 |
 |
 |
Alternative Fuels Black Hole. Is There One?
Posted May 10th, 2008 by nomad943
output
Okay. I will admit it.
As a semi bored permanently unemployed engineer, the subject of alternative fuel does peek my interest (more so than say .. american idol or professional sports). This is particularly true with oil racing north of 125$ and no end of greed in sight.
What I find through research is that there are basicaly two types of fuels that the average schmuck like me is "allowed" to produce; Ethanol and Biodeisel.
Producing Biodeisel is a hoot because it requires the use and purchase of vegetable oils, which as you guessed can not be home made and sell for more than actual deisel.
Ethanol is even more amusing.
It is estimated that if I put that "spare acre" to use growing corn for fuel, I could then produce, at a maximum, around 200 gallons of fuel from my harvest.
Hmm .. given that math, I will take the acre of corn over the fuel ..
It is interesting that the governments of the world chose the other option and are now powering war planes and hummers with the food that should be fueling the starving masses.
Anyhow .. this brings me to the subject of the "dissalowed" fuel ... hydrogen.
Is it true that various inventions and inventors have been umm ... dissapearing with regularity?
Is this technology (widely written about on the net) worth personaly persuing or is it a dead end or worse still, will it upset the powers that be?
What say you DP community? Any thoughts on this topic?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
interesting topic
I am not one to claim that new technologies are not possible, I personally find most of the claims of burying technology very ironic. As I have posted various times before, any company involved in engines, vehices, machines, etc. wants to be the first to get any new technology to market. If the idea has merit, somebody is looking into it. It has to be more than just efficient though. Durability, reliability, production cost, etc. are also critical. The reality is that most of these companies will test even rediculous ideas. A simple investigation does not cost much, so I can guarantee that most of the so called buried ideas have been looked at. There almost always is a catch. I have spent much of my career in engines, and when I was doing testing, I ran many miracle products that were presented to somebody with enough clout to ask us to look at it. I have yet to see ANY that violates physical laws. Usually the inventor made bad assumptions or missed some details, or siimply had no way to make the accurate measurements needed. Once in awhile, it is a con, but I believe that is rare.
Hmm I suggest you look up
Hmm I suggest you look up cold fusion, and how there was a big panic by the government who set up a panel swiftly to denounce it, including lieing to people and accusing Ponds and flishman of implying false information, it simply was not true. 100s of scientists have proven excess heat from these cells.
The navy even came forth and announced this, there explanation as to why we are not using it yet is that it is not easy to reproduce, I don't believe it.
As far as suppressing, apparently you have not looked up how many people have been killed, when missing, have been threatened, and found in the insane asylum all drugged up with all there work missing, and bought off.
There has been approximately 7000 over unity energies kept from us, I personally know people that have worked with GM and stated that we could have had over unity energy's a long time ago running our cars and supplying power to our house very very cheaply. In fact one of the head guys at GM was going to announce this to people and was found dead the next day.
We only need to look at our own history to see this, Soon as Tesla announced he was going to supply over unity energy for the world, JP Morgan cut off all his funding and made a call to the government and all of Tesla's work was taken away by the government, He was followed and spyed on the rest of his life, they evin went as far as to cutting of his conversations with other people if they thought he was talking to much.
The key to the cold fusion success is negatively charged water with positive ions in it.
It has been proven by science recently that taking the electrons out of certain atoms can create superconducting ions at room temperature, I proved this over a year ago. This can be done with the electrolysis of water with non magnetic stainless steel, very efficiently by giving the water a 3 Minuit charge and leaving the negative on so the electrons continue to drain, this process only needs to be done a few times.
I have seen transmutation, I have seen anti gravity properties, I have even seen inter dimensional properties, at least that is the only way that it could be explained that in one of my experiments well heating the wight powder build up on my cell, the powder disappeared, and I put a scratch mark where the powder was and when it cooled the powder came back without a scratch mark there.
By draining the electrons in this manner the water is converted to HHO and produces superconducting ions (plasma, forth state of matter) in the water.
This is a relatively new energy source to us, some that do not understand it have called it orgon energy, or they have labeled them proton cells.
This plasma or forth state of matter is attracted to electrons (spark plugs), and can and will go threw metal. The reintroduction of the electrons into the ions or plasma creates an intense implosion that is over unity energy, the end result is the conversion back to water.
My work has also proven that electrons are directly related to gravity in some manner, be it the communication of diallel lines in the atoms, or the spinning of the electrons and other bodies in the atom.
References.
Browns gas for its unique properties.
Cold fusion.
Secrets of the lost ark, found on google video.
Joe cell.
These can all be found and researched on google video, at least until the secret government behind the government get ahold of the internet.
Boyed bushman head scientist at lock heed and marting on anti gravity, found on google vid. His levitation devices levitates because the electron flow in the atoms are interrupted, and break the communication of the diallel lines or stops the spin of the electrons in this manner, the negative dashes are electrons.
http://img180.imageshack....
This is kept out of the texts books for a reason, This technology is done in nature by nature, we know it as thunder and lighting.
As far as ethanol
Corn is not a good way to generate ethanol...sure, it works, but it's not very efficient. The only reason we are using it in the states is that corn is massively subsidized, so part of that cost per gallon is paid for by the Department of Agriculture.
The reason Brazil is more successful is that they are using sugar cane. Pure cane sugar is a very fast way of generating ethanol, it's pure energy and gets consumed very fast producing ethanol.
Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the US (except Hawaii) but there's a perfectly acceptable alternative. Sugar beets are easily grown in many cold climates...Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota all have sugar beet industries.
Sugar beets are amazingly cheap...mostly they're used to bait deer. You can buy a 50lb sack for $2.00. Sugar beets can generate 6-8 times more ethanol per acre compared to corn, and processing is much cheaper and faster.
If the market were to decide...sugar beets would be the ethanol source and perhaps could compete with crude. Uncle Sam decides that they want to pay to level the playing field, and sends us down a ill advised path of using corn.
Actually if the market were
Actually if the market were to decide there are a numer of crops that are highly feasible sugar beets among them. Even corn is very feasible if done correctly such as in more regional and local plants rather then one big central plant as gasoline is done.. Corn and other grains have some excellent byproducts that make it more feasible.
Read the book Alcohol Can be A Gas by David Blume It explodes the myths about ethanol. I posted SOME of them further down in this thread in a post entitled "Alcohol Myths".
I am reading the book now and have realized Ethanol is much more feasible then I previously thought and could be our road to energy independence.
-----
New Freelanders
Self Reliance Forum
Energy is key...
Energy is the key and is the lifeblood of any economy. That is why the global fascists have done their best to monopolize oil reserves and discourage any other options.
We need to be utilizing every possible alternative energy source in order to buy us the time to develop the ultimate solution:
http://ssi.org/
Haven't heard of it? Have never heard it debated or discussed as a serious long term goal? Gee, I wonder why?
Algae, the future of biofuel
http://www.worldwatch.org...
Look for Algae to take biofuel to a whole new level. I've even read there is developement on an upright rack system based on transparent packages for growing algae that will solve the pond necesity problem and push the output to 100,000 gallons of biofuel oil per acre.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/T...
Run your car on water in a day or so if you want
Hello there, Great topic, I have been working on water fuels for over a year now, There is many different ways to accomplish this, or many different forms of this technology. If you would like to see some amazing stuff, look up browns gas, it is form the electrolysis of water with approximately 12 volts 2 amps and can melt tungsten steel, also it implodes not explodes, you can melt a hole threw brick well holding your bare hand 4" away from the melting point.
That's just to give you an idea that there is something unusual with this technology, Now if you want to set your car up to run completely on water in a day, watch this vid to prove to you there is enough power to fire a cylinder, and the next link is how to set you car up to do it.
I could also talk about another method of converting water into HHO very cheaply, but I tend to lose credibility with this form of this technology because it is completely unknown by science at this time, and is a hole new form of energy, I will say it involves a very short charge of 12 volts 2 amps, and leaving the negative on, this drains the electrons very cheaply and efficiently, a few charges like this and some water filtering and a proper set up will run a car completely on water as well, if you would like more information on this form of this technology just email me.
Any ways here is how to run your car on water completely the easiest way.
Run your car on 100% water
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Here is how you convert your car or truck to do this as well.
http://waterpoweredcar.co...
Here is proof that it is not just a fancy spark.
http://www.newscientist.c...
Its great to see thousands upon thousands getting more interested on this month by month.
As to your question about people getting harmed, yes it happens, the trick is to not try to make a bundle of money right away on this, and help spread the word freely for now, there will come a time when us that have worked on it will make lots of money from it if we chose to, but one of the biggest hurdles is the belief factor right now, so it is up to people like me and you to spreed this word freely to get more people like me and you into this until the dam breaks.
Water as fuel is not the answer of the future, it will however lead to the release of less damaging over unity energy's because they will have no reason to keep them suppressed any more, you may read that using water for fuel is harmless but there may be some loss of hydrogen out of our atmosphere that could lead to water problems many many years down the road. But for now we need to prove this can be done and we can have an over unity energy source.
Good luck, any questions please feel free to ask.
Okay I'm asking. Do you run your car(s) this way?
Can this be done (safely i.e. without ruining my car) to my 2000 Acura Integra?
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
Nonsense
It's utter nonsense to be claiming to be running an engine from water alone, as it violates the first law of thermodynamics.
What you're seeing is a process called electrolysis, where water is split into hydrogen and oxygen gas. These two can recombine and burn very efficiently, giving you water vapor.
It is a circular reaction...you start with water, use electric energy to split water into H and O, then recombine the two to form water again.
The problem is the amount of energy you yield from burning H2 and O2 cannot exceed the amount of energy you input to get the two to seperate. You would need to keep inputting energy in the form of electricity to keep splitting the water.
It is absolutely impossible, unless someone has discovered a completely new form of physics and thermodynamics...but when someone claims that they can alter the laws that govern our physical universe, it's a pretty good sign they're lying or just ill informed.
That is what you learned in the government school...
anyway.
Scientific fact is
Scientific fact is scientific fact, regardless of who teaches it.
This whole topic is simply so much BS.
You have not responded to a stirling engine
Which gets its energy from the non-decaying source of the energy of the electron. You know, the 9? The vacuum of space.
"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."
Ghengis Khan
I have responded
But i'll be happy to do so again.
Stirling engines are not new...even though they have made great advancements in the external combustion engines, it still will never be a usable technology to power a car.
The problem is that stirling engines have a low specific power, meaning that to produce enough power to move a car, the engine would have to be unacceptably large and heavy.
The new advancements made recently can have a great impact on the locamotive engine, where size and weight aren't as limited, but to produce the kind of torque needed to run a car, it won't do.
You have a right to your opinion
It is just that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of men who have proven otherwise.
I am not an engineer, but, I have seen a low charge (Car battery) applied to tap water and watched as the hydrogen oxygen split occurred and HHO gas was collected to be burned.
From what I could see these men were not interested in making money off of you or any experts in physics they just wanted to see of it would work.
It is people who think like this that is the reason that we are not living in mud huts and throwing rocks at each other.
I am in my 50's I have been reading about these men since I could read.
This debate did not begin when f%$king youtube was invented.
To your "absolutely impossible" statement I say this.
People who think in terms of "absolutely impossible" will never see the future and seeing the future is one of life's most fulfilling experiences.
Crazy people see the future because they don't care about "possible." Thank God they don't or you wouldn't have any keys to tap or a screen to look at now would ya?
Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances. --Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television."
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." --Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." --Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." --The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what .. is it good for?" commenting on the microchip. --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." --Bill Gates, 1981
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," --Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value.
Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular" --in response to urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s. David Sarnoff' Associates.
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible,"
-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service.
(Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falls on his face, not Gary Cooper," --Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in Gone With The Wind.
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make,"
-- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out,"
-- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible,"
-- Lord Kelvin, president Royal Society, 1895.
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this,"
-- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives
for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy,"
-- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil, 1859.
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
-- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University , 1929.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value,"
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France .
"Everything that can be invented has been invented,"
-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required. "Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University.
"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself. -the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,"
-- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
And last but not least...
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman, founder of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977.
God bless the doubters and God Bless the dreamers.
The doubters piss the dreamers off just enough to get the dream realized.
T
It is no opinion
The maximum theoretical efficiency for electrolysis of water is 94%. Regardless of if that is the true maximum, I can assure you it can not exceed 100%. That means that the burning of the resultant hydrogen and oxygen even in a perfect system cannot exceed the energy required to split the molecule.
Water can be a very good source of combustable material, but you must also provide excess energy to the process for it to continue. This certainly will be viable once we have better means of electicity storage (i.e. stronger batteries) or another means of storing energy...but what you are calling possible will simply never happen.
You absolutely cannot input only water into a car, split the molecule, and burn it unless you have another source of power.
You make reference too all of the genius ideas and people that were ridiculed as a defense to your idea, but in all those years, how many really bad ideas were ridiculed as well.
Countless bad ideas. Immeasurable masses of bad ideas
and a host of them are sitting on the desk in front of you.
Many ideas start out as "bad" and "impossible."
Many are bad and remain that way.
I have issue with the so called "current view" of energy.
There is an inference that is energy is "created" and "expended."
Bull sh%$.
Energy is everywhere, is powerful, infinite and ever present in our reality.
Telling me that it is impossible to access and channel the magnetic field that is all around us now is preposterous, absurd and frankly, mad.
As science does not have the desire or technology to measure aspects of our reality that may yield this free energy does not mean it does not exist.
We are under constant bombardment by radiation from the sun. CONSTANT!
You are going to insist that this "energy" can't be harnessed in such a way as to run an appliance?
We have a wind turbine down the road that produces enough electricity to power 600 homes.
In 1972 a town in Mass bought 4 "state of the art" wind turbines which provided the power for 100 homes. Now if I had walked into that town meeting (The town had a municipally owned power company) and said I can sell you ONE turbine that will provide 6 TIMES the energy I would have been informed that it was IMPOSSIBLE.
Regardless of the laws of thermodynamics I have seen HHO gas collected from tap water from the charge of a car battery. I will also say that Earth's magnetic field and it's harnessable energy, is without measure.
The people who run your life do not like the world "free."
I make this conclusion based on their behavior over my lifetime.
Beware of the people who hand out the tin foil hats.
Best to all,
t
Water is not, can not be a fuel. Ever. Period.
Tstorey, Jzneff's post above is NOT about opinion, it is about scientific FACT ---- one CANNOT, now or ever, use water as a fuel! Anyone six-year old with half a brain would understand that. It is always, always, ALWAYS going to cost more energy to create hydrogen (or the so-called "Brown's Gas") than it will yield in combustion. There is simply no way around this fact, as it has nothing to do with technology, but the laws of physics and thermodynamics. One might just as easily argue that you can use wood ashes as a fuel --- "all" you have to do is first convert them back to wood, and then burn them. Water is essentially and chemically the "ash" that results from burning hydrogen and oxygen together, so to say that one can use a combustion residue as a fuel should trigger logic alarms in anyone with any scientific sense.
Please go read up on the Law of Conservation of Energy, and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. These are not "theories", or "opinions", but the most basic of scientific principles. They are about as much in danger of being overturned anytime in the future (much less by any garage tinkerer) as is the Law of Gravity.
Anyone who thinks (incorrectly) that they can use water to power a vehicle, or anything else, either has a woeful lack of basic scientific knowledge, or else is a scam artist praying on the ignorant. Period.
The Earth was once flat...
.
Brazil4Paul, that is a red
Brazil4Paul, that is a red herring and completely irrelevant, as the earth was widely recognized as a sphere at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, who by the way more or less invented scientific thinking as we know it today. The earth's diameter was even measured within 10% of its true value hundreds of years before Christ. Your analogy fails, because nobody ever scientifically argued that the earth was flat.
Why?
You are jumping to conclusions based upon the assumption that the given method of breaking the bond is the only one available. You theorize that since it takes X joules to break the bond such a massive input of energy would be unyieldy and thus the process must be snake oil.
From my understanding these people are not claiming to break the laws of physics. What they are claiming is that the methodology for reducing the molecule is ....err ... experimental.
If the bond is not as strong as people believe , if carefully applied small currents which could be stored in the battery could be sufficient, why isnt it possible to then burn the resultant hydrogen to power the car for a considerable distance.
The whole question revolves around the strength of the bond and wether there is some "mystery" method of breaking it.
This is water they are talking about isnt it?
Water is the wierdest thing, the more it gets studied the less it is understood.
There's no mystery
It's a very rigid law. In order to seperate water into it's constituant particles, you must impart energy. A water molecule has much lower potential energy than h2 and O, therefore you must input energy to break the bonds. Regardless of how you do it, you must have energy input into the system in some way.
The energy you get by recombining them is the same as it took to seperate them. Regardless of how efficiently the bonds were broken, you cannot get more energy from putting them back together.
You could run the car from the hydrogen, no one is saying that you can't. What i'm saying is that in this system, the car would only last as long as the battery does, and the battery could not last forever. You would need to recharge the battery periodically.
There really is no mystery. Water -> 2H2 + O2 -> Water is a circular equasion, and you cannot get energy yielded from this.
This sounds way too neat ...
I wouldnt be so quick to assume that water is the only effluent.
Why wouldnt it be just as possible or even more likely that some of the H2 would combine with components in the gasoline combustion process to create yet another material in the cylinder?.
Isnt it feasable that what you would wind up with is a more efficient method of burning the gasoline?
I have read something about nitrates levels in the exhaust.
Thats a clue.
Think back to your old motorhead days (if your an old fart like me) and remember how much better your old carburated auto ran on warm rainy nights ... Hmm ..
That's a seperate issue
I'm not arguing that using water in CONJUNCTION with a internal combustion engine could not yield more efficiency...in fact i've read a lot and I believe that it can. You essentially burn the gasoline more efficiently (ICB engines are notoriously inefficient) and pull some power from the alternator to produce electrolysis.
What i'm arguing is the notion that you could imput water and yield energy and water...that would break the first law of thermodynamics.
We are somewhat in agreement here I think, you've misunderstood my criticism. What I am refuting is that you could run a car on 100% water...that is completely impossible, and that's what this thread was implying.
Not an old fart here...every car i've had has fuel injection.
Ahh .. Okay
I am refering to the line of "products" being marketed today labeled as milage boosters, which are utilizing HHO produced on board and burning it in conjunction with the normal gasoline supply.
Supposedly this increases gas milage 20-40%.
I am saying this might be possible and not just a scam.
I am aware of the story being extrapolated to a stand alone fuel but thats a whole 'nuther story :)
It seems legit
But I would be wary about trying this with a newer car with computerized fuel injection. You probably won't end up damaging it, but i'm not sure how the computer would interpret the hydrogen being injected...it may cause stalling or overheating.
On an old car with a carburetor...I wish I had one. It might be a fun weekend project. For now i'll take my 28mpg and be happy with it.
My concern ..
Actualy I have two concerns with using it on a newer car.
First they claim you have to mask the signal from the oxygen sensor which has all kinds of negative implications IMO and secondly they make no mention of needing to tinker with the fuel-air ration or the timing.
Seems to me like you would be running mighty lean and be asking for all kinds of problems if it would run at all but who knows.
I have a 1978 camaro all rusty and waiting out back for such a thing but first I was thinking of messing around with an old riding mower I have.
If it cooks I wont care :)
Have you personaly tried this?
I am thinking of trying to convert an old riding lawn mower to a similar system just to see if the technology has any potential outside of the obvious potential of destroying the engine.
From there, if succesful, I might consider modifying an old junker chevy that I use for off road purposes ... but what I wonder is, do you actualy have enough confidence in this stuff to mess with your street vehicle using this .. umm, method?
Henry Ford's 'plastic hemp car' from 1941
Henry Ford's 'plastic hemp car' from 1941
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
i believe this car ran on hemp fuel.
Henry Ford was an innovator in wood alcohol (methanol) made from hemp.
Popular Mechanics, 1941,
Here is the auto Henry Ford "grew from the soil." Its plastic panels, with impact strength 10 times greater than steel, were made from flax, wheat, hemp, spruce pulp.
http://www.hempmuseum.org...
------------------------------------------------
"RON PAUL SUPPORTER SINCE 1997"
RON PAUL 2008 / RE-ELECT 2012
For the Doubters
Please explain what this is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Just one of many concepts. I saw an engine today made by a friend that works on vacuum energy and gravity alone. No magnets.
"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."
Ghengis Khan
Stirling engine
It's not a real new idea...more of a re-engineering of normal external combustion engines. It's the 21st century steam engine essentially.
This type of technology probably won't be seen under the hood...it's a very efficient type of engine, but it faces problems that to generate the kind of torque that would be necessary to move a car, the engine would need to be prohibitively large. That's why you don't see external combustion engines in cars...internal is less efficient, but can be made smaller and release more energy.
This may have some applications for power plants or perhaps train engines, but not for automobiles.
Your link to Stirling engines
is a good one. These engines are conducive to alternative heat sources. Some kids in one of my classes built one a couple weeks ago. We managed to get it working using a mirror and sunshine. External combustion designs have been around for quite awhile.
What is vacuum energy?
future fuel
Low cost energy will be marketed in some other country where the CFR is not as prominent as it is in the west.
It may come from China, India, or another Asian country first.
Then the west will be forced to compete.
The Oil company's of the west being stupid and monopolistic are suppressing other energy sources but other sources will be created and marketed.
China and India would both like to be independent from the western Bankers and Oil men (monopolist).
And will likely be the ones to break the hold that the bankers have on the world use of fossil fuel.
Question .......... has China or India started any wars in the last 100 years? I ask because I do not know and I am wondering if they are the kind of culture that does start wars.
I know the western country's do.
Do you know?
Nah China Only........
slaughtered,butchered,starved, tortured close to 100,000,000 of their own people the last 100 years.
Cultural revolution,agrarian reform all that good stuff.
none
I wouldnt view China ..
I wouldnt view China as being particularly peaceful.
Internaly they are known to be brutally represive and externaly they tend to exert "influence" much the same way the US does.
Their role in the Vietnam "conflict" was not all that covert, was it?
India? Hmm .
Dont they have a discusting caste system ingrained in their culture where some people are born to be lavished and other are born to be less than slaves and that is just the way it is? My take on why Americas great corporations are so fond of Indian engineers is becuase in general people from there are much more pliable, ie accostomed to outwardly groveleing, whilst americans havent had their spirits broken yet.
As far as outright wars .. they appear militarized to equilibrium in some give and take religeous clash with Pakistan.
All cultures are inherently the same, led by the greedy few.
Ethanol Myths
It is a myth that crops grown for fuel are causing people to starve. Brazil is energy independent and runs half it cars on ethanol and only uses 1% percent of of its farmland to grow crops used to make it.
Ethanol is actually much more feasible and economically sound then we are being led to believe. Now who would benefit from putting out misinformation about ethanol? I recommend reading Alcohol Can be A Gas by David Blume for the inside scoop He explodes the myths about Ethanol.
Here are some of them:
Myth: It takes just as much energy to make ethanol as you get out of it.
Fact: The most exhaustive (and least-cited) study on the energy balance, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo of Brazil, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.
Public discussion of this issue has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel and his numerous studies. Other researchers have shown conclusively that Pimentel distorts key calculations, and cite his unfamiliarity with farming in general, his ignoring of studies from Brazil that disagree with him, and his poor understanding of the value of co-products and their contribution to an accurate portrayal of energy accounting in the ethanol manufacturing process. In fact, he stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having an energy return on energy invested (EROEI) that is negative—producing less energy than is used in its production.
Myth: Renewable fuel will cost us jobs.
Fact: A conversion of the nation’s transportation system to ethanol would mean millions of new jobs and full employment.
Alcohol can be produced safely and sustainably from the backyard to large-scale commercial operations. It can utilize many high-energy crops, and co-products from the micro-distillery can be used to support raising many valuable crops and/or livestock, each of which provides revenue streams and the associated new jobs. Ethanol opens up new industrial job opportunities, new market opportunities, new agricultural opportunities, and creates no toxic by-products in production or fuel use.
Myth: If we use all our corn to produce fuel, we won't have enough food.
Fact: The ability of the US to expand into combined fuel/food/product crops is enormous due to the huge amount of farmland we have. We need to revisit what we define as farmland and energy feedstocks. There is no question we can grow enough food and fuel. The root of the food problem is poverty and lack of social systems to ensure that people without money can get access to food.
Alcohol Can Be A Gas! describes at least 30 crops, most of which are more viable for ethanol production than corn, and many of which do not compete with food production. In fact, some of the most significant feedstocks for ethanol production are plants that are not food crops at all. Examples are cattails, buffalo gourd (an arid climate crop), mesquite (which grows all over the arid southwest), and even ocean kelp.
Alcohol Can Be A Gas! makes it clear that by using just the example feedstocks listed here, we can easily produce enough ethanol to eliminate our Mid-East oil imports and probably replace all our US automotive consumption with ethanol without having any impact on our food supply. And that's not to mention the many high energy fuel crops that can be grown in rotation with currently grown crops.
Myth: Cars burn hotter on ethanol and that is bad for my engine.
Fact: Car engines actually burn cooler, cleaner and with less vibration on straight ethanol and this generally triples the life of the engine. Car engines routinely last up to 500,000 miles burning ethanol.
Myth: It would cost too much to build all the ethanol production facilities needed to offset the U.S. consumer's thirst for petroleum.
Fact: It takes about a dollar per annual gallon of alcohol production capacity to build alcohol plants. With the money we have spent in Iraq we could have built enough ethanol plants worldwide to permanently solve the fuel issue for every single person in the world renewably, and increased the food supply to in theory feed everyone.
Myth: Ethanol is more polluting than gasoline.
Fact: Alcohol fuel has been added to gasoline to reduce virtually every class of pollution. Adding as little as 5–10% alcohol can reduce carbon monoxide (CO) from gasoline exhaust dramatically. When using pure alcohol, the reductions in all three of the major pollutants—carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides (NOx), and hydrocarbons (HC)—are so great that, in many cases, the remaining emissions are immeasurably small.
Myth: It would be too expensive to retool all the cars on the road to run on an alcohol fuel mix.
Fact: Generally fuel injected cars (the predominant engine produced since 1980) can run on a 50% blend of alcohol and gas with no modification. There are a variety of ways to convert virtually any car to run on 85-100% alcohol for a few hundred dollars.
Current flexible fueled vehicles made by US Automakers can run on both fuels and the additional cost is less than $100 on the assembly line.
Myth: Ethanol production is an ecological nightmare.
Fact: Raising ethanol feedstocks using an organic-style crop rotation will cut energy use on farms by a third by eliminating petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers. Fertilizer needs can be met either by applying the byproducts left over from the alcohol manufacturing process directly to the soil, or by first running the byproducts through animals as feed. In the latter case, manure is run through a methane digester producing methane that can be used as a fuel source in the distillery; the resulting liquid is then sprayed back on the land that the crop came from— via an inexpensive pipeline, or by using trucks, or by making compost for later application.
-----
New Freelanders
Self Reliance Forum
Terrific, enlightening post,
Thanks!
Where?
"Walls are stronger than the men that defend them."
Ghengis Khan
Where?
Exactly. What I read was the standard propoganda cut and paste.
The only interesting thing about it was the line about Brazil,interesting because they somehow forgot to mention that Brazil distills its ethanol from sugar cane which of course can not be grown on most of americas abundant farmland.
Ah well ..
I gave my source if you
I gave my source if you think you know better then go read the book and refute its 30 years of research. What I posted was just an excerpt it's not propaganda, it's backed by hard data.
It never ceases to amaze me how folks read a few excerpts from a 600+page book, make some absurd remark and think they have refuted of 30 years of research and experience. LOL!
Sugar cane is not the only thing ethanol can be made from. It can be made from damn near any organic material. Som things are more productive then others. We could replace a 3rd of the gas we buy from the middle east with just our lawn clippings.
Do some research before you spout off, or don't I don't care. Believe or say what you like but by no means have you even began to counter a single thing I posted much less address the facts in the source.
And the fact remains Brazil is energy independent to act as if that is insignificant is so absurd it's not really worth responding to...
-----
New Freelanders
Self Reliance Forum
Sure ..
Sugar cane isnt the only thing ethanol can be made from, but it is one of the few things it is currently being made from that makes it logisticaly and financialy feasable (unless of course outside sources are free to manipulate the "free" market selling price).
Certainly you could make ethanol from other things, like potatoes or even umm ... corn, but logisticaly it wouldnt make any sense given the greatly reduced yields.
Palm oil is another good source.
Hmm .. so why didnt your source choose to point that out and instead pumps up americas vast ability to produce low yield grain? Again?
Please site your source for
Please site your source for this information.
You premise that there are only a few things that make it logistically and financially feasible is patently false. There are a number of things as good or better then sugar can for high yield Like cattails for instance. Corn is even feasible. The problem is folks don't understand different areas and different regions have different crops or wild plants that can be used. Mesquite is also a good plant for making alcohol.
Also it depends on how you grow them and you plan operation.
People who don't know what their talking about continue to repeat the big oil propaganda.
Read the book and get back to me otherwise you're wasting my and everyones time and repeating crap you have no idea if it's true or not.
-----
New Freelanders
Self Reliance Forum
I disagree
Palm Oil would be a viable Bio-Diesel source, but not ethanol.
Switchgrass would be the cat's meow.
Sugar Beets would also be a better substitute.
Both kick corn's ethanol-arse, and would not compete with a necessary foodstuff.
go
bump
So whats wrong wth making bodisiel out of vegioil?
Im thinking of making this stuff and sellng it as a profit... is that a bad idea? I know id have to get the vegi ol from resturaunts, flter it, add the ingredients...and proof its ready at a fraction of what you pay at the pump. I am serously thnking of quittng my job, quitting school, growing a beard and opening up my own shop. Why is ths a bad idea?
Semper Fortis
Profit?
Lets assume your overhead operating expense is zero and you value your labor at the same price ..
Material costs to consider:
For each gallon you produce you will need to use :
@3$ worth of Vegetable oil which sells for 4 to 6 $ a gallon
@.20$ worth of KOH or NOH which goes for around 2$ a pound in bulk
@ 1$ worth of Methanol which goes for around 4$ a gallon in bulk
@.20$ worth of Phenolohthalein goes for around 1.5$ a gram in bulk
If your work is a labor of love and your heat source is free and you equipment is donated or found on the side of the road you will need to sell your product for 4.40$ a gallon to break even, exactly the same price that Exxon Mobil sells its deisel for.
The vegetable oil from restraunts theme is an over publicized myth. It may be true in certain unique situations especialy in days long past but these days used oil is a commodity with an active market and bid at all times. Look it up you will find numerous buyers to buy all they have. If you want some be prepared to bid for it.
I disagree
The availability of V.O. is the sticking point, true... but it is definitely no myth.
If someone wished to produce B100 as a source of income, one would think he/she would have the "gumption" to locate used V.O.
In urban/suburban areas, there are greater numbers of potential sources, but there will also be larger numbers of folks making B100.
My advice?
Locate your sources of Veggie-Oil - perhaps even offering a contract to purchase the 'grease'.
Food manufacturers use TONS of the stuff - a resourceful person would wait on growing the beard before approaching these corporations for disposal of their "waste".
Really?
You could also try seeing if Granny realy wants to keep all those gold teeth, but I would bet you wouldnt be the first one to notice they have value.
http://www.bulkoil.com/sc...
Thank you for helping me...
...prove my point
The quotes for USED V.O....
WANTED - $1 - $1.65 / gallon
FOR SALE - $1.50 - $2.25 / gallon
Do you believe that this is the end-all for the "grease" supply and demand?
EDIT:
Used V.O. for sale @$1.50 / gallon
**** NOTICE ****
Didja notice? The majority of folks selling used V.O. on this board are recyclers or companies in the bio-fuels market?
Do you think they are paying that amount?
One would think that they'd be marking up their product, no?
How's granny's teeth ?
lol
Depends ..
I live in a sports addicted town and when I want tickets there is only one place to look for them because its fairrly established that they have them all.
Why? How?
Who knows. Its just the way it is.
They have the tickets and if you want them you will have to pay them whatever they are asking.
If you dont pay, someone else will.
Or you could go to sleep and dream of better days.