's remarkable about steel. That's also why you cant get 100% efficiency out of gasoline because of the heat transfer motion..Etc.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
----------------------------------------------------------
We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
LOL
Sorry, I just had to. That one was just too glaringly obvious. Nevertheless, I don't want this to degrade into another thread of me lecturing you on physics, so I'll shut up now... about the kerosene issue, at least :P
melt?
Will you stop saying "melt steel" already! You don't know what you are talking about when you say "melt steel". ANY fuel does not have to get the steel hot enough to melt it- it just has to get it hot enough for it to reach a "plastic" state, where it loses a percentage of it's strength.
And that.
Is enough to make the rest of the building including everytruss bolt concrete slab weld point fall apart and collapse at near free fall speed like nothing is underneath it. Let alone the fact that WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane to have this magical super kerosene that knocks down buildings in it to instate a collapse at free fall speed.
Get real
Do some research.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
----------------------------------------------------------
We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
research?
I am not saying what you say is TRUE or UNTRUE.
What I am saying is that to someone who HAS done the research, and designed multi-story steel buildings, your phrase "melt steel" when in regards to kerosene combustion is not accurate.
Once again- any fuel does not have to "melt steel". It just has to get it hot enough to where it will bend from lower strength. Whether or not the temperature in Tower X was hot enough to do that- I don't know.
Do you know how long it takes.
With a blowtorch to cut through steel columns that size. You can't just sprinkle them with aluminum and kerosene light it and expect it to stress enough to collapse at free fall speed.
Here is a reference by another DP Member.
"I personally can't be worried about what other people think
On June 3rd, 2008 sentinel says:
But what I know for an absolute fact is that In my business ( construction ) I have to cut steel , I have to use acetylene which burns at over 2755 degrees concentrated at the torch. and in order to cut just "ONE" structurally reinforced "I" beam it takes me about 4 minutes to cut through it.
On Sept 11th some how miraculously 47 4 foot wide vertical reinforced structural steel core columns rising up 110 floors got cut into a bunch of small pieces in less than ten seconds before they hit the ground.
Now you ask me ? Go buy an acetylene torch and try it yourself , It's the hardest building material used anywhere, then see how long it takes to cut through it?"
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I have a torch set.
I have a torch set- thank you.
Why don't you go to engineering school and take the following classes:
Calculus 1
Calc 2
Calc 3
Differential Equations
Eng Physics I
Eng Phys II
Statics
Dynamics
Mechanics of Materials
Steel Design
and read a couple books I have here on my desk:
Manual of Steel Construction- Allowable Stress Design
Manual of Steel Construction- Load & Resistance Factor Design
Understanding How Components Fail- Wulpi
I know how hot you have to get the flame front to cut steel. The fact that I pose to you is that for a failure to occur, the steel doesn't have to be cut.
Dear Coincidence Theorist (?):
So with all that fantastical book learn'n... and your insistence that the metal need NOT be cut nor severed for the complete structure to fail... 'only the application of sufficient heat to weaken the metal supports, beams, and cross members'...
Then where pray tell in your mind do you account the TIME needed for weakened metal's sag and deformation while still resisting SOME gravity in a long ass fight to the finish?
You might be a decent fellow... I don't know you personally... but your book learning has failed you (maybe because we're turning up the heat?). The only question remaining is whether you'll collapse from distemper slowly and grossly asymmetrical... or straight down in a matter of seconds?
Torch sets? I have some fire too. Blow it out a hole.
p.s.: Modern internal combustion engine thermal efficiency for motive power delivery ratio per optimal petro/gasoline burn... is depressingly worse than 9 to 10. More like 1 to 5, 1 to 6, and worse (not even counting the absurd refinery selection for "gasoline" production).
p.p.s. And as for carbon fiber-bottled gaseous hydrogen... (vastly safer than the risks of our current liquid gasoline tanks we've all come to accept, intelligently ADDED to ANY fuel mix to retard ignition closer to top dead center, faster complete burn and greatly reduced heat loss)... are people here saying that a guy like Roy McAlister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnYE4doj9Js is one of the greatest con-artists of all time? Do tell, or give me a break... PLEASE!!!
Re: Roy McAlister
I'm saying that manufacturing hydrogen on demand currently has zero application in automotive technology. I have no idea about Roy McAlister (your linked video dealt with a well known laboratory method for making hydrogen that has little to no application to automotive engines), but anyone claiming to split water via electrolysis in order to run a car engine in an energy-positive sense is, in fact, a con-artist or an idiot.... or likely, both.