ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => SR Forum Archives => The Basement FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: Randy Frierson on May 11, 2008, 11:40:04 am

Title: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Randy Frierson on May 11, 2008, 11:40:04 am
OK this drivewater thing works, i saw it first hand. my warehouse is next door to a businees who are arms dealers and they have to much free time...i saw them make hydrogen, and then i saw the device mounted to a Ford F150...they said they were getting around 12 miles prior and after their test they are now getting around 20..and all you do is add water every 2 weeks to this cannister..Now they built the basic unit and it worked but did not make them happy so they built a hybrid unit with better case to hold the plates, added more plates a check valve ect and made a lot more hydrogen...I swear it works. They are building me 4 units next week (we are very good neighbors) one unit will go on my FL 70 and one unit on my Hino..I will report back on their results..I believe in this so much that I am well putting one unit on my Toyota Land Cruiser...PM me for more info   Randy
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Steve Weiss on May 11, 2008, 11:45:48 am
OK please tell me this is a late April fools joke????
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 12:37:53 pm
 It's entirely possible, but highly unlikely. Water's two main components are both combustible.. Hydrogen and Oxygen, but they are not "efficient" enough to power a vehicle. The throughput of water would make it necessary for the vehicle to have a very long hose to it's source.
Similar to having an Electric car with an extension cord permanently attached.

Now if they have solved cold Fusion!  Laughing

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Zimmerman on May 11, 2008, 12:41:52 pm
Is this the deal where you stick stainless steel plates in a canister, run a current from your battery through them and generate HHO/Brown's gas/etc to feed into your intake? I ran across this the other day and wondered how legitimate it is. Then I found a comment by a guy named Russ Scott (COO at Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc.), who seemed to be doubtful of any benefits from a lot of the devices being sold on the internet to take advantage of this process. Still, it is intriguing, and would be nice if it works as claimed. Some sites claim a 50% mpg increase, while others claim 12%-20%. Let us know what you find out.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Rob Timmerman on May 11, 2008, 01:39:10 pm
From what I have heard, this does work, and nets about a 10% improvement in fuel economy (at least in diesel engines).  The HHO is used as a combustion enhancer, not to power the vehicle itself, and only minute amounts are used

Yes, energy is required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, but this energy is recouped and more by the more complete combustion of the fuel in the cylinders.  An added benefit is reduced particulate emissions.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 01:39:18 pm
Steve Weiss wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 10:45

OK please tell me this is a late April fools joke????


No, it's a separate the fools from their money joke.   Rolling Eyes

It takes electrical energy to perform electrolysis on the water, the H and O burn, releasing the energy that was put into it, zero sum game.

I will wait for Randy's actual gas mileage report, not what he believes will happen.

JR

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 02:17:59 pm
Rob Timmerman wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:39

From what I have heard, this does work, and nets about a 10% improvement in fuel economy (at least in diesel engines).  The HHO is used as a combustion enhancer, not to power the vehicle itself, and only minute amounts are used

Yes, energy is required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, but this energy is recouped and more by the more complete combustion of the fuel in the cylinders.  An added benefit is reduced particulate emissions.


Don't confuse this with simple water injection that has been used before in high compression and/or supercharged engines. Different mechanism and different problems.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Steven Jackson on May 11, 2008, 02:54:47 pm
My dad just ran into a website on this and I've had a hard time persuading him its a load of nonsense.

Electrolyzing the water will use more energy than combusting the H2 and O2. So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away.

And as was said before, cold fusion would be the only way to get more energy out than in.

It is just a scam
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 11, 2008, 03:14:21 pm
Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:54

Electrolyzing the water will use more energy than combusting the H2 and O2. So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away.
I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel? Of course you are wasting fuel by hauling around the extra weight of the water and associated gear. I don't buy that this will have a net gain.

Mac
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Patrick Tracy on May 11, 2008, 03:16:57 pm
Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:54

So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away.

Even then you have to burn fuel to get up the hill in the first place.

Seriously, if there are significant amounts of energy in the fuel that normally doesn't get used then there's at least the theoretical potential that a  mechanism exists for getting it out. I'm no chemist so I have no idea if there is much energy going unused when fuel is burned.

Sheesh, there's energy everywhere, there's a nice grid for distributing it electrically and some pretty workable storage technology. I don't see why burning stuff has to be the way we get so much of our power, other than habit. As much as I have fond memories of the smell of racing fuel and the scream of engines I think we need a racing series for electric vehicles. I could learn to enjoy the smell of arcing brushes and the subtle whine of electric motors.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Randy Frierson on May 11, 2008, 03:45:06 pm
Look i don't want to argue just share of what i have seen myself.
these guys are serious and very smart, i can't explain the process (YET) but I know it does work, upon initial tests they got 10 to 12 %, and that did not satisfy them, they are working with other such like them across the US and tried a better container, different plates and now they are approaching figures like 40-50 %..the car does not run on water it's more like a process to make it more efficient..Every 2 weeks you open this cannister that holds about a quart maybe less and add water. I'm not asking anyone for money and I was skeptical as well but i seen it and now i'm a believer..like i said i am having the device installed on my Hino truck. I will run the truck on a tank of fuel back and forth to tampa from delray beach, and then check my MPG, i then will run same truck empty as before w device back and forth to tampa (same route) and then check my MPG, then i will report back..I believe my friend next door and he said his truck got on avg 9-12 MPG and after a week he is getting 18-20..Period..If it's Voodoo then I'm now into Voodoo..I'm just reporting do with it what you want...Randy
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 04:08:32 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 13:39

Steve Weiss wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 10:45

OK please tell me this is a late April fools joke????


No, it's a separate the fools from their money joke.   Rolling Eyes

It takes electrical energy to perform electrolysis on the water, the H and O burn, releasing the energy that was put into it, zero sum game.

I will wait for Randy's actual gas mileage report, not what he believes will happen.

JR




Its actually a little worse than a zero sum game, JR.  I just did the thermodynamics out to double-check.

The heat extractable to the surroundings from the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the H2O from combustion of H2 and O2 will always be lower, in the case of a reversible, isothermal process (ie the best case scenario).

This is a function of the definition of entropy under these conditions: dS=dQ/T.  Since, for irreversible processes dS>dQ/T real processes are worse than in the reversible case.

Even if you consider the behavior of the system as reversible, and use an ideal Carnot cycle (ie two isothermal steps linked to two constant entropy steps) The energy from the chemical reaction of combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen (which takes place at the high temperature point of the carnot cycle) has an inherent penalty.

Ach, that's still complicated.  One more try:

1.  Put a fixed Q into the system by a chemical reaction at some high temperature: dQ=T_high(dS), or after integration at constant T: deltaQ=T_high*deltaS  That means you get an amount of entropy S for a given Q.

2.  Now you cool the system to a lower temperature under constant entropy conditions, so S stays the same.  dQ is now: dQ=T_low(dS) or deltaQ=T_low*deltaS.  Since S is fixed, and T is smaller, the extractable Q is always less at T_low that the Q you put in at T_high.

The difference between the input Q at T_high, and the extracted Q at T_low then represents the total work done by engine during its cycle.

It should be clear then that the lower T_low is, the less heat you have to pull from the system to return to the beginning of the Carnot cycle, and the more was converted to (Pressure)*(Volume) work on the surroundings during the isentropic expansion phase.  Hence the desire for the largest temperature gradient possible between the Q in (chemical reaction) and Q out (e.g. radiator sending heat into the ambient air).  Since T_low is not 0 Kelvin, and dS for a real engine will be greater than dS_ideal for a reversible system, there is always a penalty for the extraction of mechanical work.

In a real system, the input Q is fixed per amount of fuel burned, in this case from the electrolysis of water.

At a minimum you therefore take the Carnot efficiency penalty, and the efficiency penalty of the battery/alternator combination.  

The are only two ways the system would seem to come out ahead.  First would be with the production of the hydrogen by an external battery, which of course is just passing the buck for input Q.

The second way the system might possibly come out ahead would be if the injection of H2 and O2 dramatically increased the T_high for the car's engine (ie increasing the average internal cylinder temperature).  The efficiency of a Carnot engine is related to the difference in (T_high-T_low)/Absolute temperature.  I give this a remote, at best possibility of happening, but it is at least conceivable.

BTW, if anyone reads this and feels just totally confused, don't feel bad!  I had two semesters of undergraduate thermodynamics/kinetics, and two semesters of graduate thermo/kinetics, and THEN TA'ed for a graduate level thermodynamics class.  It didn't start to make any real sense to me until graduate school and TA'ing.  J. W. Gibbs was a genius!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 04:25:41 pm
 Patrick,

We burn stuff because currently it's cheaper, more efficient, and that it is the technology afforded to us at the moment.

The "grid for distributing it electrically", the majority of power from this grid is from burning. (some from hydro, wind and solar, but a very small percentage)

The laws of Physics are quite clear, you cannot create or destroy matter, all that you can do is change it's form. That the changing of it's form is where we get our "energy". We can only create energy through, Chemical, Mechanical, or Thermal methods.

The idea of using this "Brown water" is great except that the Mechanical limitations of the automobile engine would not show any signs of benefit. They've made hotter burning spark plugs and glow plugs, but the internal combustion engines have seem their limit. Some fuel will not be burnt, no matter what.

It always amazed me that people are hung up on Automakers fuel efficiency reports on a car that they buy. Those reports go out the window because most people don't drive under the ideal conditions that the Maker used. The petroleum engines have pretty much topped out on the fuel efficiencies. They'll either need to switch to another type of "engine" or make the car weigh less. You'd probably see an increase in efficiency if one's car was tuned up, tire pressure was accurate and the driver slowed down,

 Helium 3 would be a great source for Reactors, nonhazardous waste, controllable, but, there is no one lobbying for it.

If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense.

Cheers,
Hammer
 

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 04:45:48 pm
Randy Frierson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:45

Look i don't want to argue just share of what i have seen myself.
these guys are serious and very smart, i can't explain the process (YET) but I know it does work, upon initial tests they got 10 to 12 %, and that did not satisfy them, they are working with other such like them across the US and tried a better container, different plates and now they are approaching figures like 40-50 %..the car does not run on water it's more like a process to make it more efficient..Every 2 weeks you open this cannister that holds about a quart maybe less and add water. I'm not asking anyone for money and I was skeptical as well but i seen it and now i'm a believer..like i said i am having the device installed on my Hino truck. I will run the truck on a tank of fuel back and forth to tampa from delray beach, and then check my MPG, i then will run same truck empty as before w device back and forth to tampa (same route) and then check my MPG, then i will report back..I believe my friend next door and he said his truck got on avg 9-12 MPG and after a week he is getting 18-20..Period..If it's Voodoo then I'm now into Voodoo..I'm just reporting do with it what you want...Randy


Randy,

If this method indeed provides any gain (color me a major skeptic) it is only going to come by increasing what is known as the adiabatic flame temperature inside the combustion system.  There is simply no way to come out ahead on this system without modifying the Carnot efficiency of your engine.  This is achieved through greater heat at combustion, cooler outflow, or some combination thereof.

While I am skeptical that the system is injecting enough hydrogen/oxygen to successfully increase the adiabatic flame temperature inside the cylinders, I would be concerned about the long term reliability of the motor system if it succeeds.

If the system is merely a atomized water injection system (ie no electrolysis) then this is nothing new, and was in fact used by the German's extensively during WWII to increase the power of their fighter airplane engines.  This, also, has potential ramifications on the long term reliability of your engines.

I am not rejecting the concept outright.  Applied under careful computer control at the right points on an acceleration curve it might do "something good" for your fuel economy.  However, I would be very leery of trusting the mechanical longevity of my engines to something that is sold using a large amount of pseudoscience and snake oil tactics.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 11, 2008, 04:52:11 pm
Maybe you can get your friends to write up a short description of what they are doing/how it works, along with any principals they are applying.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Peters on May 11, 2008, 04:59:15 pm
Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 13:52

 along with any principals they are applying.


The principles are interesting, too Wink

-a
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 05:00:42 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25

 
 Helium 3 would be a great source for Reactors, nonhazardous waste, controllable, but, there is no one lobbying for it.


Helium 3?  It should be pointed out that we are no where close to harnessing fusion cycles as heat bath processes.  Also the while the fusion of Helium three does not produce stray neutrons, the other potential fusion reactions in the system (eg H and H) produce large amounts of energetic neutrons.

Additionally, the accepted method for the production of Helium-3 is from the decay of tritium, which itself is produced from the neutron bombardment of lithium 6, which is not exactly a benign, earth-friendly, precursor.

While I am definitely a proponent of atomic energy (see a long thread I started here in the a couple years back), Helium 3 would not be on my list of methods to consider.

As an undergraduate, I rode the bus to campus every day with a physicist who was working on other alternative "aneutronic" fusion reactions.  After talking to him, I am convinced the one with the best potential is the fustion of a proton with Boron-11.  
Even this is a very long way off from our immediate needs for a solution.  Regardless, I keep my ear to the rail on Boron-11 progress.

Quote:


If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense.


This is a fascinating thought, but personally I would fire any design engineer that did not compensate for this relatively simple behavior with temperature...  If it is really true, then it is a major oversight on the behalf of gasoline pump manufacturers.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 11, 2008, 05:03:10 pm
Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:59

Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 13:52

 along with any principals they are applying.


The principles are interesting, too Wink

-a


Andy strikes again Embarassed

It's good to know we have somebody keeping us all in line Very Happy .
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 05:12:01 pm
 Although this device and it's methodology may be new, the Idea is not. It dates to atleast the 1930's.  Injecting a higher temp burning gas into the engine cylinders to try to achieve higher horsepower (Nox) or to get better fuel efficiency by burning ALL of the fuel.

A side note:
In the forties a General Motors Engineer supposedly developed an "engine" that used water as it's fuel. I Don't know too much about it but, the story goes, that this man quit his job and continued research on his own, and when he died suddenly, his Home and Garage were ransacked, with all of his papers missing.


If you wrote any postings for the last thread on Fuel/ Prices/ ecology etc...  and were concerned... write a Letter to Nascar and tell them they need to start using Unleaded gasoline.

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 05:13:18 pm
I would not be surprised if gasoline pumps were not temperature compensated, in all states (like where I live). I would be surprised if there was a big difference with time of day.

How much does the temperature change for a liquid stored underground? The volume changes about 1% for every 15' variation so perhaps it could make a bigger difference than one of those water thingys....

JR





Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 05:19:12 pm
 Great experiment...

two containers of same dimensions, both containing 1/2 gallon, put one in the sun and one in the shade.

They'll weight the same, but see the difference in volume.

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 11, 2008, 05:19:28 pm
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:14

I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel?


There is a potential voltage at the alternator output, yes. However, the more things that are connected to the alternator (i.e. the magic electrolysis machine), the lower the impedance and the higher the amount of current flow from the alternator.  The higher the current flow, the harder the alternator is to spin, resulting in an increased load on the engine.  The higher the load, the more fuel required.

So no, there is not excess electricity.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 11, 2008, 05:55:53 pm
But as JR points out, there is not that big a change a good bit underground where the tanks are actually located.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 06:00:47 pm
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:08




Its actually a little worse than a zero sum game, JR.  I just did the thermodynamics out to double-check.

The heat extractable to the surroundings from the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the H2O from combustion of H2 and O2 will always be lower, in the case of a reversible, isothermal process (ie the best case scenario).

This is a function of the definition of entropy under these conditions: dS=dQ/T.  Since, for irreversible processes dS>dQ/T real processes are worse than in the reversible case.

Even if you consider the behavior of the system as reversible, and use an ideal Carnot cycle (ie two isothermal steps linked to two constant entropy steps) The energy from the chemical reaction of combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen (which takes place at the high temperature point of the carnot cycle) has an inherent penalty.

Ach, that's still complicated.  One more try:

1.  Put a fixed Q into the system by a chemical reaction at some high temperature: dQ=T_high(dS), or after integration at constant T: deltaQ=T_high*deltaS  That means you get an amount of entropy S for a given Q.

2.  Now you cool the system to a lower temperature under constant entropy conditions, so S stays the same.  dQ is now: dQ=T_low(dS) or deltaQ=T_low*deltaS.  Since S is fixed, and T is smaller, the extractable Q is always less at T_low that the Q you put in at T_high.

The difference between the input Q at T_high, and the extracted Q at T_low then represents the total work done by engine during its cycle.

It should be clear then that the lower T_low is, the less heat you have to pull from the system to return to the beginning of the Carnot cycle, and the more was converted to (Pressure)*(Volume) work on the surroundings during the isentropic expansion phase.  Hence the desire for the largest temperature gradient possible between the Q in (chemical reaction) and Q out (e.g. radiator sending heat into the ambient air).  Since T_low is not 0 Kelvin, and dS for a real engine will be greater than dS_ideal for a reversible system, there is always a penalty for the extraction of mechanical work.

In a real system, the input Q is fixed per amount of fuel burned, in this case from the electrolysis of water.

At a minimum you therefore take the Carnot efficiency penalty, and the efficiency penalty of the battery/alternator combination.  

The are only two ways the system would seem to come out ahead.  First would be with the production of the hydrogen by an external battery, which of course is just passing the buck for input Q.

The second way the system might possibly come out ahead would be if the injection of H2 and O2 dramatically increased the T_high for the car's engine (ie increasing the average internal cylinder temperature).  The efficiency of a Carnot engine is related to the difference in (T_high-T_low)/Absolute temperature.  I give this a remote, at best possibility of happening, but it is at least conceivable.

BTW, if anyone reads this and feels just totally confused, don't feel bad!  I had two semesters of undergraduate thermodynamics/kinetics, and two semesters of graduate thermo/kinetics, and THEN TA'ed for a graduate level thermodynamics class.  It didn't start to make any real sense to me until graduate school and TA'ing.  J. W. Gibbs was a genius!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle


Thanx, I was aware of inefficiencies both ways but not the details...

I feel like this level of scientific detail while interesting is not going to help Randy understand what is going on. These purveyors of "something for nothing" depend upon customers who want to believe in simple answers, and that they are being screwed by car companies or oil companies, or.. whatever all powerful organization.

The modern IC engine is mature and well refined. There may be a couple percent inefficiency here or there, but there is no free lunch. Easy improvements have already been taken.

The odds are 99.9999% that this product is a scam. There were a bunch of similar products when people were equally desperate during the oil embargo back in the '70s.  

I would really love to be wrong, as this one product could solve the worlds marginal oil supply issue. I am not holding my breath, or shorting oil.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Marjan Milosevic on May 11, 2008, 06:21:07 pm
I dont know about the device in question but...
My very close friend is a real "nut", and for more than a year he is working on some kind of device that will convert the normal petrol engine to run on water.

As he explained to me there is a way to separate HH form O with some different electrolyze (combining 4 different frequencies applied to the steel plates) and he already succeeded in achieving this.

According to some science literature hydrogen has more calories when burning than petrol and he made some calculation that with 2 liters of distiled water you can run around 100 kilometers.

He is now working on the injector part where hydrogen will be injected to the cylinder.

Knowing him, either he will do that or he will blow up his garage Smile

Regards
Marjan
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 06:34:40 pm
Marjan Milosevic(MarjanM) wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21

I dont know about the device in question but...
My very close friend is a real "nut", and for more than a year he is working on some kind of device that will convert the normal petrol engine to run on water.

As he explained to me there is a way to separate HH form O with some different electrolyze (combining 4 different frequencies applied to the steel plates) and he already succeeded in achieving this.

According to some science literature hydrogen has more calories when burning than petrol and he made some calculation that with 2 liters of distiled water you can run around 100 kilometers.

He is now working on the injector part where hydrogen will be injected to the cylinder.

Knowing him, either he will do that or he will blow up his garage Smile

Regards
Marjan


The direct electrolysis of water is very inefficient, there are better ways to "thermochemically crack" water.

Also, the volumetric energy density of gasoline is much much better than hydrogen, so your friend had better revisit his calculations.  Gasoline is about 35MJoule/Liter, and highly compressed hydrogen (600+ ATM pressure) is about 5MJoule/liter.  That is a seven-fold difference...  Shocked
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Patrick Tracy on May 11, 2008, 06:45:57 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:25


We burn stuff because currently it's cheaper, more efficient, and that it is the technology afforded to us at the moment.


The price we pay depends on whether you factor in the hidden costs of their use or just pass those costs on to the next generation. That can't last.

Is it more efficient when braking to dump momentum as heat or to regenerate it as electricity? The reasons that we don't have electric vehicles are political, economic and social, not technical.

Afforded to us by whom? There are other technologies in existence, but many have the potential for decentralized production which may not benefit those who currently control our energy.
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:25


The "grid for distributing it electrically", the majority of power from this grid is from burning. (some from hydro, wind and solar, but a very small percentage)


Umm, yeah, but my point is that the grid is there if we decide to find other sources of energy. There's no real reason that the source must be combustion other than the substantial economic momentum for doing it that way. There is energy everywhere and all we really have to do is be creative about extracting it. The grid can even make decentralized generation like home photovoltaic more efficient by allowing those generating excess to supply those with a shortfall.
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:25

The laws of Physics are quite clear, you cannot create or destroy matter, all that you can do is change it's form. That the changing of it's form is where we get our "energy". We can only create energy through, Chemical, Mechanical, or Thermal methods.


Yes, the laws of Newtonian physics are clear, but in the quantum world what you say isn't necessarily so. Even within your constraints there are lots of other ways to use the energy all around us. I'm not talking about cold fusion or anything equally questionable, I'm talking about leveraging our solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tidal etc. technologies into a practical system of generation. I think it can be done on a technical level but it's the political and economic forces that resist the change.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 07:11:22 pm
Marjan Milosevic(MarjanM) wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 17:21

I dont know about the device in question but...
My very close friend is a real "nut", and for more than a year he is working on some kind of device that will convert the normal petrol engine to run on water.

As he explained to me there is a way to separate HH form O with some different electrolyze (combining 4 different frequencies applied to the steel plates) and he already succeeded in achieving this.

According to some science literature hydrogen has more calories when burning than petrol and he made some calculation that with 2 liters of distiled water you can run around 100 kilometers.

He is now working on the injector part where hydrogen will be injected to the cylinder.

Knowing him, either he will do that or he will blow up his garage Smile

Regards
Marjan


This sounds like some more bad science.

Burning hydrogen releases heat and ends up with water as the final product.

You might as well collect the water from your tail pipe and refill your water tank. Then you could drive forever...  Laughing

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Dick Rees on May 11, 2008, 07:16:10 pm
index.php/fa/15778/0/

Howard Mohr had a hilarious take on the whole thing in one of his books.  The "Compost-o-carb" which you refueled with road kill.  He's the author of "How to talk Minnesotan" and a funny kinda guy.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 11, 2008, 07:26:48 pm
John

Any schematics on how to do that? my tailpipes emit plenty  of water
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: E. Lee Dickinson on May 11, 2008, 07:27:18 pm
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:14

I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel? Of course you are wasting fuel by hauling around the extra weight of the water and associated gear. I don't buy that this will have a net gain.



Mac, you know how a generator bogs down when you fade the lights up? Same deal. If you add electrical load to the alternator, it takes more fuel to make it spin.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: E. Lee Dickinson on May 11, 2008, 07:40:52 pm
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 18:34

Marjan Milosevic(MarjanM) wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21

I dont know about the device in question but...
My very close friend is a real "nut", and for more than a year he is working on some kind of device that will convert the normal petrol engine to run on water.

As he explained to me there is a way to separate HH form O with some different electrolyze (combining 4 different frequencies applied to the steel plates) and he already succeeded in achieving this.

According to some science literature hydrogen has more calories when burning than petrol and he made some calculation that with 2 liters of distiled water you can run around 100 kilometers.

He is now working on the injector part where hydrogen will be injected to the cylinder.

Knowing him, either he will do that or he will blow up his garage Smile

Regards
Marjan


The direct electrolysis of water is very inefficient, there are better ways to "thermochemically crack" water.

Also, the volumetric energy density of gasoline is much much better than hydrogen, so your friend had better revisit his calculations.  Gasoline is about 35MJoule/Liter, and highly compressed hydrogen (600+ ATM pressure) is about 5MJoule/liter.  That is a seven-fold difference...  Shocked


Yeah, but Phil, he's not talking about compressed hydrogen, he's talking about hydrogen electrolyzed from water. When I spent a semester soldering (without understanding) the voltage monitoring systems for a fuel cell in Virginia Tech's hybrid vehicle team, I often overheard the engineers around me lamenting that "There's more hydrogen in a cup of water than in a cup of compressed hydrogen."

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 07:41:45 pm
Patrick Tracy wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 17:45



Is it more efficient when braking to dump momentum as heat or to regenerate it as electricity?  

Rhetorical?
Quote:



The reasons that we don't have electric vehicles are political, economic and social, not technical.


Electric cars are currently limited by marginal battery "technology", then poor economics. Many people are willing to suffer the poor economics to be green so I don't see any social stigma.

The folks in the trenches are gambling that they are close enough with battery technology and production is ramping up. We'll have electric cars in a few years and I hope they do have the batteries under control.


Quote:


Afforded to us by whom? There are other technologies in existence, but many have the potential for decentralized production which may not benefit those who currently control our energy.  


I'm not sure what this is about? Harvest methane gas from Tom's chili?

Quote:


Umm, yeah, but my point is that the grid is there if we decide to find other sources of energy. There's no real reason that the source must be combustion other than the substantial economic momentum for doing it that way. There is energy everywhere and all we really have to do is be creative about extracting it. The grid can even make decentralized generation like home photovoltaic more efficient by allowing those generating excess to supply those with a shortfall.


The real merit of grid in combination with decentralized photovoltaic, wind, or whatever, is the ability to use the grid for excess energy storage, essentially running the meter backwards. Utilities actually like this because they can reduce investment to meet peak demand as excess PV energy is mid day when they need it.

Of course it is easier to clean a handful of coal burning plants than 100,000 tailpipes. Nuclear energy is even cleaner.

Quote:


Yes, the laws of Newtonian physics are clear, but in the quantum world what you say isn't necessarily so. Even within your constraints there are lots of other ways to use the energy all around us. I'm not talking about cold fusion or anything equally questionable, I'm talking about leveraging our solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tidal etc. technologies into a practical system of generation. I think it can be done on a technical level but it's the political and economic forces that resist the change.


Quantum physics?? The energy economy is very simple and very basic physics. The politicians in Washington seem equally confused and quick to blame everybody else for our current situation.

It's the local NIMBY refusal to base nuclear plants or deal with disposal issues. "I have seen the enemy and it is us" (Pogo).

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 07:54:28 pm
Patrick,

I thought my comments were self explainitory, not to upset or anger anyone... I understand the politics involved in the fuel debate, I was only answering as to the question, why we've used petroleum... Because until recently, it has been a cheap source of energy, and frankly, other than Nuclear, it has been one of the few sources of energy we could put into the practice of using.
I understand solar energy and the products used to capture it.
I am all for using it, and the other sources as well, Nuclear, Wind, etc... But again, Solar has been cost inefficient until recently. And, I understand the concept of one's selling the surplus to the Utility... I corrected someones Math equation from the previous Thread, explaining that their Math was flawed in the Amount of energy their system would produce.

And, finally the Laws of Physics do not change... whether I discuss them or anyone else....    Quote:"I talking about leveraging our Solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, etc...."

 All of the above make energy from: Mechanical, Chemical or Thermal.

Yes, things will have to change, but...maybe they're raping us on fuel costs to afford the ability to provide Energy derived from other forms when the Petrol runs out.

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 11, 2008, 07:58:05 pm
"maybe they're raping us on fuel costs to afford the ability to provide Energy derived from other forms when the Petrol runs out."

Yeah, well I have a really nice bridge for sale, interested?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 08:32:02 pm
 Phil,

We could debate Fuels for Fusion or Fission till the cows come home, the only point that I was trying to make was that one of the biggest users of petroleum products is to generate Electricity; Which could be generated by other sources.

 Regarding Gasoline Pumps,  I worked on a  side project for a company that made meters years ago. The meter was a Coriolis meter, which measured mass-flow, it had no internal moving parts like turbine, displacement, piston,etc... and could be used(when calibrated) to measure liquid/ slurry mixture,low density to high, high to low viscosity.  Extremely more accurate than even vortex shedders.
That is when I realized that Gasoline Pumps were measuring volume and not mass.  Some Tankers (probably all now) were converting their fleet to Mass Flow meters to get more accurate reading when selling to the retailer Retail pumps did not have mass flow meters, pretty certain they still don't.  

Volumetric expansions : V= V sub0(1 plus B[delta t])

Do the math and see if there couldn't be a substantial difference.

Cheers

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Patrick Tracy on May 11, 2008, 08:36:26 pm
I guess I was reacting to what seemed to be an attitude that "it can't be done." Probably overreacting. I do appreciate my less logical expressions being pointed out.

I would say that there seems to be a viable battery technology that has been left out of most conversations of this sort, flywheels developed by Jack Bitterly and others. They circumvent the whole issue of chemistry as energy storage. They don't need replacing every couple of years. They charge as fast as they discharge making regenerative braking efficient.

Even if that particular technology doesn't pan out there are endless ways of manipulating energy. It's our willingness to accept the status quo that is the biggest obstacle to a better solution than simply burning stuff that's been laying around. I don't accept that the only reasonable energy sourced is fossil fuel.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 11, 2008, 08:40:58 pm
Bravo Patrick

There has been a tendency here to embrace the status quo, Oil Supply Shortages? hey lets dig up more and the extra cost of the dig will come out of the research for alternatives!

But Hey, we could all follow the advice of another poster and "stop those people from using too much oil"

God forbid the possibility that we are "those people"
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 08:42:09 pm
 Ian,    Very Happy , that's what I meant to end with..


And no.. I don't need any bridges, Thanks
  Smile

 Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 08:44:41 pm
E. Lee Dickinson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:40


Yeah, but Phil, he's not talking about compressed hydrogen, he's talking about hydrogen electrolyzed from water. When I spent a semester soldering (without understanding) the voltage monitoring systems for a fuel cell in Virginia Tech's hybrid vehicle team, I often overheard the engineers around me lamenting that "There's more hydrogen in a cup of water than in a cup of compressed hydrogen."



But you have to put the energy into electrolyzing water to begin with.  This makes the hydrogen in the water nothing more than a battery, and a lousy one.  The hydrolysis of water, and subsequent consumption of that hydrogen is most definitely NOT a net positive process.

Petroleum's big plus as an energy source is that it is already here.  If we had to directly synthesize petroleum, it would be embroiled in just as much debate as any other technology.

As soon as you exhaust the inherent supplies of any energy source (eg petroleum) you are faced with manufacturing a replacement, and potentially on a global scale.

Hopefully this makes sense...

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 08:46:05 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:32

 Phil,

We could debate Fuels for Fusion or Fission till the cows come home, the only point that I was trying to make was that one of the biggest users of petroleum products is to generate Electricity; Which could be generated by other sources.

 Regarding Gasoline Pumps,  I worked on a  side project for a company that made meters years ago. The meter was a Coriolis meter, which measured mass-flow, it had no internal moving parts like turbine, displacement, piston,etc... and could be used(when calibrated) to measure liquid/ slurry mixture,low density to high, high to low viscosity.  Extremely more accurate than even vortex shedders.
That is when I realized that Gasoline Pumps were measuring volume and not mass.  Some Tankers (probably all now) were converting their fleet to Mass Flow meters to get more accurate reading when selling to the retailer Retail pumps did not have mass flow meters, pretty certain they still don't.  

Volumetric expansions : V= V sub0(1 plus B[delta t])

Do the math and see if there couldn't be a substantial difference.

Cheers

Hammer


Some states insist on delivery normalized for temperature. As I mentioned the difference in modest 1% per 15' and storage temp doesn't swing all that much.
-----
In fact the biggest use of petroleum is for transportation. Electrical generation is mainly coal, with nuclear, hydro, and some new generation is coming on line to burn LNG (My brother is a consultant and involved with a new LNG plant in south west somewhere).

Electric cars for modest commutes charged by the grid, will reduce our marginal oil demand, but we're years away from that being significant. Less years than before though.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Patrick Tracy on May 11, 2008, 08:47:52 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 17:54

Patrick,

I thought my comments were self explainitory, not to upset or anger anyone... I understand the politics involved in the fuel debate, I was only answering as to the question, why we've used petroleum... Because until recently, it has been a cheap source of energy, and frankly, other than Nuclear, it has been one of the few sources of energy we could put into the practice of using.
I understand solar energy and the products used to capture it.
I am all for using it, and the other sources as well, Nuclear, Wind, etc... But again, Solar has been cost inefficient until recently. And, I understand the concept of one's selling the surplus to the Utility... I corrected someones Math equation from the previous Thread, explaining that their Math was flawed in the Amount of energy their system would produce.

And, finally the Laws of Physics do not change... whether I discuss them or anyone else....    Quote:"I talking about leveraging our Solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, etc...."

 All of the above make energy from: Mechanical, Chemical or Thermal.

Yes, things will have to change, but...maybe they're raping us on fuel costs to afford the ability to provide Energy derived from other forms when the Petrol runs out.

Hammer

I'm not angry or upset, at least not at you. I was reacting to what appeared as an apologist viewpoint for fossil fuel usage. I probably misinterpreted you intent.

The laws of physics may possibly be static but our understanding of them is not, mine in particular. I was just concerned that those laws would be used as an excuse not to explore other means of getting energy. It's the social, political and economic obstacles that I feel are more challenging than the technical ones. I think they're raping us on fuel costs simply because they can and because the opportunity may be limited.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 11, 2008, 08:51:36 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 23:13

I would not be surprised if gasoline pumps were not temperature compensated, in all states (like where I live). I would be surprised if there was a big difference with time of day.

How much does the temperature change for a liquid stored underground? The volume changes about 1% for every 15' variation so perhaps it could make a bigger difference than one of those water thingys....

JR







On my recent travels to Australia I stayed in an underground hostel in a little town called Coober Pedy - the town, famous for it's opal mining has something like 90% underground housing.  Apparantly, they use no space heaters or air con in these homes, no matter if it's under the blazing mid summer sun or through the severity of a winter storm - the temperature is always the same inside.  Based on this I would agree with your statement that the fuel is pretty much always the same temperature, and hence, size, as long as it is stored underground.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 11, 2008, 08:51:48 pm
No problem

Someone will buy it (I have Nigerian Financing all arranged)  Smile
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 08:54:56 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:32

 Phil,

We could debate Fuels for Fusion or Fission till the cows come home, the only point that I was trying to make was that one of the biggest users of petroleum products is to generate Electricity; Which could be generated by other sources.


I totally missed that point, my apologies.    I merely keyed in on Helium-3, which, frankly, is lousy technology in a field stuffed with lousy technology.  Your point is of course completely valid and correct.  The reality is that the production of electricity from oil has been on the decline for decades.

I suggest that you check out "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power" by W. J. Nuttall from your local library, and read the first few chapters, as they give a very concise overview of the economics of the changing face of worldwide electrical power generation, segregated by fuel type.  It is very enlightening, and gives a picture of the reality of where our electricity will come from for the forseeable future (i.e. purely driven by economics).

Quote:


That is when I realized that Gasoline Pumps were measuring volume and not mass.  Some Tankers (probably all now) were converting their fleet to Mass Flow meters to get more accurate reading when selling to the retailer Retail pumps did not have mass flow meters, pretty certain they still don't.  

Volumetric expansions : V= V sub0(1 plus B[delta t])

Do the math and see if there couldn't be a substantial difference.

Cheers

Hammer


Sure their could be a substantial difference, but nothing a thermocouple or RTD, and some very simple circuitry couldn't account for.  It is a stable, linear, correction after all!

I have worked with mass flow controllers for nearly a decade now, and am familiar with their operation and benefits over volumetric systems.

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 08:59:50 pm
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:44




Petroleum's big plus as an energy source is that it is already here.  If we had to directly synthesize petroleum, it would be embroiled in just as much debate as any other technology.

As soon as you exhaust the inherent supplies of any energy source (eg petroleum) you are faced with manufacturing a replacement, and potentially on a global scale.

Hopefully this makes sense...




If it made sense to most people we wouldn't have threads like this.

FWIW Petroleum will stop getting burned for energy long before we run out, when plastic becomes more valuable than the energy source du jour. I am optimistic we will come up with more effective ways to harness all the kinetic energy around us, not to mention that significant heat/light source some 93 million miles away, which BTW was the original source of energy in all that fossil fuel we're just now harvesting.

This oil scarcity is just poor planning/management in the short term. Economic forces are already nudging us toward better choices. This too will pass.

JR

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 11, 2008, 09:05:46 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:59

Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:44




Petroleum's big plus as an energy source is that it is already here.  If we had to directly synthesize petroleum, it would be embroiled in just as much debate as any other technology.

As soon as you exhaust the inherent supplies of any energy source (eg petroleum) you are faced with manufacturing a replacement, and potentially on a global scale.

Hopefully this makes sense...




If it made sense to most people we wouldn't have threads like this.


Point taken.  I suppose since I have interest in working in this area it is just as well that people are misinformed, will give me something to do Smile

Quote:


FWIW Petroleum will stop getting burned for energy long before we run out, when plastic becomes more valuable than the energy source du jour.


Plastic and airplanes, two technologies enabled by oil (especially air travel!).  The energy density of any alternative doesn't cut it.  Of course the economic question there is what will the incredible increase in cost of air travel from fuel do to the industry, which should be a factor long before the ultimate oil supply runs out.  Zeppelins anyone?

Quote:


I am optimistic we will come up with more effective ways to harness all the kinetic energy around us, not to mention that significant heat/light source some 93 million miles away, which BTW was the original source of energy in all that fossil fuel we're just now harvesting.


As I have said before, the fact that we do not directly obtain all of our energy from nuclear sources (including the Sun) makes us the exception, rather than the rule, in the Universe.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 11, 2008, 09:18:02 pm
 While I realize I misspoke regarding petroleum as a fuel for generating Electricity. I was referring to it's sister industry of Coal. Sorry and Thank You, for pointing that out.

 While I understand the methods for generating Electricity in the Past and Present, has been driven by the Economy, I believe in the Future it will be driven by Desperation.

Observation: Throughout History mankind has been driven to develop new technologies and products because of desperation, in as much for the reason of greed.

 Pump manufacturers were really keen on the Idea of using Mass Flow Meters, but, then later claimed they couldn't because of higher manufacturing costs that could not be passed on to the Stations.
(the amount of regulations regarding Gasoline Pumps were astronomical at the time.)
The Individual States still send a guy with an "old technology" prover to check customers complaints. Very Happy

It's possible things have changed, but, I wouldn't bet on it.

P.S. The density of a fluid will vary from Temperature and Pressure.

Thanks,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 09:21:08 pm
Phillip Graham wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:05



Point taken.  I suppose since I have interest in working in this area it is just as well that people are misinformed, will give me something to do Smile


That's the only reason to appreciate all the ignorance, but I believe we would be better off with a little better understanding of general science among the voting public and their representatives.

I very much enjoy the technical detail you bring to these discussions.  

Quote:



Plastic and airplanes, two technologies enabled by oil (especially air travel!).  The energy density of any alternative doesn't cut it.  Of course the economic question there is what will the incredible increase in cost of air travel from fuel do to the industry, which should be a factor long before the ultimate oil supply runs out.  Zeppelins anyone?



Zepplins get a bad rap, just like nuclear power. I would differentiate petroleum for making plastics from airplane fuel. I believe they have already successfully liquefied coal for use in airborne turbines, and Virgin did a test flight with bio-fuel. So again, we'll survive with minor economic adjustments.

Quote:



As I have said before, the fact that we do not directly obtain all of our energy from nuclear sources (including the Sun) makes us the exception, rather than the rule, in the Universe.


+1 as usual... It's an end game that we will have a hard time avoiding despite our ignorant preferences.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 09:38:17 pm
Patrick Tracy wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:36

I guess I was reacting to what seemed to be an attitude that "it can't be done." Probably overreacting. I do appreciate my less logical expressions being pointed out.

I would say that there seems to be a viable battery technology that has been left out of most conversations of this sort, flywheels developed by Jack Bitterly and others. They circumvent the whole issue of chemistry as energy storage. They don't need replacing every couple of years. They charge as fast as they discharge making regenerative braking efficient.

Even if that particular technology doesn't pan out there are endless ways of manipulating energy. It's our willingness to accept the status quo that is the biggest obstacle to a better solution than simply burning stuff that's been laying around. I don't accept that the only reasonable energy sourced is fossil fuel.


Flywheel power was real hot, what was that back in the '60s? Flywheels may make sense for some fixed installations to smooth demand but all you need to see is what happens after a simple flywheel lets lose on a drag race car, to imagine the potential for bad consequences after being scaled up many times.

I always though flywheel storage made most sense for subway trains, since they're mostly stopping and starting in a straight line. I think they developed some counter rotating wheels to mitigate gyroscopic forces but there still could be nasty bearing loads and other issues to deal with.

Flywheels, IMO make more sense as a low pass filter to smooth energy supply/demand but is not without it's own problems when scaled up to reasonable levels.

We have become blas
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 11, 2008, 11:05:25 pm
"Virgin did a test flight with bio-fuel. So again, we'll survive with minor economic adjustments"

And presumably once this becomes a mature and successful technology we'll learn how to eat it?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Victor Kouli on May 11, 2008, 11:57:33 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25

  If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense.

Cheers,
Hammer



 Laughing Well... It will not work, at list in Canada. All of the majors are on ATC: http://tinyurl.com/6laja6 throughout delivery and retail. Though the in ground storage tank temperature at your local gas station can go up/down from +15C to -20C depending on a season, your not likely to get more than you pay for.

Victor
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2008, 11:57:52 pm
ommmm

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 12, 2008, 12:12:46 am
Didn't realise you were a Krishna devotee John

Any fuel supply that actively competes with the food supply will lead to strife on a scale as yet unseen (but maybe Tim Duffin's "those people" solution will reduce the population sufficiently to give us a little extra time?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 12, 2008, 12:25:43 am
Ian Hunt wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 23:12

Didn't realise you were a Krishna devotee John

Any fuel supply that actively competes with the food supply will lead to strife on a scale as yet unseen (but maybe Tim Duffin's "those people" solution will reduce the population sufficiently to give us a little extra time?


The invisible hand of the market will work all that out...

The food inflation is only party to blame from bio fuels, there is a new hunger in developing countries for  more than one meal a day, and maybe some meat on their plate instead of rice. Meat requires more grain to get to that plate so the demand on simple food stocks is higher.

While I don't have statistics there is a farming region in central Brazil that is about the size of the continental US that is only half under cultivation.

Africa is horribly under developed...

We won't likely run out of food...  if our governments don't screw the pooch and let farmers grow stuff.

Hard to imagine any need for price supports and subsidies.


JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 12, 2008, 12:45:09 am
I'm not saying food will run out, but what happens when first world demand exceeds third world budgets!

Prices are increasing sharply in every region of the world for some of the most basic foodstuffs traded on international commodity markets. The price of wheat has doubled in less than a year, while other staples such as corn, maize and soy are trading at well above their 1990s levels. Rice, which is the staple food for about 3 billion people worldwide, has tripled in cost in the last 18 months. In some countries, prices for milk and meat have more than doubled.

Source: CRS
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 12, 2008, 10:10:02 am
Whilst the hand may be invisible it is also inequitable, we drive they starve is the logical destination.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 12, 2008, 10:15:42 am
Ian Hunt wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 23:45

I'm not saying food will run out, but what happens when first world demand exceeds third world budgets!

Prices are increasing sharply in every region of the world for some of the most basic foodstuffs traded on international commodity markets. The price of wheat has doubled in less than a year, while other staples such as corn, maize and soy are trading at well above their 1990s levels. Rice, which is the staple food for about 3 billion people worldwide, has tripled in cost in the last 18 months. In some countries, prices for milk and meat have more than doubled.

Source: CRS


It appears there was a rice bubble/scare due to one or more failed crops, riding on top of this general upward pressure on food prices. There was even some discussion by the Philippines, I think, of forming a "rice cartel". They returned to their senses after seeing the transitory nature of this particular shortage event.

I am a severe critic of diverting food crops to energy use but the defenders of those programs argue that they are not totally responsible for the huge shift upward in grain prices and I am inclined to believe them (in part). It looks like a demographic shift in food demand to further up the food chain (eating meat instead of grains) that is rippling thought the developing world. It takes much more grain to make a pound of meat.

I do consider it hard to justify a $40B agricultural support in the new farm bill, with so much demand but at least $1B of that is to promote biofuel from non food grains.

IMO 1st world farm price supports hurts farming in the poor nations. They have demand and dirt. There are water infrastructure projects already under way in some needy areas.

I don't mean to trivialize this, world hunger needs plenty of attention but it isn't totally ignored right now. I advocate getting their agriculture working rather than sending them food. Teach a man to fish and all that... What they desperately need is a free market to sell their excess crop into, when they have a good year.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Rick Scofield on May 12, 2008, 11:24:07 am
Whoopee!! A Zeppelin! Very Happy

Sorry, couldn't resist the oddball reference.

Carry on.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Patrick Tracy on May 12, 2008, 12:26:44 pm
Bitterly's flywheels are Kevlar fiber rather than steel. They disintegrate diffusing their energy widely (like one of those gag golf balls) rather than break into chunks that carry large portions of the momentum. In their testing Bitterly's team were unable to get the Kevlar discs to breach their containers in the rare cases that they could get them to fail. Multiple small discs are used rather than one big one. They are encased in pairs to mostly offset precession effects.

The idea of using Kevlar is that even though it is lighter than steel it has a higher strength to weight ratio allowing it to store more energy by safely going to higher RPMs.

You should look into the specifics of the technology developed more recently than the sixties. Even if it's not ultimately practical it's interesting in it's own right.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Chris Hindle on May 12, 2008, 12:33:59 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25

 Patrick,

If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense.

 


I don't know about you, but up where I am, the tanks are buried (below the frost line), so there is a small difference summer to winter, but no difference day to night.
Yes, in a previus life I worked at a gas station. I have touched the "holy water" at various times during the seasons... Twisted Evil
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 12, 2008, 01:58:51 pm
Electrolysis is not a good candidate for splitting the hydrogen from the oxygen in this application; however, there are other ways to skin that proverbial cat, namely blowing steam over coal can perform the physical divorce. We have a lot of waste heat coming off the exhaust that could be used to cogen the desired function. I leave it to Phil to provide the details (volumes that could be generated & the value of their contribution). Don't forget the catalyst  Very Happy
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tim Duffin on May 12, 2008, 04:55:47 pm
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:14

Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:54

Electrolyzing the water will use more energy than combusting the H2 and O2. So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away.
I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel? Of course you are wasting fuel by hauling around the extra weight of the water and associated gear. I don't buy that this will have a net gain.

Mac



No extra power from the alternator.  By definition, and "alternator" alternates between charging and freewheeling with no load.  This is controlled by the IC regulator inside the case-- when there is no calculated load, it de-energizes the field and the alternator is simply a spinning mass until its needed again.

T
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Zimmerman on May 12, 2008, 06:13:51 pm
Tim Duffin wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55



No extra power from the alternator.  By definition, and "alternator" alternates between charging and freewheeling with no load.  This is controlled by the IC regulator inside the case-- when there is no calculated load, it de-energizes the field and the alternator is simply a spinning mass until its needed again.

T


And here I always thought that they called it an "alternator" because it outputs "alternating" current....
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 12, 2008, 06:26:12 pm
  Me Too!

 Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 12, 2008, 06:39:17 pm
Andy Zimmerman wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 17:13



And here I always thought that they called it an "alternator" because it outputs "alternating" current....


I think you are correct about the derivation of the name, but that internal AC is converted to DC before it gets output anywhere. Tim is correct about general function and loading. Both modern alternators, and the old generators use regulators to activate or rest the charging circuits as needed based on battery/system voltage.

Alternators are capable of charging at lower RPM than generators, and don't require the mechanical brush contacts, so are more reliable.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 12, 2008, 07:28:34 pm

Quote:



Zepplins get a bad rap, just like nuclear power. I would differentiate petroleum for making plastics from airplane fuel. I believe they have already successfully liquefied coal for use in airborne turbines, and Virgin did a test flight with bio-fuel. So again, we'll survive with minor economic adjustments.


JR


Last year I went on a minicruise and on "captain's night" I watched with great interest as he held a session informing the listeners on all kinds of technical aspects of the vessel.  One very interesting fact is that the entire ship runs on a standard commercial jet engine (used to boil water to run a generator that runs the electric motors moving the ship as well as every other mechanical thing on board).  They do have two engines, mainly for redundancy, but will sometimes use both simultaneously when moving at full speed in very warm climates.
My point, anyway, is that the jet engines on board run on bio diesel, so this seems to be technology already in use Smile
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: SteveKirby on May 12, 2008, 08:01:08 pm
Somehow this seems like an extra conversion loss.  The jet engine produces rotational energy and reactive energy (the propulsive thrust).  The heat of the output is simply an inefficiency of burning the fuel.  I would imagine that there are more efficient ways of using biofuel to boil water.  Now if they were using the jet engines to turn generators, and then capturing the heat to boil water for additional conversion efficiency, maybe.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Zimmerman on May 12, 2008, 08:50:43 pm
SteveKirby wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 19:01

Somehow this seems like an extra conversion loss.  The jet engine produces rotational energy and reactive energy (the propulsive thrust).  The heat of the output is simply an inefficiency of burning the fuel.  I would imagine that there are more efficient ways of using biofuel to boil water.  Now if they were using the jet engines to turn generators, and then capturing the heat to boil water for additional conversion efficiency, maybe.


My only experience with gas turbine naval propulsion was with a coworker that served aboard a destroyer or cruiser with a gas turbine. He remarked about how quickly they could get underway, which seems to indicate a direct mechanical drive rather than going through a steam system. However, I found this article which may explain the cruise ship's propulsion method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGAS

index.php/fa/15815/0/

Interesting concept, I would have never thought about sticking a boiler on the end of a jet engine, but it makes sense now...
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 12, 2008, 10:00:27 pm
I'll certainly admit I wasn't paying attention to the captain's speech like it was curriculum, so I might very well be that my memory on the specifics was a little hazy-thanks for the diagram.  

At any rate, it's great that they power the ship as eco-friendly as possible, and man, did that ship pull away smoothly compared to the ones I've been on with giant internal combustion engines!
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 12, 2008, 11:38:22 pm
Not to worry, the gas turbine is used for much more than boiling water. The above-mentioned rotational energy output of this engine is applied to the props through reduction gear, much the same way as with any other engine, with variable pitch props helping to make the power more controllable (which might account for the impressive takeoffs). It is the waste heat from the exhaust which is used for steam generation, and this represents energy which would otherwise be lost.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: The Guy on May 13, 2008, 12:06:56 am
Most modern cruise ships al use electric motors to drive the props, usually mounted on Azipods: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azipod).  The gas turbine is used to turn a generator, which powers the electric propulsion systems of the ship.  Using exhaust heat to generate steam is just a way to increase efficiency.  None of these ships use gas turbines to mechanically drive a prop.

-JB
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mikey Brown on May 13, 2008, 03:13:50 am
So this is where all the genius is. Better check out.

Netgain Motors

This Warp motor with the Turbo 400 drive knuckle. Another big brainer in the oil rehab market.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 13, 2008, 09:09:53 am
Mike. Brown wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 08:13

So this is where all the genius is. Better check out.

Netgain Motors

This Warp motor with the Turbo 400 drive knuckle. Another big brainer in the oil rehab market.



I don't trust any designs that eschew the time flux capacitor  Twisted Evil
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 13, 2008, 10:51:17 am
Jim Bowersox wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 00:06

Most modern cruise ships al use electric motors to drive the props, usually mounted on Azipods: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azipod).  The gas turbine is used to turn a generator, which powers the electric propulsion systems of the ship.  Using exhaust heat to generate steam is just a way to increase efficiency.  None of these ships use gas turbines to mechanically drive a prop.

-JB
Sure, that's a technique similar to that of railroad locomotives, where a diesel engine turns a generator which powers electric motors (traction motors) at the wheels.

Azipods are not commonly used on naval vessels due to the vulnerability of all that vital equipment outside the hull (propulsion and steering would be easy for enemy ships to destroy), but there are quite a few cruise ships and commercial vessels using them.

Either way, the turbine is being used for its rotational power, not just to boil water (that would be what a nuclear reactor does). The use of waste heat to generate steam and additional electrical power is just a means of increasing the energy efficiency of such a powerplant (and we all want that, right?).
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Stavross (Sam Buck) on May 13, 2008, 12:47:38 pm
New process generates hydrogen from aluminum alloy to run engines, fuel cells

No free lunch of course you have to refine the Aluminum in the first place; which could be done with wind power leaving you carbon free. Since it is hard for wind power to be scheduled into the power grid as it is not as predictable as say coal or nuclear this would be a good use for it.


"Young lady, in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!"

- Homer Simpson
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 13, 2008, 06:27:08 pm
Stavross (Sam Buck) wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 17:47

New process generates hydrogen from aluminum alloy to run engines, fuel cells

No free lunch of course you have to refine the Aluminum in the first place; which could be done with wind power leaving you carbon free. Since it is hard for wind power to be scheduled into the power grid as it is not as predictable as say coal or nuclear this would be a good use for it.


"Young lady, in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!"

- Homer Simpson


Interesting link Sam! You know this brings to mind a nagging question I've had in the back of my mind for quite a while:

What is the effect of a field of wind generators on the climate? Thermodynamics says not only do we never get to win but that we can't as much as hope to break even! Surprised

Do we end up crapping up Ma Nature even more by blocking her wind?  Shocked




Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 13, 2008, 07:30:40 pm
dave stojan wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 17:27



Interesting link Sam! You know this brings to mind a nagging question I've had in the back of my mind for quite a while:

What is the effect of a field of wind generators on the climate? Thermodynamics says not only do we never get to win but that we can't as much as hope to break even! Surprised

Do we end up crapping up Ma Nature even more by blocking her wind?  Shocked






While just speculation on my part, windmills seem far less offensive to mother earth than damning up rivers for Hydropower. There is some concern about windmills bothering birds (and wealthy residents of Hyannisport).  I suspect they still have birds in Holland.

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 13, 2008, 07:52:27 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 01:30

dave stojan wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 17:27



Interesting link Sam! You know this brings to mind a nagging question I've had in the back of my mind for quite a while:

What is the effect of a field of wind generators on the climate? Thermodynamics says not only do we never get to win but that we can't as much as hope to break even! Surprised

Do we end up crapping up Ma Nature even more by blocking her wind?  Shocked






While just speculation on my part, windmills seem far less offensive to mother earth than damning up rivers for Hydropower. There is some concern about windmills bothering birds (and wealthy residents of Hyannisport).  I suspect they still have birds in Holland.

JR






That's right..and they're being disturbed.  Like someone said..no free lunch.

But seriously, don't forget that The Netherlands are so densely populated in the first place, it's not like you're putting up windmills in some vast and untouched national park or similar.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 13, 2008, 07:58:25 pm
dave stojan wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:27


Interesting link Sam! You know this brings to mind a nagging question I've had in the back of my mind for quite a while:

What is the effect of a field of wind generators on the climate? Thermodynamics says not only do we never get to win but that we can't as much as hope to break even! Surprised

Do we end up crapping up Ma Nature even more by blocking her wind?  Shocked



I will spare my thoughts on the alumothermic reduction of water...

There is no free lunch, with any of these potential energy sources; for instance, with solar power, in large arrays you have to consider the change in albedo from the solar panels relative to the native environment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

The change in the behavior of the reflection of light from the Sun could have significant local temperature effects.

I don't know much about wind power, in terms of possible side effects, but I have heard that the generator maintenance requirements are very high...
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Art Welter on May 13, 2008, 08:03:14 pm
JR,

Let’s not start tilting at windmills...

I’d be willing to bet a lot more birds fly into plate glass than will into whirring blades, but there does not seem to be much restriction on putting windows in buildings.

But since you mentioned Hydropower, and the OP was about burning hydrogen and oxygen derived from H2O, anyone know if “burning up water” would eventually create a net reduction of that precious commodity?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 13, 2008, 08:10:38 pm
Art asked

"anyone know if “burning up water” would eventually create a net reduction of that precious commodity?


The City of Barcelona received it's first tanker load of water today, their own supply has dwindled to less than 18% of the 'norm' after a drought that began in 2005.

Maybe the reduction has begun?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 13, 2008, 09:06:59 pm
Phillip Graham wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:58



I will spare my thoughts on the alumothermic reduction of water...

There is no free lunch, with any of these potential energy sources; for instance, with solar power, in large arrays you have to consider the change in albedo from the solar panels relative to the native environment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

The change in the behavior of the reflection of light from the Sun could have significant local temperature effects.

I don't know much about wind power, in terms of possible side effects, but I have heard that the generator maintenance requirements are very high...


It seems the roof is already messing with the natural background albedo, so is a solar panel going to be any worse than my black shingles?

I can image big effects from big programs. I recall some experiments with seeding the ocean with iron to support algae growth and mess with surface temperature. (Danger Will Robinson).

Lets channel the energy in hurricanes and cyclones into off shore wind farms... now that's a ride and a half..

After that we can collect lightning.

It's all free... Why worry about chaotic systems what's the worst that could happen (besides those half dozen B movies).

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 13, 2008, 09:17:32 pm
Art Welter wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 19:03

JR,

Let’s not start tilting at windmills...

I’d be willing to bet a lot more birds fly into plate glass than will into whirring blades, but there does not seem to be much restriction on putting windows in buildings.

But since you mentioned Hydropower, and the OP was about burning hydrogen and oxygen derived from H2O, anyone know if “burning up water” would eventually create a net reduction of that precious commodity?


Water used in that aluminum reaction kind of gets torn in half with the oxygen bound to the aluminum, but when you burn the hydrogen if picks up free oxygen from the atmosphere and makes water again.

Real issue with water is clean ground water... Ramped up farming for food and/or fuel consumes much water.  We can extract water from seawater but that takes energy. If the caps are melting and oceans rising, we can just drink it.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that aluminum system for anything other than emergency, "just add water" power sources.

JR

PS: I guess you need to keep that aluminum stuff in low humidity too.. there goes MS.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tom Bourke on May 13, 2008, 10:17:37 pm
A couple of thoughts:

1, All of our energy comes from the sun (or nuclear)  Oil is just prehistoric sun light concentrated.  Wind is caused by thermal gradients due to solar heating.  Hydro is powered by the evaporation/ rain cycle.  Crops grow from sun and we process them as food.  We as humans just need to figure out efficient ways to use it. Notice I said "WAYS" there is no one solution or best technology.

2, Nature is full of examples on how to take advantage of this.

3, We have great battery technology, and other technology, much of it is encumbered in patents to people who don't want it sold.

4, We may know how to build more efficient ICE and cars in general but I cant buy most of them in the US.

5, politicians are trying to solve the wrong problems in the wrong ways.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tom Bourke on May 13, 2008, 10:32:52 pm
SteveKirby wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 19:01

Somehow this seems like an extra conversion loss.  The jet engine produces rotational energy and reactive energy (the propulsive thrust).  The heat of the output is simply an inefficiency of burning the fuel.  I would imagine that there are more efficient ways of using biofuel to boil water.  Now if they were using the jet engines to turn generators, and then capturing the heat to boil water for additional conversion efficiency, maybe.


Driving a generator and using that to drive electric motors is just another way to control the energy used to move the vehicle.  In a regular car there is a transmition that channels the low power band of an ICE to the wide RPM/tourque requirements of the tires.  The advantage of the generator/motor combo is that it can keep the engin in a very narrow high effechancy powerband, better than a 5 spd transmision.  In the Prius the smaller of the 2 motors is used to load down the ICE to keep it at relativly low RPM.  It also gives us the ability to store energy to help even out the load on the ICE.  The Prius and dielse electric locomotivs are just ICE powerplants with an electric transmision/drivertain.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 13, 2008, 10:47:49 pm
Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17

A couple of thoughts:

1, All of our energy comes from the sun (or nuclear)  



So where did the heavy elements (not to mention the sun itself) come from!

All our energy comes from gravitational forces, including the sun.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 14, 2008, 12:16:29 am
Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 22:32

In the Prius the smaller of the 2 motors is used to load down the ICE to keep it at relativly low RPM.  It also gives us the ability to store energy to help even out the load on the ICE.  The Prius and dielse electric locomotivs are just ICE powerplants with an electric transmision/drivertain.


AFAIK, the Prius does not work like a Diesel-Electric Locomotive.  When the ICE is running, it directly drives the wheels via a continuously variable transmission, and also charges the batteries with the spare power it makes.  The simultaneous charging and direct drive of the wheels is accomplished using a load balancing device.  It keeps the gas engine in it's maximum efficiency all the time.  Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 14, 2008, 12:22:57 am
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 23:16

Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 22:32

In the Prius the smaller of the 2 motors is used to load down the ICE to keep it at relativly low RPM.  It also gives us the ability to store energy to help even out the load on the ICE.  The Prius and dielse electric locomotivs are just ICE powerplants with an electric transmision/drivertain.


AFAIK, the Prius does not work like a Diesel-Electric Locomotive.  When the ICE is running, it directly drives the wheels via a continuously variable transmission, and also charges the batteries with the spare power it makes.  The simultaneous charging and direct drive of the wheels is accomplished using a load balancing device.  It keeps the gas engine in it's maximum efficiency all the time.  Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed.



"  Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed."

Actually over a particular throttle opening, demand more than a small fraction of a G of acceleration and it's the gas that gets you there.

But you can feel better about the illusion!
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 14, 2008, 10:02:41 am
Ian Hunt wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 03:47

Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17

A couple of thoughts:

1, All of our energy comes from the sun (or nuclear)  



So where did the heavy elements (not to mention the sun itself) come from!

All our energy comes from gravitational forces, including the sun.


Exploding stars. Gravity comes free with mass - like a matching belt with some Dockers.   Very Happy
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 14, 2008, 10:25:27 am
Ian Hunt wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 00:22

Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 23:16

Tom Bourke wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 22:32

In the Prius the smaller of the 2 motors is used to load down the ICE to keep it at relativly low RPM.  It also gives us the ability to store energy to help even out the load on the ICE.  The Prius and dielse electric locomotivs are just ICE powerplants with an electric transmision/drivertain.


AFAIK, the Prius does not work like a Diesel-Electric Locomotive.  When the ICE is running, it directly drives the wheels via a continuously variable transmission, and also charges the batteries with the spare power it makes.  The simultaneous charging and direct drive of the wheels is accomplished using a load balancing device.  It keeps the gas engine in it's maximum efficiency all the time.  Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed.



"  Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed."

Actually over a particular throttle opening, demand more than a small fraction of a G of acceleration and it's the gas that gets you there.

But you can feel better about the illusion!


That's right, diesel-electric locomotives (which have been in mass production since the 1930s) and the Prius have a completely different configuration. The shaft output of the diesel has absolutely no mechanical connection to the drive wheels, it is  used solely to turn the main generator and other ancillary power generation devices. In fact, this type of locomotive could operate with no diesel power running at all if fed with an external source of electricity. The EMD FL-9 was developed for the New Haven to NYC run, and it would switch over on-the-fly from diesel operation to third-rail somewhere around the NY city limits (anywhere south of Woodlawn Junction, but usually around 125th St.) and go totally electric the rest of the way to Grand Central Terminal through the Park Avenue Tunnel where fuel-burning engines are prohibited.  
index.php/fa/15856/0/
The diesel engine-to-generator-to-traction motors setup of your typical diesel-electric locomotive has proven itself to be by far the most practical means of getting power to the wheels, not just because of the ability to match the wide range of road speeds to the narrow RPM powerband of a diesel, but also due to the complexity of the gearing and shafts that would be required for mechanical transmission of power to the multiple drive axles of a railroad locomotive.

And as Ryan L. pointed out, the Prius does have a CVT.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tom Bourke on May 14, 2008, 11:02:14 am
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 23:16



AFAIK, the Prius does not work like a Diesel-Electric Locomotive.  When the ICE is running, it directly drives the wheels via a continuously variable transmission, and also charges the batteries with the spare power it makes.  The simultaneous charging and direct drive of the wheels is accomplished using a load balancing device.  It keeps the gas engine in it's maximum efficiency all the time.  Coincidentally, the gas engine only turns on over a certain speed.


The point I was making is that the Prius and a Diesel electric both use a generator-electric motor combo as a variable transmission to help keep the ICE in its most efficient range. Yes the Prius has a gear system but the electric motors are a big part of how it works.  At highway speed some of the rotational force of the engine is transfered via an electric path, the rest does go threw the gear system.

Also yes the Prius has 3 RPM ranges for the ICE: off, high efficiency low RPM, high output high RPM.  All the drive energy comes from the ICE, just some of it is transfered threw the electric motors and batteries.

The load balancing device is a planetary gear system.  The sun gear is on MG1 (small, normally works as a generator, starts the ICE when needed)  The planetary gear carrier is driven by the ICE.  MG2 (the large one) is on the ring gear and also drives the tires.  MG2 acts as a motor for driving and a generator for regenerative breaking.

http://eahart.com/prius/psd/
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 14, 2008, 11:49:23 am
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 10:25


The diesel engine-to-generator-to-traction motors setup of your typical diesel-electric locomotive has proven itself to be by far the most practical means of getting power to the wheels, not just because of the ability to match the wide range of road speeds to the narrow RPM powerband of a diesel, but also due to the complexity of the gearing and shafts that would be required for mechanical transmission of power to the multiple drive axles of a railroad locomotive.

And as Ryan L. pointed out, the Prius does have a CVT.


That brings up another good question... if the efficiency of the Prius (or any hybrid) comes from keeping the ICE in it's most efficient power band, why don't CVTs just replace conventional multi-speed transmissions?  I thought that was the benefit of a CVT in the first place...

Other than the pesky amount of time it takes to get the ICE from idle to max efficiency and the time spent idling.  Seems to me they could get most of the benefits of the Prius by just using regenerative braking and a battery, and using the motor/generators on each wheel to start the vehicle from a stop and power it under a certain speed.  Thus allowing the ICE to remain off when the vehicle is stopped.  Though, from my calculations a regenerative brake would yield WAY more energy than a battery or charging system could possibly accept.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Scott Raymond on May 14, 2008, 12:03:01 pm
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:14

Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 14:54

Electrolyzing the water will use more energy than combusting the H2 and O2. So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away.
I admit I know little about modern car engines, but after the battery recharges, isn't there excess electricity available from the alternator? It keeps on spinning whenever the engine is running. If that's the electricity that's used for the electrolyzing, how are wasting fuel? Of course you are wasting fuel by hauling around the extra weight of the water and associated gear. I don't buy that this will have a net gain.

Mac



Just a quick primer Mac.  An alternator basically supplies power when needed.  It is as you say always turning and will always have a fixed amount of drag due to friction and drag from the built in cooling fan.  However the (built-in) regulator only energises the field (rotor windings) when there is a need for additional voltage (and current).  This in turn generates power in the stator windings of the alternator which is rectified to DC for the battery and electrical system.  This will create additional drag depending on the demand. So any electrolysis will take horsepower depending on the amount of power (current) needed.  Like you I'm skeptical as the size of anything that holds that little water is going to put out very little hydrogen and oxygen.  I remember doing the test tube experiment in HS and how long it takes to get any amount in them.

P.S.  If you've ever jump-started a vehicle you likely have noticed the engine on the booster vehicle slow down and even a bit of a whine from the alternator as you connect the last ground cable?  That's the altenator sucking horsepower from the load of the dead battery.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Scott Raymond on May 14, 2008, 12:22:27 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 17:39

Andy Zimmerman wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 17:13



And here I always thought that they called it an "alternator" because it outputs "alternating" current....


I think you are correct about the derivation of the name, but that internal AC is converted to DC before it gets output anywhere. Tim is correct about general function and loading. Both modern alternators, and the old generators use regulators to activate or rest the charging circuits as needed based on battery/system voltage.

Alternators are capable of charging at lower RPM than generators, and don't require the mechanical brush contacts, so are more reliable.

JR


Just a note JR.  Maybe Alternator technology has changed in the last 4 or 5 years but most automotive alternators did use brushes on the rotor.  They were a slip ring type, not segmented as they just supplied dc for the field winding on the rotor.  They usually were fairly reliable as they on carried the smaller current to energise the field winding.  I haven't worked on and alternator in 5 or so years as you just can't get parts for them any more.  It's more plug and play.  I used to replace regulators, rectifiers, brushes and bearings but I think that's now a thing of the past.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Stavross (Sam Buck) on May 14, 2008, 12:33:26 pm
Phillip Graham wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 18:58


I don't know much about wind power, in terms of possible side effects, but I have heard that the generator maintenance requirements are very high...


They need a lube job once a year, and some times a bulb on top burns out, that's pretty much it(granted it is a pretty labor intensive lube job or bulb change).

You can't throw a dead cat here in Iowa without hitting a wind turbine.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Scott Raymond on May 14, 2008, 12:53:56 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 20:18

 While I realize I misspoke regarding petroleum as a fuel for generating Electricity. I was referring to it's sister industry of Coal. Sorry and Thank You, for pointing that out.

 While I understand the methods for generating Electricity in the Past and Present, has been driven by the Economy, I believe in the Future it will be driven by Desperation.

Observation: Throughout History mankind has been driven to develop new technologies and products because of desperation, in as much for the reason of greed.

 Pump manufacturers were really keen on the Idea of using Mass Flow Meters, but, then later claimed they couldn't because of higher manufacturing costs that could not be passed on to the Stations.
(the amount of regulations regarding Gasoline Pumps were astronomical at the time.)
The Individual States still send a guy with an "old technology" prover to check customers complaints. Very Happy

It's possible things have changed, but, I wouldn't bet on it.

P.S. The density of a fluid will vary from Temperature and Pressure.

Thanks,

Hammer


Your statements about inaccuracies are borne out by an article in the Newspaper recently about pump errors.  Someone had filled up at a station and put more gas in than the tank capacity.  I think reference was more to calibration errors than anything but  it does happen maybe more than we'd like to hear.  One thing mentioned was that those errors likely happen both ways though a station will likely be quicker to have a pump re-calibrated if its reading low.  I believe it mentioned to call the State Attorney General about complaints.  As to temperature affecting calibration there may be more to it than we might realize.  While it is true that underground tanks stay relatively constant, fuel is coming into those tanks from the tankers on a regular basis and that is a variable depending on outside temperature, how long the fuels been on the road and what the fuel came out of at the supplier, etc.  There could be substantial variations in some cases, however I don't think that you can go by the buy it in the morning rule as being reliable.  If a tanker with warm fuel just filled the tank and the pumps don't compensate correctly you may get shorted.  I've also heard you might get some water that's stired up from the bottom of the tanks from filling them but that may be more scare than fact.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: E. Lee Dickinson on May 14, 2008, 12:59:46 pm
Ryan, the Prius does all of those things. It has a CVT as part of the Hybrid Synergy Drive, regenerative braking, and stops the ICE when the car is stopped at a light.  The ICE is only about 15HP - the electrics get the wheels spinning. They also spin up the ICE to speed before applying fuel, so it never sucks excess fuel to accelerate.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 14, 2008, 01:47:38 pm
Hi Lee

The ICE in a Prius is rated at 76bhp@5000rpm, the electric motor provides an additional 67bhp@1200rpm, however the system can only deliver 28bhp when running on battery only. This is not really sufficient for anything but gentle progress when the ICE is not running, but in traffic I guess that may be sufficient sometimes. Hybrids take advantage of the fact that ICE's are least efficient at low rpm and on small throttle openings, by filling that hole with stored energy a reasonable improvement in mileage can (with a careful foot) be realized.

Note that there are several European cars (mainly diesels) of similar size and performance to the Prius that achieve similar mileage without the complexity of the hybrid approach.

Ian
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 14, 2008, 02:00:38 pm
Scott Raymond (Scott R) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 11:22




Just a note JR.  Maybe Alternator technology has changed in the last 4 or 5 years but most automotive alternators did use brushes on the rotor.  They were a slip ring type, not segmented as they just supplied dc for the field winding on the rotor.  They usually were fairly reliable as they on carried the smaller current to energise the field winding.  I haven't worked on and alternator in 5 or so years as you just can't get parts for them any more.  It's more plug and play.  I used to replace regulators, rectifiers, brushes and bearings but I think that's now a thing of the past.


Thanx, I may be a little confused... Alternators were still new when I was taking such things apart. I recall the major difference was AC vs DC raw output and charging at lower rpm.  

I could be wrong about absence of brushes but they're not like old school DC motors/generators with all that brush arcing from stepping between multiple windings. The generators extracted pulsed DC from the rotational motion by stepping between multiple sequential windings. The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC.  

or not...

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tom Bourke on May 14, 2008, 02:04:01 pm
The other advantage to the hybrid is the engine can be sized for average need instead of peak HP.

Also after driving one for a while I do feel they made several compromises towards acceleration over MPG.

I also agree that the Prius system is not the only way to do it.  In a passenger car the advantages are not fully used.  Where DRASTIC improvements could be made is in the truck/van/cube van market.

The Prius system is not that complex mechanically.  Yes there is a bunch of computer programing but ALL modern cars and trucks have that.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 14, 2008, 02:41:53 pm
 Scott,

 I am not aware of any Newspaper article, but as I had stated in a previous post, my experience from a past project is where I received my info.

 Regarding Gas station Storage Tank readings, if they used a load cell they'd get better readings than the current method of a story pole, or measuring stick. That is the only method I've seen the local stations use in my area. If someone told me that they observed another measuring system elsewhere I wouldn't necessarily be surprised.

 Gasoline's Volume changes with Temp and Pressure. Does it go through Temp and Pressure changes when being pumped? Yes, of course. What's the head pressure of a pump when dispensing Gasoline from 18' underground? Many Variables can affect the "amount" of Gasoline pumped by the old style volumetric pumps.

I'd think that the pumps are pressure and temp Compensated in Mountainous regions.

The Gasoline Manufacturers put Isopropyl Alcohol into the fuel(solubilizes the water) to allow the water to be passed out the Engine.
Unless your getting a high percentage of water, then your safe, Although your efficiency suffers. Very Happy

Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 14, 2008, 05:44:36 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00


Thanx, I may be a little confused... Alternators were still new when I was taking such things apart. I recall the major difference was AC vs DC raw output and charging at lower rpm.  

I could be wrong about absence of brushes but they're not like old school DC motors/generators with all that brush arcing from stepping between multiple windings. The generators extracted pulsed DC from the rotational motion by stepping between multiple sequential windings. The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC.  

or not...

JR



From what I know about DC generators in diesel electric locomotives, I think the complexity lied in the commutator that allowed a rotating body to produce DC in the first place.  The commutators often resulted in severe arcing and fires.  Once cheap rectification became commonplace, DC generators were replaced with AC counterparts and rectifiers.  I'm not sure why the traction motors remained DC... maybe because the circuitry to properly control AC induction motors was not fully developed.  I'm guessing those same commutator limitations affected DC generators in automobiles.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 14, 2008, 06:33:52 pm
Traction Motors remained DC on Locomotives because by reversing the polarity on the input of the DC. motor gave you forward or reverse without extra expense.

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 14, 2008, 06:37:09 pm
 The Sun IS a star.

 Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 14, 2008, 08:34:23 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 18:33

Traction Motors remained DC on Locomotives because by reversing the polarity on the input of the DC. motor gave you forward or reverse without extra expense.

Hammer



That doesn't really make much sense.  You can reverse an AC induction motor by just reversing the order in which you energize the fields.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Chris Davis on May 14, 2008, 10:16:51 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00


The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC.  

or not...

JR






This sounds correct, as I have worked on these in the past.  In my case I have seen these on large gasoline engine powered arc welders that also had 120/240 outlets.  A somewhat heavy-duty diode bridge fed the rotor winding from the alternator's own AC output.  However I never did learn the theory on how the alternator "alternated" before the rotor field became at least partially energized. Shocked

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 14, 2008, 10:19:14 pm
Oh and speaking of things that are supposed to save energy, what is  up and does anyone have any real, solid, verifiable information about this thing? Or even an accurate description of what it exactly is and does?

http://www.power-save1200.com/1200?gclid=CLHXgaW2ppMCFRKLxwo dOBaAnw

index.php/fa/15859/0/

OK, so given the premise that we use watts but the electric company bills us for volt-amps, anything that gets the power factor up closer to 1 or 100% has got to save money, right? So how do we do that, with a bank of caps to offset the inductive reactance of motor-driven appliances? But then, how do they know how much capacitance is needed in the "typical" house? They have no way of knowing how many air conditioners, refrigerators, well pumps, etc. I have. Plus any heating elements (stove, oven, etc,) which are huge gobblers of electricity are purely resistive loads with no power factor losses.  I first heard about this from a story on the local TV news, which instantly made me suspicious because that's the first place where I heard that we need to unplug hair dryers when not in use to save energy (I have never seen a hair dryer with any components that would draw any quiescent current, unlike some home entertainment devices). To call me skeptical would be an understatement. My bu11$h!+ detector is going into Defcon 3.  Somebody, please help me sort out this mess of media hype.  
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Jason Dermer on May 14, 2008, 10:29:52 pm
So Mike, what scale is your layout?  Smile
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Chris Davis on May 14, 2008, 10:36:58 pm
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 22:19

So how do we do that, with a bank of caps to offset the inductive reactance of motor-driven appliances? But then, how do they know how much capacitance is needed in the "typical" house? They have no way of knowing how many air conditioners, refrigerators, well pumps, etc. I have. Plus any heating elements (stove, oven, etc,) which are huge gobblers of electricity are purely resistive loads with no power factor losses.    


Nahh, what would that accomplish.  Too similar to the Sonic Maximizer "knowing" your crossover points, et al.  Sad
Caps are used on CP for more practical uses like single phase motors.  They have a 90
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 14, 2008, 11:08:29 pm
 Yes,
  I understand AC Motors, but,I was talking about in the past. The technology for using AC motors in Diesel/Electric Locomotives is fairly recent. Probably used for the first time in these Diesel combinations in the late 1960's or early 1970's.  Although there were high powered AC motors in other uses, they did not have a way to control the big polyphase motors, until high powered Semiconductor devices were developed. They developed a "speed" control specifically designed for this new application of using these AC motors.
 
Remember: 1 meg EE proms didn't even exist 20 years ago!
40 meg hard drives were the biggest you could get in 1988.
 
Mag-Lev Trains were a dream.

Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Art Welter on May 15, 2008, 12:41:33 am
Mike,

The unit seems to be taking motor loads and spreading them across both power legs instead of one, so the amperage drawn is cut in half per leg.

The demo shows that the amperage drops from 5.7 amps on one leg to 2.85 (1/2 the) amps on that same leg, but does not show the other leg, but I’d bet it would also show 2.85 amps. The demo does not blatantly lie, but without showing the amperage of both legs on a 240 device, which the unit is, certainly has an error of omission.

I don’t know how the device splits the 120 v motor across both legs (240 v), but if that is what it does, it still wouldn’t reduce power consumption or cost.

Looks like another placebo effect, people get concerned about energy cost, install unit, start turning off unused lights, and surprise, their bill goes down.

I’ll be waiting to hear how the OP’s mileage tests go. 10-15% savings can be made by changing driving habits and pumping up tires, about all the water injectors claim, which keeps people thinking that the device they paid $$$ for is doing the job.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Scott Raymond on May 15, 2008, 08:55:02 am
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 13:00



Thanx, I may be a little confused... Alternators were still new when I was taking such things apart. I recall the major difference was AC vs DC raw output and charging at lower rpm.  

I could be wrong about absence of brushes but they're not like old school DC motors/generators with all that brush arcing from stepping between multiple windings. The generators extracted pulsed DC from the rotational motion by stepping between multiple sequential windings. The alternator OTOH used one (?) winding and solid state rectifiers to convert the "alternating " current to DC.  

or not...

JR




John

I think that covers the differences accurately.  I do know if you take a generator out of a vehicle and hook it up to DC power it will run like a motor. I should probably add that the majority if not all of my experience is with Delco alternators so there are others out there that may be different in design.  The rotor winding that is fed from the slip rings is a simple coil that is wound basically around the shaft though it is actually inside the rotor which is a circular core with two ends that wrap back around and look something similar to interleaved fingers.  This creates poles with the N toward one end of the shaft and S towards the end of the shaft.  The interleaved fingers create opposite poles around the outside of the rotor which induce current in the stator windings around the outside of the alternator as the rotor turns.  I seem to remember either 3 or 6 rectifiers in them so there were likely as least 3 different stator windings.  The voltage regulators were small built in solid state units that sensed the output voltage and applied field current as needed to regulate the output.

On a side note we have a company here that was started back around the forties somewhere that designed and built brushless alternators for the Navy if I remember correctly.  I believe they used a permanant magnet design to get away from using brushes.
The company is Allmand Brothers and they now manufacture (among other things) portable lighting trailers with tip up extendable masts with high intensity lighting that you might see at construction sites.  They used to use their alternator in the trailers but now outsource them because it's cheaper.  Some one here may have also used their welders which they used to build back in the early days.

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 15, 2008, 09:52:57 am
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 23:37

 The Sun IS a star.

 Hammer


That's correct. What's your point?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 15, 2008, 10:21:18 am
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 21:19

Oh and speaking of things that are supposed to save energy, what is  up and does anyone have any real, solid, verifiable information about this thing? Or even an accurate description of what it exactly is and does?

 http://www.power-save1200.com/1200?gclid=CLHXgaW2ppMCFRKLxwo dOBaAnw



OK, so given the premise that we use watts but the electric company bills us for volt-amps, anything that gets the power factor up closer to 1 or 100% has got to save money, right? So how do we do that, with a bank of caps to offset the inductive reactance of motor-driven appliances? But then, how do they know how much capacitance is needed in the "typical" house? They have no way of knowing how many air conditioners, refrigerators, well pumps, etc. I have. Plus any heating elements (stove, oven, etc,) which are huge gobblers of electricity are purely resistive loads with no power factor losses.  I first heard about this from a story on the local TV news, which instantly made me suspicious because that's the first place where I heard that we need to unplug hair dryers when not in use to save energy (I have never seen a hair dryer with any components that would draw any quiescent current, unlike some home entertainment devices). To call me skeptical would be an understatement. My bu11$h!+ detector is going into Defcon 3.  Somebody, please help me sort out this mess of media hype.  


I think this may fall into the little bit of truth category but mainly if you have big motors with no/little caps in use.

On the subject of power, these new energy saving light bulbs are not PFC, so if and when they become all pervasive the utilities will not be used most effectively. I suspect future versions of super bulbs will be PFC too.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Dennis Wiggins on May 15, 2008, 10:45:46 am
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this discussion - I didn't have time to look all the way through it.

I believe fuel cella are the way we will go in the future.  There are really no other (my opinion) viable choices.

-Dennis Wiggins
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: E. Lee Dickinson on May 15, 2008, 10:56:23 am
Dennis, where will the hydrogen come from?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 15, 2008, 11:03:40 am
Hi Lee

Although the 'where will it come from' question is a good one my feeling is that the biggest problem will be the delivery systems, I have no idea how many filling stations there are in the US but that's about how many filling stations we need, whatever they are supplying.

Unless Peugot ever get that hydrogen from water prototype they showed in Paris in 2005 working at  price we can afford. If they succeed I'll have no problem going 'the french way'
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 15, 2008, 11:34:36 am
Dennis Wiggins wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 09:45

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this discussion - I didn't have time to look all the way through it.

I believe fuel cella are the way we will go in the future.  There are really no other (my opinion) viable choices.

-Dennis Wiggins


I thought we pretty much vetted this topic (hydrogen) thoroughly a few months ago.

Hydrogen/fuel cell is just another storage medium (glorified battery) with significant infrastructure and difficult "details" to work out to make it practical.

Real batteries seem close to the charge capacity targets defined as generally acceptable for wider use and GM is winding up one factory to make some (I think 2010 production target).

Hydrogen for automobile use will be decades away if ever, I'm not holding my breath. This is another one of those incomplete solutions that unscientific politicians like to present to unscientific voters, while both should know better.

JR

PS: I recall my "older" brother doing a high school science project where he made a simple hydrogen fuel cell (back in the '60s). This is not new technology by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 15, 2008, 01:07:34 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 11:34


Hydrogen/fuel cell is just another storage medium (glorified battery) with significant infrastructure and difficult "details" to work out to make it practical.


Not to drag this out, but I've been doing some reading on electric generation plants, efficiencies and the like.  One think I learned along the way is that the best electrical generation from coal is about 36% efficient.  The world record holder for a combustable material producing electricity is some diesel job that hit 51%.

Looking into it further I learned that this is mostly do to the Carnot cycle.  The Carnot cycle basically says the most efficient heat engine you can make is like 60-70%.

The reason I bring this up is that fuel cells are less about hydrogen and more about using a hydrogen dense fuel to make electricity.  If I can put alcohol, water, methane, gasoline, or pick yer fuel de jour into a fuel cell and get electricity at 50% or greater efficiency, I'm beating the system.

I know that fuel cells are probably not that efficient, but I guess the hope is that some day they might be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_efficiency

From the above, I gather that the maximum efficiency is 83%  If you compare this to your average gasoline engine at 25% efficiency, along with a mechanical linkage (transmission) that soaks up another 10-20%, you are getting maybe 20% of the energy in the gasoline into the wheels.

Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy.  I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas.





Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 15, 2008, 01:30:43 pm
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 11:34


Hydrogen/fuel cell is just another storage medium (glorified battery) with significant infrastructure and difficult "details" to work out to make it practical.


Not to drag this out, but I've been doing some reading on electric generation plants, efficiencies and the like.  One think I learned along the way is that the best electrical generation from coal is about 36% efficient.  The world record holder for a combustable material producing electricity is some diesel job that hit 51%.

Looking into it further I learned that this is mostly do to the Carnot cycle.  The Carnot cycle basically says the most efficient heat engine you can make is like 60-70%.

The reason I bring this up is that fuel cells are less about hydrogen and more about using a hydrogen dense fuel to make electricity.  If I can put alcohol, water, methane, gasoline, or pick yer fuel de jour into a fuel cell and get electricity at 50% or greater efficiency, I'm beating the system.

I know that fuel cells are probably not that efficient, but I guess the hope is that some day they might be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_efficiency

From the above, I gather that the maximum efficiency is 83%  If you compare this to your average gasoline engine at 25% efficiency, along with a mechanical linkage (transmission) that soaks up another 10-20%, you are getting maybe 20% of the energy in the gasoline into the wheels.

Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy.  I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas.




We could switch to 6 stroke ICE and substantially improve our average efficiency, whether the 2nd power stroke is steam or air for best results still is 'under discussion' but both methods claim an improvement of roughly 40-50%. Significantly better scavenging causes a reduction in emissions (more work per cycle), lower cooling requirements (In 1 case it is claimed that the radiator can be dispensed with) and higher outputs.

This technology dates from 1915, current engines (all functional) include the Bajulaz (air, switzerland): Velozeta (air, india) & Crower (water, usa). All of these engines offer multi fuel capability (gas, diesel, lpg etc) Then there is the charge pump engine (usa) a 2 stroke with 2 power strokes per cycle and 4 stroke lubrication and one that has yet to be demonstrated, the Beare (malcolm beare design, usa) (piston in head running at half the cyclic speed, no valve train)

But the simplest method of reducing oil demand remains the most difficult, drive smaller cars!

Edit spelling and additional info for the beare
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 15, 2008, 01:39:31 pm
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07


=John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 11:34]
Hydrogen/fuel cell is just another storage medium (glorified battery) with significant infrastructure and difficult "details" to work out to make it practical. end/quote
----

Not to drag this out, but I've been doing some reading on electric generation plants, efficiencies and the like.  One think I learned along the way is that the best electrical generation from coal is about 36% efficient.  The world record holder for a combustable material producing electricity is some diesel job that hit 51%.

Looking into it further I learned that this is mostly do to the Carnot cycle.  The Carnot cycle basically says the most efficient heat engine you can make is like 60-70%.

The reason I bring this up is that fuel cells are less about hydrogen and more about using a hydrogen dense fuel to make electricity.  If I can put alcohol, water, methane, gasoline, or pick yer fuel de jour into a fuel cell and get electricity at 50% or greater efficiency, I'm beating the system.

I know that fuel cells are probably not that efficient, but I guess the hope is that some day they might be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_efficiency

From the above, I gather that the maximum efficiency is 83%  If you compare this to your average gasoline engine at 25% efficiency, along with a mechanical linkage (transmission) that soaks up another 10-20%, you are getting maybe 20% of the energy in the gasoline into the wheels.

Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy.  I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas.



Drag out or topic swerve? I very specifically said "Hydrogen/fuel cell" not fuel cell, and even went  to the OP's link to confirm he was talking about "hydrogen".

Give me a fuel cell that runs on pump gas or diesel at better than IC engine efficiency and I'm ready to roll... The hydrogen is the relatively difficult infrastructure part to work out.

I have heard of fuel cell vehicles running on hydrocarbon gases (butane, propane,...?) but they don't seem imminent.

I will take your word for it on coal plant efficiency. I would expect external combustion processes to provide ample opportunities for better capture and utilization of waste heat after spinning the primary turbines but haven't researched the state of that art. I suspect they are more focused these days on sequestering carbon, sulphur, mercury, and other byproducts.  

Several coal plant projects (in the US at least) have been cancelled due to emissions concerns. My brother is working on a new LNG plant somewhere in SW. Nuke plants  are suffering from huge cost increases but hopefully some of those will come on line in several years.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Dennis Wiggins on May 15, 2008, 01:52:01 pm
OK... my "opinion" has been humbled.  No wonder we use gasoline! Shocked

http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html

-Dennis Wiggins
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 15, 2008, 03:41:32 pm
What kind of Fuel Cells did the Family use on the Lost in Space show?  They had Hydroponic Gardening, Robots, Stun Guns, a Land Rover, weird shaped guitars.

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 15, 2008, 03:54:34 pm
Weren't they powered by the improbability engine?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 15, 2008, 04:34:43 pm
Art Welter wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 02:03

JR,

Let’s not start tilting at windmills...

I’d be willing to bet a lot more birds fly into plate glass than will into whirring blades, but there does not seem to be much restriction on putting windows in buildings.




The problem with windmills is not as shortsighted as birds flying into them...think one step further:  Their migratory and nesting habits are disturbed.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Art Welter on May 15, 2008, 05:17:03 pm
Kristian,

That is true, birds may nest on the windmills like they do on power transmission poles.

I would think climate changes will have far more impact on migration patterns than physical constructs.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 15, 2008, 06:40:57 pm
Oh the pain, the pain  Laughing
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 15, 2008, 09:28:56 pm
Kristian Johnsen wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 15:34



The problem with windmills is not as shortsighted as birds flying into them...think one step further:  Their migratory and nesting habits are disturbed.


Maybe we can teach them to fly above or around the windmills.

If I could put up a windmill in my yard and keep some of the migratory birds from hanging out, that would be OK with me...

When they're around in big numbers they're noisy.

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 15, 2008, 10:40:58 pm
Or maybe we could engineer another myxomatosis, the avian version this time, then you wouldn't have to be bothered at all!
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 15, 2008, 10:45:07 pm
Ian Hunt wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 21:40

Or maybe we could engineer another myxomatosis, the avian version this time, then you wouldn't have to be bothered at all!


I don't want to hurt the birds, but I don't care for several hundred in my yard at the same time... It's reminiscent of a Hitchcock movie.

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 15, 2008, 10:52:51 pm
John

It is obvious that the vast majority of people in the western world put their desires above all else, welcome to the club.

Ian
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 15, 2008, 11:43:26 pm
Wanna see some windmills? Go to Palm Springs.

index.php/fa/15891/0/

Man, they got some windmills!  Cool
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Art Welter on May 16, 2008, 03:29:37 am
Mike,

On the right hand picture, turbine #4, #6 and #8 have been turned 180 degrees from the rest.

Was that from bird strikes?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 16, 2008, 05:52:39 am
Art Welter wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 23:17

Kristian,

That is true, birds may nest on the windmills like they do on power transmission poles.

I would think climate changes will have far more impact on migration patterns than physical constructs.


Man made construction affects animal habits more than one might think.  Just think about roads as one example.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 16, 2008, 09:39:41 am
Art Welter wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 03:29

Mike,

On the right hand picture, turbine #4, #6 and #8 have been turned 180 degrees from the rest.

Was that from bird strikes?

Beats me, LOL! Hopefully it's not from pilots flying into them by being too busy looking at windmills to find the runway! Laughing
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 16, 2008, 10:30:01 am
Art Welter wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 09:29

Mike,

On the right hand picture, turbine #4, #6 and #8 have been turned 180 degrees from the rest.

Was that from bird strikes?



This certainly might be a rumor, but I've been told that they are positioned this way for certain types of maintenance.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tom Bourke on May 16, 2008, 10:55:57 am
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07


Compare that to a moderately efficient fuel cell of say 50% efficiency and an electric motor that might be 80% efficient and now you've doubled your equivalent fuel economy.  I guess eventually we might get some electric motors in the mid 90% efficiencies and if we can get a fuel cell in the high 70s, we'd be cooking with gas.





Large electric motors (>25hp) are already past that.  NEMA rating -B is over 90% on larger motors. >25hp

I have seen standard industrial motors over 95%.
A good controller is going to be very efficient too.

I think too much attention is paid to very specific parts of the system at the expense of the whole.  I just heard a news report regarding dropping funding for ethanol and putting that money into fuel cell research because of the mess ethanol is.  Go figure.  One buzz word for another I guess.  It is almost like the politicians keep picking unattainable technology to throw money at on purposes.  Hydrogen any one?  We have problems now with people driving off with the gas hose in the tank, lets turn that in to HYDROGEN!  I really don't care HOW the energy gets us to and from work/fun/whatever.  I think most of the technology have there place in this, just not the most advanced needs to be in EVERY car.  Electric and battery combined with some kind of biobiproduct liquid fuel will provide enough energy for our fleet of cars.  That is IF we can kik the 90MPH SUV habit.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on May 16, 2008, 11:11:57 am
The only way ethanol MIGHT work is if it can be done without (literally) taking food off our table. Here is something I first read about in "Car & Driver" magazine (not exactly a journal of wild-eyed tree huggers). http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1282/70/
This may actually work, and put the corn back into corn syrup.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Steve Syfuhs on May 16, 2008, 11:38:53 am
Get energy from your crap! http://www.startech.net/plasma.html  Well, garbage.

Interesting theory.  The numbers make sense, but principle != practice.  If we could get it into cars, that would change the game entirely.  Kinda like Back To The Future when Doc changed the machine to run off garbage...
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Nick Pires on May 16, 2008, 11:46:51 am
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 11:11

The only way ethanol MIGHT work is if it can be done without (literally) taking food off our table.


....or without requiring the burning of 1.25 gallons of fossil fuels to produce/transport one gallon of ethanol.
Some of the alternative energy solutions on the table are aimed specifically at solving the dwindling fossil fuel supply/economics problems while still not directly addressing emissions.
You want climate change.......what happens if we start replacing all of the the world's current CO2 emissions with water vapor.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 16, 2008, 12:03:04 pm
Ian Hunt wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 21:52

John

It is obvious that the vast majority of people in the western world put their desires above all else, welcome to the club.

Ian


Hey, the other day while out jogging I rescued a turtle that sitting in the middle of the road afraid to move... Most of my neighbors would aim for it with their pickup trucks, since turtles tear up their vegetable gardens.

I believe there is a balance between being a good shepherd of the environment and doing zero harm. I am reminded of the Indian sect that wear mouth scarves so they don't accidentally inhale an insect and hurt it. I will go out of my way to harm many insects that try to eat my house or food. I will kill fire ants when I can, because they need killin.

Draw your personal lines where they fit your life experience and judgement. YMMV.

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tom Bourke on May 16, 2008, 12:05:40 pm
Nick Pires wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 10:46



....or without requiring the burning of 1.25 gallons of fossil fuels to produce/transport one gallon of ethanol.


Corn is the wrong feed stock!

http://www.thefuelman.com/stillscattails.html
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 16, 2008, 12:19:22 pm
Nick Pires wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 16:46

You want climate change.......what happens if we start replacing all of the the world's current CO2 emissions with water vapor.


If the oceans don't offer all the water vapor the world could hope for I don't think even a billion h2 powered vehicles could contribute a detrimental increment (especially if condensors are placed on the exhaust). But that's just a gut feel - no calculations involved.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 16, 2008, 12:22:48 pm
Kristian Johnsen wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 04:52



Man made construction affects animal habits more than one might think.  Just think about roads as one example.


I routinely see deer managing to cross the man made barriers (roads) in my town. They are probably more impacted by high population density removing their natural food sources. While some other animals are scavengers and attracted to human settlements. Snakes and turtles don't always make it across roads. I will also see dead birds on the road side (during my regular runs). These birds are either killed by cars or mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus (some more insects I'll kill when I can).  I once nailed a vulture with my car but I admit I was aiming for him. He left a greasy skid mark on my windshield as I gave him the A ticket ride.

Animal habits are also impacted by artificial changes to their natural balance of predators too. We see examples of some wild populations out of whack because their predators have been killed off.

The ecosystem is complex but not quite as chaotic as weather and climate. I'll take windmills over coal burning power plants any day. T Boone Pickens, a well known oil guy, just bought some 600 GE wind turbines for his wind farm(s). Expensive oil makes all these alternatives more cost effective.

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 16, 2008, 12:35:39 pm
Tom Bourke wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 09:55




Large electric motors (>25hp) are already past that.  NEMA rating -B is over 90% on larger motors. >25hp

I have seen standard industrial motors over 95%.
A good controller is going to be very efficient too.

I think too much attention is paid to very specific parts of the system at the expense of the whole.  I just heard a news report regarding dropping funding for ethanol and putting that money into fuel cell research because of the mess ethanol is.  Go figure.  One buzz word for another I guess.  It is almost like the politicians keep picking unattainable technology to throw money at on purposes.  Hydrogen any one?  We have problems now with people driving off with the gas hose in the tank, lets turn that in to HYDROGEN!  I really don't care HOW the energy gets us to and from work/fun/whatever.  I think most of the technology have there place in this, just not the most advanced needs to be in EVERY car.  Electric and battery combined with some kind of biobiproduct liquid fuel will provide enough energy for our fleet of cars.  That is IF we can kik the 90MPH SUV habit.


The current $285B pork laden farm bill waddling through congress has changed some research funding from corn based to cellulosic based ethanol no doubt due to the public reaction to food prices.

For reference the last farm bill this replaces was $200B and we are not getting any closer to compliance with WTO rules regarding all of our farm price supports. Bush has threatened to veto it, but in an election year I don't know if the veto will hold against a congress wanting to push the pork and buy votes.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 16, 2008, 01:44:55 pm
 The Strong in nature adapts or dies. Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Nothing new, been happening for millions of years.... When the Plants and Animals died over the Millions of years... they became our Oil and we adapted by using it for Energy.

Did anyone ever consider that extinction may well be inevitable?
We didn't kill off the Millions of Plants or Animals that exisited before us, but it happened.

Human kind may or may not have the power over the extinction of Plants and Animals. But, I'm critical of anyone that suggests they know what's best for the Planet.

Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 16, 2008, 01:47:50 pm
Please note John that I don't exclude myself from the club, that's the problem, those of us who try to be good shepherds do so infrequently and and are fully prepared to drop it when our sleep is disturbed, or someone else's house spoils 'our' view, etc etc
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Al Limberg on May 16, 2008, 04:01:47 pm
Certainly not trying to make this discussion any more political than it has already become and obviously no single political party seems to have a monopoly on overspending, but the following paragraph might come in handy when trying to digest just what kind of numbers are getting tossed around in this discussion.

?;o)
Al




---- What is a BILLION?? The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.   A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.  B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.  C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.  D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.  E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.  While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans. It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.  Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean?  A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.  B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.  C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.  Washington , D.C .. HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Nick Pires on May 16, 2008, 05:17:39 pm
Yeah, I got that email as well.
Let us not forget that more than just homes were damaged during Katrina. I'm sure alot of that money would go into rebuilding infrastructure and building new infrastructure to help "weather" future storms.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 16, 2008, 05:33:05 pm
Spending the money to undo the effects of Katrina is fine by me, what's not fine is the GAO's assessment that since 1995 there have been $2.1 Trillion 'unsubstantiated' correcting entries in the army/navy/airforce accounts.

Anyway isn't $250 Billion only about 27 minutes in Iraq  Laughing

Edit: more dollar signs
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 16, 2008, 05:35:07 pm
Gee, I'll bet for half of that 250 billion you could buy the Baja Peninsula from Mexico and move New Orleans to that higher ground and still have enough money left over to keep the evacuation zone taped off  Twisted Evil
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 16, 2008, 06:27:17 pm
 Some of that "unsubstantiated" Money went to guys like me for building Black Boxes... Very Happy

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Chiara on May 17, 2008, 11:40:37 am
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 16:25

  If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense.

Cheers,
Hammer
 




Isn't the gas..stored underground..relatively isolated from surface temperature flucuations?

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 17, 2008, 11:55:18 am
 See my other posts.

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Vince Byrne on May 19, 2008, 11:21:50 am
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 11:03

I believe there is a balance between being a good shepherd of the environment and doing zero harm. I am reminded of the Indian sect that wear mouth scarves so they don't accidentally inhale an insect and hurt it. I will go out of my way to harm many insects that try to eat my house or food. I will kill fire ants when I can, because they need killin.

Draw your personal lines where they fit your life experience and judgement. YMMV.

In my house the girls make the rules on this, mostly based on cute eyes and personal comfort. If it can look at you with Bambi eyes you generally can't kill it. They were terribly conflicted regarding killing or trying to chase away the new mouse we've heard for a few days, until my wife saw it run down a burner hole on the stove. Now she's full kill.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Joe Breher on May 21, 2008, 12:43:55 am
Al Limberg wrote on Fri, 16 May 2008 14:01


---- What is a BILLION??  


I like to divide these by our national population to figure out what it's costing me. $285B farm bill / ~285M people in the US (low, but I like nice round numbers) * 4-person household I'm the head of = $4,000 outta my pocket into the coffers of ADM.

Where do I sign!?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 21, 2008, 10:40:38 am
Joe Breher wrote on Tue, 20 May 2008 23:43



I like to divide these by our national population to figure out what it's costing me. $285B farm bill / ~285M people in the US (low, but I like nice round numbers) * 4-person household I'm the head of = $4,000 outta my pocket into the coffers of ADM.

Where do I sign!?


+1
You don't need to sign. Bush has said he wouldn't sign it either, while it looks like the congress has enough votes to override his veto.

Perhaps you can teach your lesson in basic fractions to congress... while they don't even seem capable of adding and subtracting.

We need to throw ALL the bums out...

JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Brian Houchin on May 21, 2008, 10:57:21 am
I'm no scientist, but I'm sure if you asked someone like me back in 1940 about building an atomic bomb I would look at them like they were crazy.  And the entire Manhattan Project (according to data on the internet, might not be reliable so don't flame the crap out of me) cost about $20B back then.

I'd say that creating a hydrogen powered engine is a possiblity...if they had several thousand people working on it and a trillion bucks for research.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 21, 2008, 11:17:32 am
Brian,
 They do have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles!

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 21, 2008, 11:26:28 am
Brian Houchin wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 09:57

I'm no scientist, but I'm sure if you asked someone like me back in 1940 about building an atomic bomb I would look at them like they were crazy.  And the entire Manhattan Project (according to data on the internet, might not be reliable so don't flame the crap out of me) cost about $20B back then.

I'd say that creating a hydrogen powered engine is a possiblity...if they had several thousand people working on it and a trillion bucks for research.


Burning hydrogen for energy or converting to electricity is not the hard part.

Storing a few hundred miles worth of it in a "gas" tank, and coming up with hydrogen stations on every corner, etc is a major $$$ issue. Then at the end of all this we are left with a similar question of where does this hydrogen come from? Generally we either put energy into water to manufacture, or crack it from the same fossil fuels we are now consuming.

We discussed this ad nausem several months ago, perhaps do a search.

Hybrid (battery) electric, can at least be plugged into a garage outlet and charged overnight (off peak).  That energy will come primarily from burning coal.

The electric cars are already in the pipeline and we will see them in a few years. Prices have already dropped on used SUVs as people scramble to get away from the poor gas mileage. A classic case of demand destruction, in slow motion, as these won't get parked, just driven less.
------

I am a free market guy so am not convinced the government needs to help us. Their help so far has caused enough unintended negative consequences.

We can make adjustments to improve efficiency and reduce waste without suffering a huge reduction in our standard of living. Right now we are still living like oil was cheap. That genie is out of the bottle...  Time to make a few adjustments.


JR

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 21, 2008, 11:30:50 am
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:17

Brian,
 They do have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles!

Hammer


Yup, I think Honda just announced another one... Not sure where they will gas up tho...
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/owning/

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/FutureTechno logies/Hydrogen.aspx?enc=t0eBkkksaeOlO9zOt8gzADZCvgwlYpsTNlA XDAkk1+s=

etc

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 21, 2008, 12:05:36 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 16:26


Storing a few hundred miles worth of it in a "gas" tank, and coming up with hydrogen stations on every corner, etc is a major $$$ issue. Then at the end of all this we are left with a similar question of where does this hydrogen come from? Generally we either put energy into water to manufacture, or crack it from the same fossil fuels we are now consuming.


Making hydrogen from water is always an energy losing proposition. The big 'but' (remember in Pee Wee's Big Adventure his classic line about "everyone having a big but". - Hey, I had small kids back then - there was no escape from Pee Wee mania)is that there are enormous amounts of "wasted" energy that can be captured / co-gen'd / utilized to make hydrogen. Efficient storage has been the rub, but there are possibilities. Hell, for that matter they may figger out that creating Hydrogen gas and releasing it freely into the atmosphere can work as an "anti-greenhouse" gas - it's extremely thermally conductive as opposed to "insulative" (look JR, I made up a new word!).

What are some possible "near free" energy sources for making all this hydrogen? Solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, flare stack gas, garbage dump gas (methane - which is said to be WAY more bothersome than CO2), poop (ain't that the shizzle) and a hoard of resources are available. It ain't a waste if you use something that was going to waste in the first place.

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 21, 2008, 12:39:25 pm
dave stojan wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 11:05



Making hydrogen from water is always an energy losing proposition. The big 'but' (remember in Pee Wee's Big Adventure his classic line about "everyone having a big but". - Hey, I had small kids back then - there was no escape from Pee Wee mania)is that there are enormous amounts of "wasted" energy that can be captured / co-gen'd / utilized to make hydrogen. Efficient storage has been the rub, but there are possibilities. Hell, for that matter they may figger out that creating Hydrogen gas and releasing it freely into the atmosphere can work as an "anti-greenhouse" gas - it's extremely thermally conductive as opposed to "insulative" (look JR, I made up a new word!).

What are some possible "near free" energy sources for making all this hydrogen? Solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, flare stack gas, garbage dump gas (methane - which is said to be WAY more bothersome than CO2), poop (ain't that the shizzle) and a hoard of resources are available. It ain't a waste if you use something that was going to waste in the first place.




I recall my brother (working with land based turbines at the time) doing energy cogeneration projects decades ago.. Yes we need to be efficient with resources and energy use.

A recent news tidbit... a service that collects used cooking oil (In SF I think) was complaining about people stealing the oil for use as vehicle fuel. The food grade oil apparently gets filtered and processed for reuse, as food.

Tyson (?) is now making bio fuel with excess fat from a rendering plant, but the fat wasn't waste before, it was previously bought and used by the cosmetics industry in makeup.

I'm all for free market best use of resources, as long as we consider true cost. Sometimes the politicians "helping us" are a little weak on the complete calculation.

I think the utility grid is probably the simplest storage medium for excess power, at least for now. Especially for solar, wind, and energy sources that deliver excess during utility peak daytime hours. I could easily imagine a home solar panel, dumping electricity into the grid during the day, We pull back that same energy at night to charge our electric car. No hydrogen tank to mess with.

For now the utilities benefit from this but eventually I imagine them charging us rent for energy storage. It will probably still be more cost effective to deal with on a large scale that for each consumer.
JR


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 21, 2008, 01:21:40 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 17:17

Brian,
 They do have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles!

Hammer


Germany is one of the NATO-forces that have always relied on diesel/electric operation when it comes to submarines.

The latest generation is now hydrogen/electric.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Zimmerman on May 21, 2008, 01:42:28 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:26



Hybrid (battery) electric, can at least be plugged into a garage outlet and charged overnight (off peak).  That energy will come primarily from burning coal.

The electric cars are already in the pipeline and we will see them in a few years. Prices have already dropped on used SUVs as people scramble to get away from the poor gas mileage. A classic case of demand destruction, in slow motion, as these won't get parked, just driven less.



I'm not holding my breath for such a car to appear in the US, but  if the automakers could come up with a cheap ass (under $5k) neighborhood EV/commuter car that would do 55 MPH or so on the road and go at least 50 miles on a charge that didn't look like it came off of the shelf at Toys'R'Us, then I would be all over that(at least after the initial kinks were worked out). From what I've read about EV conversions, it looks like an additional $6K-$10K (ballpark) and some skilled labor, once you have a suitable chassis. I've noticed autos in certain countries that get terrific mileage but can't be sold here because of either emissions or safety concerns. The SUV's and their like do more than suck gas, they also contribute to such safety concerns on the highway, at least IMO; and thus have an effect on people buying smaller cars.

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 10:26


I am a free market guy so am not convinced the government needs to help us. Their help so far has caused enough unintended negative consequences.




I agree with you totally on that one. Unfortunately, bigger government means more intrusive government, and it's kinda hard to tell a politician to mind his own business when he has a check in his hand Smile
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Brian Houchin on May 21, 2008, 01:49:24 pm
Damn, I had a pretty good reply and I wasn't logged in so I lost it!

I realize that we can already burn hydrogen in vehicles.  

I don't think that private industry can develop a way to extract hydrogen efficiently...it would be a massive undertaking, consuming so much money and resources that it would bankrupt a company.

The scientists that developed the atomic bomb didn't look at a conventional bomb and think "How can we use part of this and make it bigger?"  They developed an entirely new type of weapon.  Perhaps this is an approach that chould be taken; not converting an existing IC engine, but coming up with a different type of engine altogether.

If we've landed men on the moon, created vaccines for most life threatening diseases, made cell phones a staple, and flown around the world nonstop, there has got to be an efficient way to power a car without using fossil fuel.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 21, 2008, 02:23:47 pm
The electric cars are coming... don't hold your breath because it may be '09 or '10 but not in some distant "maybe" future.

An electric car with only 50 mile range is, not considered merchantable to a mass market. Perhaps a station car in the suburbs but most want 200-300 miles range. There are hybrid electric-gas cars in the <100 mile range.

I only drive 1 day a week but that's a 25 mile roll each way, which would be marginal if  my total range is consumed in one round trip. I could probably live with a 100 mile range.

JR


PS: OK new concern for economy. How many people bought huge SUVs with  5 year car loans that now owe more on the vehicles than they're worth? Upside down in homes and car loans...   Surprised
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 21, 2008, 02:33:51 pm
Brian Houchin wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 12:49

Damn, I had a pretty good reply and I wasn't logged in so I lost it!

I realize that we can already burn hydrogen in vehicles.  

I don't think that private industry can develop a way to extract hydrogen efficiently...it would be a massive undertaking, consuming so much money and resources that it would bankrupt a company.

The scientists that developed the atomic bomb didn't look at a conventional bomb and think "How can we use part of this and make it bigger?"  They developed an entirely new type of weapon.  Perhaps this is an approach that chould be taken; not converting an existing IC engine, but coming up with a different type of engine altogether.

If we've landed men on the moon, created vaccines for most life threatening diseases, made cell phones a staple, and flown around the world nonstop, there has got to be an efficient way to power a car without using fossil fuel.


It's a shame we didn't get to hear your good reply.  Laughing

I don't follow the fixation on hydrogen? It's not very energy dense for storage. It's nice to burn as it make water, which is generally harmless unless it gets into the upper atmosphere. But an electric car makes no emissions in use.

I feel it's easier to manage many of the problems at the one power plant smoke stack instead of millions of tailpipes.

If we could electrify road surfaces the cars wouldn't have to store any energy at all. They could then be lighter and more efficient yet. Hows that for outside the box thinking?

JR.



Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 21, 2008, 02:39:22 pm
 The Flintstone Car...

Solve a lot of problems, fossil fuel costs, obesity, polution, the scaring of wildlife... Laughing

Seriously,  I see electric "transporter" cars being available soon. As, someone stated most people's trip to and from the work place is less than 150 miles a day. And, possibly keeping a traditional vehicle in the Garage to "live like an American", for the "Road Trips".

Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Steve Weiss on May 21, 2008, 03:26:20 pm
Well it has been 10 days. Where is the report???? Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Karel 'Charly' Will on May 22, 2008, 06:28:45 am
Well,

I don't know the numbers, but families aren't the only ones paying taxes, are they?
I guess companies pay a lot more taxes....
Perhaps you should look at that $285B versus all tax income for the state, and compare that to what you pay in taxes to see how much of that $285B YOU are paying...

I guess that would be far less than $4000, wouldn't it?


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 22, 2008, 10:57:38 am
Karel 'Charly' Will wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 05:28

Well,

I don't know the numbers, but families aren't the only ones paying taxes, are they?
I guess companies pay a lot more taxes....
Perhaps you should look at that $285B versus all tax income for the state, and compare that to what you pay in taxes to see how much of that $285B YOU are paying...

I guess that would be far less than $4000, wouldn't it?





There is a lot of fuzzy thinking about taxes and entitlements.

The biggest failure of analysis IMO is to look at it as a cash flow transaction when there is, or clearly should be future value to government spending (alas not enough for most cases).  Cash flow is useful for budgeting but they rarely follow their own guidelines there.

It's too early in the morning for a complete answer but some basic points.

The money that corporations pay into taxes is not found money. For very small closely held corporations that money is little different that individual income tax. For larger corporations that income which is being taxed, is owned by stockholders. With retirement programs and personal investment there are something like 100 million citizens with ownership interest in these corporations.

So all taxes ultimately come from citizens.

Regarding that farm bill specifically, as has been noted some 2/3 of it is food stamp and other low income giveaways. The math is even more severe when we look at who is receiving that direct benefit vs. who is paying.  I doubt you will find many who are getting back in food stamps 2/3 of what they paid toward that bill. More common are folks paying tax and getting nothing, and other folks paying no tax and getting food stamps. It is just more income redistribution.

The other 1/3 of the bill is narrowly enjoyed by farmers in price supports. I suspect most of them get more than their 2/3 back. What's worse we are in conflict with  global trade rules regarding food price support.  

I am not opposed to direct food aid for the lowest income families, and a safety network for small family farms. This bill has grown something like 3x since the last version just a few years ago and is difficult to justify as is.

I realize my opinions about taxes and income redistribution may differ with other cultures, but increased taxes on business for the government to redistribute makes a smaller pie, allowing business to apply that revenue to growing their business will generally result in more jobs, or if they dividend that income to owners, they will spend it consuming goods and creating more jobs. The private sector creates wealth, the government consumes wealth. There is an active debate about who is getting what share of this increasing wealth. I prefer to reward those who create wealth and jobs, not tax them to the point where they no longer want to grow their business.  

YMMV

JR  
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Joe Breher on May 22, 2008, 03:58:44 pm
Karel 'Charly' Will wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 04:28


I don't know the numbers, but families aren't the only ones paying taxes, are they?



In the final analysis, _people_ pay the taxes. Sure, some cost is borne by corporations, or other entities. Who owns the corporations? In the end, people own the corporations. In the end, people bear all the costs of such measures.

Of course, the $4000 is for the mythical 'average' me. Still a useful way of thinking about the problem.

Then again, the mythical average me will be impacted even more by this measure than the $4000. As an example, some measure of this $285B is paid to (non)farmers for them NOT to grow crops. For the express purpose of raising the cost of a certain crop, through the mechanism of supply and demand. If I want to buy a product encompassing said crop, I need to pay an artificially inflated price.

To come back to the point however, it is easy for the real impact to get lost when the $Billions are flying about. Dividing the cost by the population is a useful tool to get a rough handle on what it really is costing you.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Chris Davis on May 22, 2008, 06:48:09 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 14:23


I only drive 1 day a week but that's a 25 mile roll each way, which would be marginal if  my total range is consumed in one round trip. I could probably live with a 100 mile range.

JR



Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Now all your viewpoints on gasoline prices and economy are beginning to make sense to me.


Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 22, 2008, 11:15:24 pm
Chris Davis wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 17:48



Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Now all your viewpoints on gasoline prices and economy are beginning to make sense to me.





I made that 50 mile roll 5-6 days a week for almost 15 years.

Ironically I bought this house to be <7 miles, without a stop sign from my day job (plant 7). About a year after I was hired I got promoted and transferred into the "big city" (Plant 3, then plant 1, then plant 17 all in Meridian ?).
------
I feel like the price of oil is another bubble, like housing and dot coms and tulips whatever...

The congress in their infinite desire to look like they're doing something have decided to defund the contracts for filling the strategic reserve. This 70,000 barrels a day, while a change in the right direction is a drop in proverbial bucket. We probably have enough for a short shut down of the straits of Hormuz, but with any prolonged shut down those extra 70,000 brl days won't much matter.

For perspective we are importing something like 12 Million barrels a day.

I guess in the margin it all matters, The reason for world oil price volatility is because of how tight that supply margin is. I recently heard an observation from a wall street type that the modern commodity investment instruments have tied up the same amount of oil as the increase in Chinese consumption over the last few years. While this may contribute to price volatility these commodity funds aren't taking delivery of actual oil so this is all funny pricing business that doesn't really impact actual supply.. (bubble?)

I am ready to repeal the Roberts' special gas tax, not because I think it's a bad idea, but I don't trust the whores in congress to spend our money wisely. The free market will deal with this and demand destruction is already working. Want to buy a used SUV?

One problem with letting the free hand of economic forces work, a lot of countries in developing markets subsidize the price of gas to their citizens, so they don't feel the price pressure to respond. But that will change as those governments feel the pain of buying oil at world market prices.

On the recent topic of fractions and simple math.. the common complaint about big oil company profits always focuses on the total gross number, not the profit margin. Using this lame math you could say Exxon's profit increased obscenely when they merged with Mobil several years back. The topline increased huge as they combined two companies but the profit margin changed only slightly.

I can't tell if our congress people are intentionally trying to deceive or just that stupid. probably a little of both,.  [/rant]

JR




 
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Schmidt on May 22, 2008, 11:39:36 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 20:15

 I recently heard an observation from a wall street type that the modern commodity investment instruments have tied up the same amount of oil as the increase in Chinese consumption over the last few years.

That's what really drives me crazy! Investment speculators that are artificially driving prices up. I wonder what prices would be if they were truly driven by supply and demand, (of the actual consumers!!).

These people sitting in the middle and simply buying/selling for profit regardless of how it skews the price and effects the ecomony should be strung up, IMHO.  Mad

John
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: dave stojan on May 23, 2008, 06:32:30 am
Regarding your congressional rant, just what do you expect from professional crowd pleasers? They either bring home the bacon or they're toast (we're half way to a Denny's grand slam here - sorry, not trying to ham it up - well, not eggzactly).

The public (voting and otherwise) and the media are as much to blame - but what do you expect when a third of the people graduate in the bottom half of their class and about a third don't graduate at all?

Whine whine whine about congress's inability to get things done; it's the way the system was designed - to make it so hard to get the right things done that surely the wrong things couldn't stand a chance or would have mass deliberation behind them. But that doesn't fit into our 30~60 minute schedule for resolution, gratification and closure - Wally & the Beav came out smelling like roses in that amount of time no matter what they stepped in. Same for the South Park kids. Hell, even on the History channel they can find the lost ark in that amount of time. It's a cultural thing.

Responsibility begins at home. IF we do our little individual parts and show how & help others to do theirs and stop expecting our representatives to be mind readers (write, call, fax, email, opine in the editorial pages, etc.) we just might see some progress. But then again it's much easier to cuss 'em than to do the hard things.

Not directed at you personally JR (you're one of the people I admire most - shows ya I need to get out more  Shocked ) but it's 5:30 in the morning and I'm in a Bob Leonard kinda mood. (Sorry Bob, I meant that in a nice way - one C.O.P. to another!)

Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 23, 2008, 10:32:46 am
John Schmidt wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 22:39


That's what really drives me crazy! Investment speculators that are artificially driving prices up. I wonder what prices would be if they were truly driven by supply and demand, (of the actual consumers!!).

These people sitting in the middle and simply buying/selling for profit regardless of how it skews the price and effects the ecomony should be strung up, IMHO.  Mad

John



These people are adding to the volatility, not causing the direction of movement. The problem as I have tried to explain is classic economic theory. The tighter the supply vs. demand, the more volatile the price. We have on the order of 2% headroom in the supply side of the oil equation and that's easily taken out with one pipeline explosion.

The investors are only one piece of demand/tightness mechanism. Once the price starts moving down (and it will), they will add momentum to the downside movement.

While I am not brave enough to short oil, I feel like we are near a top. There are anecdotal reports about countries hoarding oil, and unstable governments are apprehensive about passing true costs through to consumers, but they will have to eventually and market with sort this out.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 23, 2008, 11:49:08 am
 What really amazes me is that the Media announces "predictions" of the cost of Petroleum months in advance.... preparing the consumer and, then it Hits that price!
And then, when the price drops a few pennies per Gallon, the American Consumer is excited and believes they're getting a Bargain!
It's true in America that if "you say it enough times, it becomes true"!

I got a kick out of the President's visit with His business Partners, the Saudis, earlier in the week... he asked them to up their Oil output... and they told him NO!  Laughing

Americans are Sheep!

Cheers,
Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Zimmerman on May 23, 2008, 03:00:28 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Fri, 23 May 2008 10:49



I got a kick out of the President's visit with His business Partners, the Saudis, earlier in the week... he asked them to up their Oil output... and they told him NO!  Laughing

Americans are Sheep!

Cheers,
Hammer


I don't know if "business partner" would be correct, maybe "minion" would be a better term for the president as he relates to the Saudis. Maybe its just the skeptic in me, but I would have a hard time believing that a filthy rich group like the Saudis wouldn't be spreading cash around the corridors of power here in the good ol' US of A to maintain status quo.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Schmidt on May 23, 2008, 06:48:59 pm
Andy Zimmerman wrote on Fri, 23 May 2008 12:00

Maybe its just the skeptic in me, but I would have a hard time believing that a filthy rich group like the Saudis wouldn't be spreading cash around the corridors of power here in the good ol' US of A to maintain status quo.

I think it's hardly likely the Saudis would have to spread any money around here - 'more likely the administration here wishes they could spread a little money around over there to keep oil from skyrocketing out of site and keep the populace here pacified. I don't even think the Saudis could be bought - what could we offer them that they don't already have? And imagine what they could do to prices if they started holding oil back?

'Looks to me like they, (and OPEC), are the ones holding all the cards...  Confused

John
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 24, 2008, 03:17:28 am
 John,

I suppose you're right in some cases. But, a Fair and Smart American Government could bargain with:

                remove our Military Bases from Saudi Arabia    
                (for which WE pay them rent, which kept Iraq
                  out and now keeps Iran out)

                 Stop selling them High-Tech Medical Equip.
                 Stop selling Saudi's Military Equip.
                 Stop Selling Saudi's Power Generating Tech.
                 Stop selling Water Desalineation Equip
                 Stop selling Low cost Food Products
                 Stop selling them High speed Computers

 They need us as much as we need OIl.

Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Schmidt on May 24, 2008, 03:33:41 am
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 00:17

They need us as much as we need OIl.

While it's true they may need most those things, I daresay that much of it could be had from places other than the US, though probably not of the same quality in many cases. But you're right - they aren't as self-sufficient or independent as their money would suggest...

In reality, though, I don't think OPEC even has that much control over oil prices anyway, (unless they actually stop the flow), and are just enjoying the ride up. They're just taking whatever bidders are willing to pay.

John
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Ian Hunt on May 24, 2008, 03:41:46 am
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 02:17

 John,

I suppose you're right in some cases. But, a Fair and Smart American Government could bargain with:

                remove our Military Bases from Saudi Arabia    
                (for which WE pay them rent, which kept Iraq
                  out and now keeps Iran out)

                 Stop selling them High-Tech Medical Equip.
                 Stop selling Saudi's Military Equip.
                 Stop Selling Saudi's Power Generating Tech.
                 Stop selling Water Desalineation Equip
                 Stop selling Low cost Food Products
                 Stop selling them High speed Computers

 They need us as much as we need OIl.

Cheers,


Hammer



All of which could be sourced elsewhere, not so the oil. The bases are for our benefit!

Edit: format issues
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 24, 2008, 04:05:22 am
Quote:

All of which could be sourced elsewhere, not so the oil. The bases are for our benefit!

Edit: format issues



I will agree that while some of the Items could be sourced, the quality and technology of the Items would not be in the same league. Especially in the Military, the Desalination Equipment, the Medical Equipment and High Speed Computers.

I suppose that we could say the Military Bases were for mutual benefit. These American Military Bases didn't exist before 1991 and were established for the first go-round with Iraq.
WE really don't need them anymore. It's a waste of Billions of Taxpayers Dollars. The excuse to keep them Now, is to arrest any intentions of Iran in regards to Saudi Arabia's borders.

You may not remember the Saudi hysteria regarding the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but I do , the Saudi's were soiling their sheets, pleading for our intervention.

Cheers,

Hammer
 
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mikey Brown on May 24, 2008, 01:36:52 pm
Heres some shots of the conversion done by Left Coast Electric
for Anthony Kiedis of RHCP. I am a firm believer that if we were to produce electric commuter autos we could reduce the burden of fossil fuels. Is a conversion in your future? It is in mine.  Oil Rehab, my new catch phrase.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mikey Brown on May 24, 2008, 01:38:35 pm
Heres one more. Sorry Mac about the double post. The batteries fit in a tray on top on the motor. www.netgainmotors.com
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Too Tall (Curtis H. List) on May 25, 2008, 01:11:57 pm
I wonder if this is the old “Night raid” gag.

You have a friend who keeps track of every mile his car drives and every gallon of gas that goes through it. The longer he keeps track the more accurate the figure.
Every time he sees you he tells you what good mileage he is getting.

So you put on your “Blacks” and sneak onto he property in the middle of the night and start adding a bit of gas.
As you increase the amount his interest turns into excitement and then barely kept in check hysteria.
He is taking about calling the National News!

Then instead of adding you start to extract some fuel on your night raids and watch the poor man crumble right before your eyes.

I am sure I heard this on Klick and Klack and I am just as sure it has been around as long as there were cars.
Some people are just mean…LOL
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phil LaDue on May 25, 2008, 01:40:19 pm
So Randy, what were your results?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Steve Weiss on May 25, 2008, 03:03:15 pm
Phil LaDue wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 10:40

So Randy, what were your results?



There has been no news from  him for over 10 days on this. Me thinks it was a bust.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 25, 2008, 04:11:25 pm
Mike. Brown wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 13:36

Heres some shots of the conversion done by Left Coast Electric
for Anthony Kiedis of RHCP. I am a firm believer that if we were to produce electric commuter autos we could reduce the burden of fossil fuels. Is a conversion in your future? It is in mine.  Oil Rehab, my new catch phrase.


Hey Mike,

I am not picking on you, at all, but this post about this car, as an engineer (see my thermodynamics earlier in this thread) makes me very sad.

Electric motor technology that was new 40 years ago in the locomotive industry, coupled to vehicles whose every other engineering decision was not tailored to an electric drive train, does not make for efficient electric vehicles.

Something the the Toyota Prius, Chevy Volt, Liebherr Truck, or a GE Evolution locomotive works effectively because of its ground up embrace of a propulsion scheme.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Peters on May 25, 2008, 04:50:00 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 00:17

 John,

I suppose you're right in some cases. But, a Fair and Smart American Government could bargain with:

                remove our Military Bases from Saudi Arabia    
                (for which WE pay them rent, which kept Iraq
                  out and now keeps Iran out)

                 Stop selling them High-Tech Medical Equip.
                 Stop selling Saudi's (fucking apostrophe!) Military Equip.
                 Stop Selling Saudi's (watch that apostrophe!) Power Generating Tech.
                 Stop selling Water Desalineation Equip
                 Stop selling Low cost Food Products
                 Stop selling them High speed Computers

 They need us as much as we need OIl.


I suppose it's worth noting that what you propose, except for your misuse of the apostrophe, is exactly Osama bin Laden's position. What are you, some kind of terrorist? You must be, because only terrorists think that you make a possessive using an apostrophe ess.

-a
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 25, 2008, 05:39:33 pm
[quote title=Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 25 May, 2008

I suppose it's worth noting that what you propose, except for your misuse of the apostrophe, is exactly Osama bin Laden's position. What are you, some kind of terrorist? You must be, because only terrorists think that you make a possessive using an apostrophe ess.

-a[/quote]

Andy,

 Wow, I've been called a lot of things in my life, but never a terrorist.
I believe that the welfare of our Country and It's  people should come first. I do not believe in spending on, or giving Billions of Dollars to Countries that neither want us there nor have Fair Trade rules. I'll remind you that the Majority of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, and not Iran.
Yet, they're our Ally? The Western World made them into what they are today, by buying their Oil. If it wasn't for the Western Countries they'd still be herding goats and living in tents.
 Regarding my spelling errors, I didn't realize you were part of the Grammar Police. No need to get nasty, agree with opinions or disagree, but no need for ignorant remarks.
Now, go eat some Barbeque and resume your drinking.

Cheers,
Hammer
 
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Randy Pence on May 25, 2008, 05:51:08 pm
ack, no politics!  more car engineering
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 25, 2008, 06:09:21 pm
 Randy,

If we could only design the flux Capacitor, our problems would be solved!  Very Happy

Guten Nocht!

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Al Limberg on May 25, 2008, 06:15:42 pm
Ah but Andy is the local grammar officer and I for one welcome his input.  I still make my share of errors but at least now I'm conscious of their potential and my correspondence with clients doesn't betray me as a moron quite as often.

?;o)
Al
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 25, 2008, 08:06:19 pm
 Hey Al,


 The Wings are doing well, but, the Tigers and Pistons, that's another story, all together different.

By the way, after (Ah), you forgot to use a comma.

Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Andy Peters on May 25, 2008, 09:30:53 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 14:39

Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 25 May, 2008



I suppose it's worth noting that what you propose, except for your misuse of the apostrophe, is exactly Osama bin Laden's position. What are you, some kind of terrorist? You must be, because only terrorists think that you make a possessive using an apostrophe ess.

-a


Andy,

 Wow, I've been called a lot of things in my life, but never a terrorist.


Word of the day: Facetious.

I thought that the over-the-top apostrophe corrections made that clear ...

Quote:

I believe that the welfare of our Country and It's  people should come first.


... but I guess you missed the apostrophe stuff, too Wink

Quote:

 I do not believe in spending on, or giving Billions of Dollars to Countries that neither want us there nor have Fair Trade rules. I'll remind you that the Majority of the 9/11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, and not Iran.
Yet, they're our Ally? The Western World made them into what they are today, by buying their Oil. If it wasn't for the Western Countries they'd still be herding goats and living in tents.


Actually, I agree with you ... don't get me started on ol' Bandar Bush.

Quote:

Regarding my spelling errors, I didn't realize you were part of the Grammar Police. No need to get nasty, agree with opinions or disagree, but no need for ignorant remarks.


Again, I was being facetious.

I originally typed, "I suppose it's worth noting that what you propose is exactly Osama bin Laden's position," then I figured that you might misunderstand me and imply that somehow you supported bin Laden's actions. Nothing could be further from it, hence my grammatical attempts at humor.

Quote:

Now, go eat some Barbeque and resume your drinking.


Nahhh, gotta go head out to the club for a gig.

But having said all of that:  I suppose it's worth noting that what you propose, namely getting the US out of the Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia in particular, is exactly Osama bin Laden's position.

And I agree with the sentiment, although of course not with the actions.

-a

PS: A little joke:

Q: Where does al Qaeda keep its executable files?
A: /usr/bin/laden
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Charlie Zureki on May 25, 2008, 09:52:54 pm
 Andy,

I realize I can get a bit too Political, and this is definitely not the Forum for my rantings. I forgot to add the  Smile, after the line about the "Barbeque and......
 I'll keep to Sound related, Gig related, posts.  Very Happy


Cheers,

Hammer
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mikey Brown on May 25, 2008, 10:00:07 pm
Phil:

I totally agree the new pupose built tech is the way to go. The glorified golf cart technology will only be a niche market. But a Camaro golf cart is really cool, in a hillbilly way. So why is it the commuter electric market is geared to the high end user? Tesla, Volt even the truck is high priced. People at this price point could burn gas all day. The only affordable purpose built solutions are NEV's. They aren't going to cut it. I feel sad we haven't designed something for the regular guy to use for his say 60 mile a day round trip. Just seems really ignorant. Most people in urban centers commute less than that. So I guess until the designs catch up with the market, the regular guy will have to eat it, or come up with his own solution. These solutions may get better as junkyards start selling Prius or other oil rehab car parts. To an engineer, I can imagine this project seems coarse at best!!! LOL It will be a good day, when we only use petrolium for recreational purposes.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 26, 2008, 10:39:28 am
Mike. Brown wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 21:00

Phil:

I totally agree the new pupose built tech is the way to go. The glorified golf cart technology will only be a niche market. But a Camaro golf cart is really cool, in a hillbilly way. So why is it the commuter electric market is geared to the high end user? Tesla, Volt even the truck is high priced. People at this price point could burn gas all day. The only affordable purpose built solutions are NEV's. They aren't going to cut it. I feel sad we haven't designed something for the regular guy to use for his say 60 mile a day round trip. Just seems really ignorant. Most people in urban centers commute less than that. So I guess until the designs catch up with the market, the regular guy will have to eat it, or come up with his own solution. These solutions may get better as junkyards start selling Prius or other oil rehab car parts. To an engineer, I can imagine this project seems coarse at best!!! LOL It will be a good day, when we only use petrolium for recreational purposes.


I agree with the redneck chic of an electric camaro. If it feels good do it. But I would be uncomfortable with less than 2x my one day drive budget so I'd need at least 100 mile range.

I don't agree that there is, or will long be,  an unfilled hole in the market.

The major car companies are pedaling as fast as they can to shut down SUV factories and wind up electric vehicle production. Contrary to the opinion that we are at the mercy of the car companies, they are pretty much at the mercy of the consumer, who only recently shifted their preference.

JR
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 26, 2008, 12:25:10 pm
Mike. Brown wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 22:00

Phil:

I totally agree the new pupose built tech is the way to go. The glorified golf cart technology will only be a niche market. But a Camaro golf cart is really cool, in a hillbilly way. So why is it the commuter electric market is geared to the high end user? Tesla, Volt even the truck is high priced. People at this price point could burn gas all day. The only affordable purpose built solutions are NEV's. They aren't going to cut it. I feel sad we haven't designed something for the regular guy to use for his say 60 mile a day round trip. Just seems really ignorant. Most people in urban centers commute less than that. So I guess until the designs catch up with the market, the regular guy will have to eat it, or come up with his own solution. These solutions may get better as junkyards start selling Prius or other oil rehab car parts. To an engineer, I can imagine this project seems coarse at best!!! LOL It will be a good day, when we only use petrolium for recreational purposes.


It is important to realize that the would-be electric car manufacturers are trying to make the cars as cheaply as possible, especially as their SUV-type revenue starts to dry up.

At the moment the underlying technologies (and materials) are simply expensive.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Mikey Brown on May 26, 2008, 02:06:12 pm
All true. Also, the commuter market is only a small part of the
picture. Commercial solutions may be a long way off.
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Phillip_Graham on May 26, 2008, 03:46:45 pm
Mike. Brown wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 14:06

All true. Also, the commuter market is only a small part of the
picture. Commercial solutions may be a long way off.


Some commercial solutions will never come, because of energy density limitations.  Planes will always need some fuel with an energy density comparable to kerosene.

In practice, energy efficient commercial solutions are easier.  The thermodynamic efficiencies of large diesel engines is very good, especially compared to cars.  The very very large (and slow rotating) fuel oil diesels in cargo ships are probably the most energy efficient.  In large applications where there is space, and money, for regenerator/cogen technology and the like, the thermodynamics are more conquerable.  Things like extensive exhaust gas recirculation are easier inside large transit systems.

Viable commuter solutions concern me more.  Its very tough to fit a cogen plant into something the size of a SMART Very Happy
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on May 26, 2008, 04:19:01 pm
Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 15:09

 Randy,

.....

Guten Nocht!

Nacht?
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Randy Pence on May 26, 2008, 06:16:51 pm
Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 22:19

Charlie Zureki wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 15:09

 Randy,

.....

Guten Nocht!

Nacht?


naw, im still awake Smile
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: Kristian Johnsen on May 31, 2008, 11:40:45 pm
Steve Weiss wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 21:03

Phil LaDue wrote on Sun, 25 May 2008 10:40

So Randy, what were your results?



There has been no news from  him for over 10 days on this. Me thinks it was a bust.


Either that, or the improvement was so significant, he's still out there driving to burn up that second tank of fuel!  Laughing
Title: Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 01, 2008, 10:35:19 am
Perhaps he discovered that his neighbor was sneaking gas into his tank at night to skew the test results.

In light of that he needed to extend the test to as along as possible. Laughing

IMO, there is no free lunch...  

JR