Here is a link to a company called Quantum Fuels(ticker symbol QTWW)

http://www.qtww.com/

They are one of the leaders in hydrogen fuel cell development for automotive applications. Now I love the sound of a 4-barrel V-8 just as much as anyone, but I also love mountain streams and the 4 seasons and we're going to lose them pretty fast if we don't act now. I think these guys are working hard at making the fuel cell the normal instead of a theory. And the stock is pretty cheap. You just might make some money on this one.....

:cheers:

Fuel cells are red herrings when it comes to a true benefit. Their cost, the cost to generate the hydrogen, and the energy/pollution load leaves you in the red. Water out the tailpipe is nice, but getting to that point is no real gain.

Alcohol too has the same problem. Sounds good on paper, but the net benefit is far less than what is needed to make any real headway into weaning ourselves from oil. Too close to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Hybrids are making good progress, and with battery technology advancing the way it is, there's a renewing hope in electrics. It'll be interesting to see how GM's new Volt fairs in the market, and how it actually performs.

The stock to buy is the first company to discover and begin harvesting from a hydrogen well.

Until then, hydrogen will have to be produced using real energy, wasting a little according to the laws of thermodynamics every single step of the way.

Hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's an energy carrier, and not a very good one, for a bunch of reasons. The money to be made in this field is by companies who will get your hard earned tax dollars from the politicians.

Avoid stock in these companies like the plague!

Fuel cells that work directly off of real fuel (there's more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen) might be feasible. But they haven't been invented yet in a form that works for the long term.

--97T--

"Alcohol too has the same problem. Sounds good on paper, but the net benefit is far less than what is needed to make any real headway into weaning ourselves from oil. Too close to robbing Peter to pay Paul"
Brazil?

... Brazil?

Brazil? It is a country in South America, language is Portugese.

Brazil is another country where the political decision has been made to override science, basic physics, and freedom. Gasoline is taxed heavily, the ethanol industry is subsidized heavily, and diesel fuel is banned outright because it is so much more efficient.

In order to have their 'success' at ethanol use, you'd have to live like them. Do you want that? Look a little deeper at what it takes to grow and harvest all that sugar cane for fuel.

fizzissist,

There was a big splash in the media about the Volt this week, what with the auto show going on and all.

But at the bottom of the articles the authors felt compelled to add apologetically one small thing; the batteries haven't really been invented quite yet.

And again, electricity is an energy carrier. There are inefficiencies all along the path from where the fuel gets burned to where you can turn it into motion. All electricity does is move the pollution somewhere else, at an inescapable cost. It cannot be more efficient than taking a supply of almost ideal fuel with you and burning it on demand. I wonder how the range of the Volt will be affected if you have to run the heater?

"I wonder how the range of the Volt will be affected if you have to run the heater?"

LOL!!
I think we're on the same page....

A guy I work with has 3 EVs, drives 'em to work daily, and knows ALL the ins & outs of the technology, politics, and practicalities. He's the electronics tech for the department, and has been into EVs for years. In fact, we've even got an electric bus, formerly a Santa Barbara transit unit, that he's in the process of fitting up for our "taking science on the road" program.

The most efficient way, it seems, to heat a vehicle is to use a supplemental ...uh....fossil fuel burner. :) Propane is popular, or a little diesel fired heater. Draining the batteries for pure heat isn't a big plus. Especially here where it snows!!

Seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?"?

as i understand it, brazillian ethanol from sugar cane is a way better sollution than the corn ethanol produced in the states. the way it sounds the ethanol produced here requires so much more energy to produce it is really a step backward. plus there is no benifits for the driver, a friend has a new E85 compatable car, he filled it with E85 once and he said that his gas milage was so bad he would never do it again.

Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane is superior over corn because of it's higher sugar content. Iowa isn't know for it's good sugar cane growing season....so they do corn.

Just stumbled onto this great article on ethanol and ADM. Thought I'd post the link.....

Give Green, Go Yellow
How cash and corporate pressure pushed ethanol to the fore
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/06/ADM/index.html

The Climate Energy Micro-CHP System combines Climate Energy's state of the art high efficiency gas furnace or boiler with a proven natural gas engine/generator module designed and manufactured by Honda Motor Company of Japan. This combination provides unrivaled total energy efficiency in combined heat and power delivery.
http://www.climate-energy.com/micro-chp.asp

The Ecopower Micro-CHP: Neat, Efficient and Easy to Maintain.

Principle
A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit basically produces electrical power with a combustion engine. The heat, which is normally lost in vehicles, for example, is recovered from the generator, engine and exhaust system and can be used for local heating purposes.
http://www.marathonengine.com/cogeneration.html

The Climate Energy Micro-CHP System combines Climate Energy's state of the art high efficiency gas furnace or boiler with a proven natural gas engine/generator module designed and manufactured by Honda Motor Company of Japan. This combination provides unrivaled total energy efficiency in combined heat and power delivery.
http://www.climate-energy.com/micro-chp.asp

The Ecopower Micro-CHP: Neat, Efficient and Easy to Maintain.

Principle
A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit basically produces electrical power with a combustion engine. The heat, which is normally lost in vehicles, for example, is recovered from the generator, engine and exhaust system and can be used for local heating purposes.
http://www.marathonengine.com/cogeneration.html

Whats the point of the system being efficient, & no insulation on the air ducts? :)

http://www.climate-energy.com/graphics/product_example.jpg



.

They're so efficient they don't need insulation!!

....I don't write this stuff....I just report it! :)

Whats the point of the system being efficient, & no insulation on the air ducts? :) .

If you are heating the space which the air ducts pass through what is the point of insulation?

When did the zone get a 'Stop Global Warming Discussion Forum' ???

Im not complaining, just curious. :)

As I recall, oxygen is needed to support combustion regardless of which politcal party grows the corn or sugar. As the oxygen producing forests of Bra`-seel and the planet are being destroyed through combustion, will there be enough of the O2 to matter? Ooops, that may have sounded like a global warming comment... sorry.

When did the zone get a 'Stop Global Warming Discussion Forum' ???

Im not complaining, just curious. :)

A few days ago. Although it seems more a 'tout dicey stock tips and grip about corporate conspiracy forum'. :)

A few days ago. Although it seems more a 'tout dicey stock tips and grip about corporate conspiracy forum'. :)

rofl :D

I used to work at a certain place in the UK that pumped at least 5 gallons of Tri- Chloro, Tri Fluoro Ethelene into the air every day (thats C2, Cl3, Fl3).

I calculated that it was the equivalent of a small city using underam deoderants before the propelents were outlawed.

There was a perpetual artificial "cloud" over our lab.

And the sad bit is... there was absolutely no need for it.

Unfortunately I could say nothing about it :(

So what you are telling me is that the earth is warming up because of us useing fule not that it is a cyclic event. answer me this question when the earth was in the ice age and nothing lived but bacteria did they cause the earth to warm up?

I guess that it is a good thing that we have trees to fillter out the air and give us o2

I saw the movie 'who killed the electric car' .. i'm not sure if you can beleive anything that comes out of the GM horses mouth anymore .. they take many times longer than they say and take an eternity to make a decision.. (and they are very very oil oriented ) -- so , the volt

1) is too far off -- toyota has been making hybrid for years and will assuredly beat them to market for a plug in
2) does anybody trust GM anymore ?
3) it was a publicity stunt to appease the public that a solution is forthcoming!@

.............
Hybrids are making good progress, and with battery technology advancing the way it is, there's a renewing hope in electrics. It'll be interesting to see how GM's new Volt fairs in the market, and how it actually performs.[/QUOTE]

.... there's a renewing hope in electrics....

There is practically no hope for electrics; unless you are willing to scale down to cars that have a speed and range a fraction of what is possible with hydrocarbon fuels.

One factor is the electrical energy required for charging the battery. I have seen estimates for the UK that suggest the generating capacity would need to be increased around four to five times to make it possible to substitute electric propelled vehicles for hydrocarbon propelled. It is likely the increase needed in the US would be greater.

Another factor is the amount of material needed for batteries. Unless the energy density of batteries can be increased by several multiples there simply will not be enough of the materials available. Again it is a problem similar to the increase in generation capapcity; there would have to be an enormous increase in mining/refining capacity for the elements that go into a battery.

Hydrogen fuel cells are more or less the same; an enormous increase in electrical energy would be needed to generate the hydrogen and the rare earth elements (platinum and palaldium) are not abundant enough to replace IC vehicles on a one for one basis. In addition with hydrogen if the energy is coming from natural gas or a lquid hydrocarbon it is as efficient or more efficient to use that directly in the engine when all the efficiences between the energy source and the final use are combined.

There bottom line is that at the current rate of consumption there are no practical alternatives to petroleum products as an energy source. Ethanol is not an answer; if corn growing was expanded onto all the available land and the entire corn crop used for making ethanol it would supply maybe 10 to 15% of the US demand. And this does not even consider whether ethanol production is energy positive or negative.

Well with the battery cars you need to keep in mind that to make the battery and the car you need to burn as much fuel to make the cars and battery as we do now just driving and the car indusry won't just make one car they make tons of cars trucks so if we stay with what we have now and just make the engines more efficent then we will be burning less fule then we would if we stayed the same and tried to make battery opperated ones

GM electric car? I think of GM's plan to be more of what they've done in the past. Their statagy seems to be; It doesn't have to work, it only has to sell.

Were it not for the Yugo, the Vega would have been the worst car of the last century according to Click and Clack... the Tappet Brothers.

Every time I fly into O'hare, I think of GM testing their electric cars there... it's like the world's flattest city, tough duty for a battery car. A hill in Chicago would be an off-ramp.

If Chicago is GM's market, that's fine. But, if those little piss-ant electric cars are the coming thing, remember you'll still have to mix it up with the Hummers and Kenworths.... traffic deaths are on the rise as Hummer drivers on cell phones don't recall flattening a Volt on the Edens....

It's all energy...

Hydrogen is not free.

It seems most people forget the whole "Energy can not be created nor destroyed" thing.

Each time you transfer from one form to another, you lose some of it.

So frustrating to understand science and logic, but still have to live with people who don't.

this is interesting i did not know we had this form. any how just thought i would show you this link it has some interesting things about HHO and just might solve most of the hydrgen fule problems http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhoslike a 10,000 p.s.i. holding tank

Another A55 scheme.....(that one had ya adding water to diesel fuel)

I like the chinese proverb they have on the page, it goes well with the one that says "There's a sucker born every minute."

How much energy does it take to compress whatever to 10,000psi? Don't forget that this di-hydrogen monoxide stuff is dangerous!!

still have to mix it up with the Hummers and Kenworths....

I can't afford a Hummer, but I want one! :D

Im all for putting up solar panels and wind turbines, and tinkering with alternative fuel transport, but until there's a 6 liter alt fuel engine sitting in a Hummer that gives out the same BHP and torque as the one there now, I just can't bring myself to fully roll behind it. What would the world be like without Hummers?.....A very sad place, we'd all be driving the one on the left...:(

Another A55 scheme.....(that one had ya adding water to diesel fuel)

I like the chinese proverb they have on the page, it goes well with the one that says "There's a sucker born every minute."

How much energy does it take to compress whatever to 10,000psi? Don't forget that this di-hydrogen monoxide stuff is dangerous!!


Wise man say, "Does a bear $hit in the woods"? :)



.

The odd thing about rising sea levels is that if you place an ice cube in a graduated container and let it thaw, the water level wil NOT increase, it stays exactly the same (honest, I've tried it)... so what's it matter if the ice caps melt?

Can anyone see the deliberate flaw in this theory? :))

I agree with you that the cars are coiming into this world but that's not the answer. The car industies still have to burn fule to produce there cars and the batteries to run them so we are still burning a lot of fule in a factory that runs engines that are not burning as well as they should. They need to get the combustion engine the best it can be first to fix the problem not the fule then work on a new car of tomarrow

Yes, but, we're all going to die!

Electric cars would make a lot of sense for certain needs if we had a reasonable approach to nuclear energy. If the electricity could be generated inexpensively, you could use one for a runabout, to work, the store, etc. Electric power for vehicles makes sense where it makes sense. Like in lift trucks, they've made some nice ones. But they are used in a situation where the weight is an advantage, the lack of exhaust is an advantage, and the energy cost is insignificant.

As it is, it makes no sense to burn coal or natural gas around the clock when there are much more efficient ways to do the job.

Here's a real nice job on converting a motorcycle to electric. It only goes about 15 miles, but then it doesn't have $10,000 batteries in it.

http://www.hackaday.com/2006/10/11/electric-motorcycle/

Linked to from one of my favorite sites .....

--97T--

That bike is nice. :) 15miles would be ok for a little runabout to use around town. And hey, stop at any gas station and ask to plug it in for a 15min quick charge they'd probably let you do it for free! Or better, change the batteries and stick an alternator onto it, might not make it go for ever, but maybe add on 5 or 10 miles. Cool. Now we just need him to make a Hummer version.....but I'd want more than 15 miles from my Hummer...hell you nearly get that from a Hummers tank of gas already!! :D

"The odd thing about rising sea levels is that if you place an ice cube in a graduated container and let it thaw, the water level wil NOT increase, it stays exactly the same (honest, I've tried it)... so what's it matter if the ice caps melt?

Can anyone see the deliberate flaw in this theory? "

Yes, I can see the flaw. What you say is true, that ice melting in water doesn't raise the level. The problem is that the ice that will raise the oceans levels isn't in the oceans at this time. It is above the oceans and as it breaks off, falls into the ocean and melts, levels will rise.

hehe yep you are right, also the weight of the ice on the land squashes it down. As the ice melts the land mass actualy springs upwards :)

hehe yep you are right, also the weight of the ice on the land squashes it down. As the ice melts the land mass actualy springs upwards :)

"Spring" is not quite the correct word. :)

...back on the corn vs. cane subject...

"..During its growth to maturity, the cane stalk absorbs the same amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is eventually emitted during combustion of the ethanol distilled from its juices.

But this is not so for ethanol made from corn in the United States or wheat in Europe. These primary materials must first be turned into sugars before fermentation, which requires the use extra fossil fuels and adds to carbon gasses emitted in the production process.

Brazilian cane mills are also powered by leftover cane stalks that heat caldrons to generate steam and electric energy, an extra advantage that corn and wheat don't have.

Unica estimates that Brazilian cane ethanol on average yields more than 8 times more energy than is used in the production process, compared with US corn ethanol production that yields between 1.1 to 1.7 times as much energy...."
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39942/story.htm

...Unica estimates that Brazilian cane ethanol on average yields more than 8 times more energy than is used in the production process, compared with US corn ethanol production that yields between 1.1 to 1.7 times as much energy...."
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39942/story.htm

You done been reading the same news item I have this morning.

Scary!!!!

...Meanwhile, elsewhere on the "Evil Big Corn Oil" (EBCO) front, the Farm Report had a discussion by industry execs (one being a rep from ADM) about the current aquisition and reallocation of 10Million acres for corn production, the vast majority of that displacing soybeans and cotton. One major consensus was that corn prices are going to rise.

------------------
>"Spring" is not quite the correct word."
....Ok, it don't exactly 'spring'...but he's on the right track! The opposite is being observed where large buildings are being, or have been, built. One factor that exacerbates the sinking is where water and oil have been extracted.

In the case of Virginia City, Nevada it's more often a case of mines leaving gaping holes from gross dirt removal.

Ok here it is. Like I said the battery cars are not a bad thing but there not a good thing. If we burn fule now to make cars and we need to burn fule to make new cars then the fule problem is still here. Now if we make the motors that burn the fule better and more efficent then we won't need new cars to replace them. If we can't fix the problem with the combustion motors we will be burning the same amount of fule to make two different cars. One that burns fule and one that run on batteries. Now thats not to mention the acid thta spills out of the cars on the ground and kills the earth. at least the trees help us out now. what will help us clean the roads of acid when you get a guy that doesn't fix is battery leak? raise taxes for more street cleaners? Fix the problem at hand.

hehe yep you are right, also the weight of the ice on the land squashes it down. As the ice melts the land mass actualy springs upwards :)

Actually it is a little more involved than that; more a water mattress type of situation which I have never seen incorporated into the calculations for ocean level increase due to land based ice caps melting. The land under the ice is depressed but around the edges of the ice the land is raised; this stands to reason because the land cannot go anywhere, the earth has to remain the a same volume. This means that some volume of the ice in the ice cap has already been transferred to the ocean by the raised sea bed around the ice cap. This may have little influence on the Antarctic ice cap melting because large areas of the continent are below sea level even though the ice is ground bound; in the case of Greenland however it could have an influence. Still it might be necessary to live for a very long time to see the effect.

Abiogenic Oil????? And why not??

"....The Russians decided to try something different. In the 1950s, perhaps due to the pressures of the Cold War, they started to hunt for oil according to a new theory -- most oil occurred naturally, deep within the Earth's crust, and had nothing to do with rotting organisms. That hunt has been highly successful, and the former Soviet states have many commercial oil wells apparently producing from deep basement rocks...."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html

Say it isn't so!!!

Abiogenic Oil????? And why not??

Why don't you find something on methane hydrates? More locked away energy there than in all the known oil and coal deposits. If you can find a way to tap it.

Huge amounts of methane hydrates being released suddenly is one of the theories that could explain the Bermuda Triangle disappearances.

Presumably, large bubbles of methane suddenly 'burp' from the bottom, and any vessels located where the bubble hits the surface are sunk. Aircraft loose power when the engine starts breathing the wrong mix of methane, and crash into the sea, never to be seen again except in made-for-tv docudramas.

After we've killed off all the cute little penguins and polar bears, we can start mining the ocean bottom for methane hydrates and start killing off all the Finding Nemo characters.

Day-ohm, that's Ebonics for Golly Gee.

We certainly have drifted afar from our roots here. Our roots being machining. Alas, I find this forum a refreshing diversion and insightful form of diversity.

Why do I have the feeling I've been led into this discussion by a couple of seemingly innocent posts and a totally-off-base stock recommendation?

Well, there I was at FL41 when my automatic pilot bailed out. It matters not, as I am thoroughly enjoying this exchange. I for one, aploigize for using the band width to divert from machining and beg the indulgence of our administration to allow continuance as deemed proper for the an excuseable duration.

Regardless of the scope of this forum, I will at sometime, suggest my personal theory as to the major contributing factor to the Global Warming Issue. I'll look to see if the primal salient point is raised.

When all the ice melts, it will flow into the sea, thereby depressing the sea bed further and raising the adjacent land further above sea level.

Dugg, you should have called the stewardess in to help Otto out. Maybe his valve was leaking. Of course, most of us who turn 100 octane into noise and buy 80 where we can find it can't really afford Otto. And any FL is low earth orbit.

As far as the warming goes, I believe the most important philosophical approach is to studiously ignore the scale of the single most potent source of energy influx and its fluctuations.

If there's one thing humans can still learn by watching expedition specials on the travel channel, it's that low density energy sucks for survival, in a whole lot of ways.

--97T--

fizzissist,
All electricity does is move the pollution somewhere else, at an inescapable cost. It cannot be more efficient than taking a supply of almost ideal fuel with you and burning it on demand. I wonder how the range of the Volt will be affected if you have to run the heater?


Yes it does move the pollution somewhere else. It moves it to a central point where we can keep better control of it. One coal fired powerplant or 10,000 cars. I'll go with the powerplant.

If you turn on the heater in an EV it doesn't effect the range.

I know you were being funny but there's quite a few places out there that answer some of these questions. Ths one should get you going: http://www.eaasv.org/evinfo.html

Edit:
If you turn on the heater in an EV it doesn't effect the range as much as one might think.

There is practically no hope for electrics; unless you are willing to scale down to cars that have a speed and range a fraction of what is possible with hydrocarbon fuels.

That may have been true in the '70's but not so much in 2007. You're average EV now hits 70mph with no problem and can do 30 or so miles before needing a recharge. So speed isn't an issue and range isn't an issue for the vast majority of driving most people do on a daily basis.

"If you turn on the heater in an EV it doesn't effect the range."

Really?

Yeah, I squeezed the trigger early on that one.

I run biodiesel in my truck. Its a great alternative to 100% diesel. I hear BMW just made a engine run on pure hydrogen. Usally hydrogen is very unstable when burned in a engine. Anyway, went though a emissions test station and here were my opacity readings.

30 ppm all diesels
19 ppm average
my readings. 1.6 ppm

This fuel is running in my 20 year old Toyota diesel with 378 kms on the Odomoter.

And this is with only 20% biodiesel mixed in with my dyno fuel.
Any questions? ;)

"Yeah, I squeezed the trigger early on that one."....LOL!!!

Just got back from Thailand, rented a Honda Wave, and thought I'd love to have one here!!.....but guess what...can't get 'em here.

They're ~$1100 in Thailand, around $3600 in the UK, but you can't get 'em here at all. The only thing we can get here is stupid mini-tired scooters for $5000.

How much did you say those electric motorcycles are??

I run biodiesel in my truck. ...

Any questions? ;)

Why, yes, yes I do. Are you making your own BD? Care to share details?

I have made sample batches of biodiesel about 5 years ago. First time I heard about it was 10 years ago. I buy mine locally mixed with dyno fuel. I dont have a place to make it and would like to start some kind of co-op with somone else in Lowermainland BC. If it goes beond something small the land needs to be Industrial land. Perfer the equiment to be inside or under a roof. I have even thought of having it made in Bellingham or north of there. Comments?

I get industrial auction information from across the contry often and bidding on equipment instead of mfg it would be a huge cost savings. To bad I am not a millwrite or I would install it my self :) That might have to be farmed out if it gets bigger then a processing unit and a settaling tank.

Yes it does move the pollution somewhere else. It moves it to a central point where we can keep better control of it. One coal fired powerplant or 10,000 cars. I'll go with the powerplant.


The problem with that approach is, "We" manage it by not allowing utilities to build new power plants, and dictating to them what fuels to use, and forcing all kinds of pollution controls, etc. Then, the laws of physics put an upper limit on the efficiency of converting that fuel to electricity, and an upper limit on the efficiency of transmission, and an upper limit on the efficiency of converting the electricity back into motion. Also, the storage of the electricity is expensive, the more efficient batteries use exotic materials whose cost must be amortized, and the less efficient but less expensive batteries are heavy, which carries an efficiency cost for a vehicle.

If we had a decent nuclear power generation capacity, then off-peak power would be almost free, and then it would make sense to use it for some fraction of our transportation needs. But this would happen for price reasons alone.

When you add it all up, electric vehicles make sense in situations where they make sense. But that isn't everywhere. There are many situations where having a tank full of almost ideal fuel that will take a vehicle for a very long range and back is much more efficient in terms of human time, cost, and total energy spent to get the job done.

You say you'll take the powerplant. But you can't take it with you!

As long as people can freely choose, I'm fine with it. You might notice, I'm the one that posted the link to that cool motorcycle conversion. I could use something like that, a few months a year, on days when the weather is good. On a day when it is very cold out, like today, I'd rather have my internal combustion vehicle, and use the waste heat from it to warm my chilly bones on the way to work.

A lot of people don't think about energy in terms of survival. Your access to energy on demand is, literally, your standard of living. Even when motor fuel goes to historically high prices, it's almost free compared to the alternatives. While the cost of energy is relatively low, there's little penalty to using the electrical power grid for your personal transportation needs, even if it is a little less efficient and a little more expensive, if that's what you want to do. Just please leave the power of the government gun out of the discussion, and let the market decide for itself what it wants -- it's that freedom that gave us low-cost energy, and alternatives to choose from. Once you lose the choice, it won't be long until only the elites can afford it. You can bet that whatever happens to the economy, your job, your standard of living, and your ability to travel or work wherever you want, they will still have their limousines, and all the energy they need to heat their mansions while they decide what is best for you.

The "world is gonna end" argument has always been used by people who look with jealousy at the freedom and consumption habits of the common man and wish to sieze that freedom and dictate to him what he should be doing. Those in power who want more power decide what the premise shall be; then they fund research to find fuel for their position, they fund and fund until almost all research is dependent on their funding, and they fund only the research that will support their position. Before long there is an avalanche of 'data' supporting the position, and few dissenters. The few dissenters don't 'belong', and are cut off from funding. The party line is the only line that is used in polite conversation. Nobody questions why we should trust researchers and scientists who take money from government to repeat the party line, happily seeking to destroy the system and the victims from which the funds are forcibly extracted. I think the researchers and scientists who believe in State Science should look at what happens to their kind throughout history whenever the aims of those who wish to sieze power are finally realized. They are tossed aside like used up toilet tissue, and they are summarily disposed of if they become inconvenient in any way. Just look what happened to them in the USSR. And look at the disregard for pollution control and safety that system demonstrated.

Truth by consensus is a dangerous thing.

--97T--

Now I've got to get back to figuring out how I'm going to do the setups to machine a custom air filter housing for my buddy's dual quad hemi motor.

The market has spoken and the earth is talking back. Carbon levels in the atmosphere are dramatically higher than the highest cycle measured in 650 000 years by government and non-government scientists. The "normal cycle" is observed to have been broken since the dawning of the industrial era.

You will think you are doing well all the while oblivious of how your choices and freedoms have been curtailed by the lack of real choices available in the current free market system.

Being able to buy gas from Shell, Texaco, BP or Petro Canada doesn't represent choice.

You will be fed what your conditioned to think you need by those interested in pilfering your pockets to line there own. You will do so willingly and with much contempt for those who fight back.

Mike

"The market has spoken and the earth is talking back. Carbon levels in the atmosphere are dramatically higher than the highest cycle measured in 650 000 years by government and non-government scientists. The "normal cycle" is observed to have been broken since the dawning of the industrial era."

The sky is falling.

[QUOTE=fizzissist;247452.....The sky is falling.[/QUOTE]

Duck!

I'm still trying to get an answer to the simple question of what caused the temp to rise for 800yrs IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

"...All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data...."
--Jeff Severinghaus
Professor of Geosciences
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

That's EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS of temperature increase, not a mere 150.....and the lag can be as long as 2800yrs, something not mentioned here.

WHAT CAUSED THE TEMPERATURE TO RISE FOR 800 YEARS?????

---Geof, I'm not yelling at you.... :)

WHAT CAUSED THE TEMPERATURE TO RISE FOR 800 YEARS?????


rofl....I can think of many funny and inappropriate answers to that question!! :D


Maybe some of MDLang's really really really old scientists can tell us what happened? :p
...dramatically higher than the highest cycle measured in 650 000 years by government and non-government scientists.

It's crucially important to studiously ignore fluctuations in the energy input to the system. There just isn't much power money to be gained from it.

--97T--

...Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water....This just in:

......'Hydropower has always been considered the cleanest form of power generation. But as dams prevent organic matters from flowing down stream, organic matters trapped at the bottom of reservoirs are deprived of the oxygen they need to decompose, thus producing methane and nitrous oxide,' Professor Chen Chen-tong of the National Sun Yat-Sen University said.

Chen said methane and nitrous oxide have different effects on global warming.

'One ton of methane equals 21 tons of carbon dioxide and one ton of nitrous oxide equals 200 tons of carbon dioxide,' he said.

Chen warned that China's Three Gorges Dam will produce serious global-warming effects because the dam has blocked 75 per cent of the organic matters from flowing downstream. ........


http://news.monstersandcritics.com/energywatch/renewables/news/article_1231056.php/Hydropower_contributes_to_global_warming_study

I have used Alcohol as racing fuel since 1969 ( except for a couple of years I got really STUPID and used Nitro) and built a 1972 Pinto 1600 cc
( English motor) to use alcohol as the primary fuel for street use, in 1975.The motor had 13.7 to 1 compression,via forged pistons I machined from blanks ,shot peened and magnafluxed rods, premium ( for that time) Clevite bearings, enhanced oiling system and the rotating assembly balanced.HTC built the steel crank for us to our specs. I left the head stock, except for stainless valves, 4 angle valve job and HP valve springs, the cam was a special grind to increase torque at the bottom end, but ran out of wind at about 5600 rpm.The english 1600 cc motors were all cast iron, push rod motors, built pretty tuff, could have been a diesel motor.
I finally decided on a 2bbl rochester carb, that came out of a 4 cyl Pontiac , we called them "Iron Dukes" and pretty sure they displaced about 151 CID, which was 800 cc more ( approx) than the 1600 Pinto motor. I had to make a cold start valve, which consisted of a Holly elec fuel pump , 12 volt fuel solenoid, a push button and 3 screw in jets. following are the good and bad after driving the car for 150,000 miles on alcohol:
1) Methanol is a poor fuel, it corrodes everything, is highly hydroscopic, ruins alum castings and rotted every rubber product it touched.The primary fuel pump would last about 3-4 days and expire..We learned that no matter what, start with a new fuel tank.
2)Ethanol is a much better fuel, not nearly as hydroscopic, still harder on rubber than gas or diesel, we did learn to use it..Had to change to viton needle and seats, use different rubber in the fuel pump and use steel lines.Never completley solved the gasketing problem with the carburetor, always seeped some what.
3)Alcohol does not have the BTU that gasoline has, needs about 1.4 to1.6 more alcohol to go the same distance than gasoline.
4) We used the car as a shop truck , and some of the dummies I hired as parts runners/delivery never could figure out the cold start switch, or the fact that the car needed to be filled at the shop from out 55 gal drum, not the local Chevron. I remember more than a few "rescue " calls, lots of duh hua's about simple things .

Some Good things
1) Little car was a rocket,that little 1600 engine would tear up a lot of tires,. clutches and transmissions. Suprised a lot of people at the stop lights
2) Never had to replace the spark plugs.. always looked new, finally at 80,000 miles we did replace them just because we thought they should be .
( Back then, 20,000 miles was a long time on plugs)
3) We paid about 24 cents a gallon for Ethanol, but we had to go get it and store the 55 gal drums.As I remember, gas had gone to 75 cents a gallon.
4) At tear down after 150,000 miles , the engine looked new inside. There was wear on the cam and solid lifters, we should have used hard seats for the exaust as the SS valves and big springs were pounding the seats out. The lower end had very little wear, there was abnormal ring wear, possibly using a chrome ring would have solved that, but the cylinders looked new and micked almost standard. This was significant, as my sons drove it quite a bit, and I know they all pounded the pedal, as it was a real sleeper. I heard rumors that it made them all some money at the stop lights and other places ?
5) I took it thru emmission test 3 years in a row..all values were 0 and in fact was accused by the test system manager of faking something the 2nd year..Had not one of his employees pointed out to him that in fact we were running alcohol he and I would have come to blows over his refusal to pass the car.
6) Had we had EFI back then, we most likley could have tuned well enough to have at least a good of mileage as with gas.The only system around was a Bosch system using an analog computor (Caddy's), and although it was port injection, it still was just spraying fuel everyother cylinder / revolution which was not particularly efficient. Mercedes ( 300SL) had a manual, timed port injection, but you could not buy many componets , unless you had a big bank account, and I doubt it would work with alcohol due to lack of lubercation in the fuel, and very tight German tolerances.

My opinion today is that there is an element out there that does not want alcohol as a primary fuel, just lots of politics and special intrests involved on both sides, which clouds the whole issue, and does not allow some real research to be done. The E 85 program is most likley going to fail, as the auto manufactures will not put enough compression in the engines to use alcohol or a mix, due to their alleged ability to use gas, or a gas alcohol mix, and the possibility of pre-ignition using just gas alone.The cars perform real mediocre on E 85, and every one complaines about the reduction in fuel mileage. With the correct compression and E 85, they could be real rockets, and have deceant mileage.One other factors is Big Oil just does not want to reduce fuel consumption world wide, no matter what their public faces say.They just have too much of a vested intrest in making sure we use and pay for a lot of oil.
How about a Hybred Alcohol / electric ? All the tech is here now, again vested intrests may kill that one.
How about a Hybred Diesel /electric ? Or a BioDiesel/ electric with recharging capability.. especially when our elec. rates at night are so cheap..
All of these are using existing technology, our citizens want this type of transportation, just what is holding this back ?
I'm have become very pessimestic in my old age, but the hair stood up on the back of my neck when Bush ( who I voted for ) said that our Government will push to use these "new" systems and drop the consumption of oil by 20% by 2012....but a few sentances later said that the US Government will buy 1000 barrells of crude a day to put in the famous Petroleum reserves. It takes very little math to figure what Big Oils profits would do if consumption dropped 20% !, But hey , why worry, the Federal Gov. is going to buy at least that much, and at market prices.. looks like a back door subsidy to me.
Maybe not, there may be good intentions all around.

Adobe (old as dirt)

...That ole' 300SL pump was a work of art...high pressure direct port. There wasn't really much you could do with it in the car, it was all done on a special machine on the bench. You put it in the car, hooked up the drive shaft, installed the injectors, hooked up the fuel lines to and from everything, the controls from the intake, and away you drove.

Jerry Fairchild in Pasadena, CA was a magician with those pumps.

An amazing system, especially for the time. As it was described once, it was highly refined, highly reliable, and highly expensive.

A used system today, if you can find one, will set you back $20-35K.

Diesel electric hybrids have been used for years and years in locomotives.

And there is a hybrid coming along soon that will use a small gasoline engine to power an all - electric drivetrain, with batteries to provide short term acceleration needs. Whatever fuel is used, that approach might make the most sense, because you can use a small engine running at its most efficient RPM and load whenever it is on, and you can eliminate some transmission cost and weight with advanced electronic speed controls. Such a car will have the best possible efficiency, along with decent acceleration and range. If it is a success, economies of scale might bring the cost down to where the fuel savings will make up for the extra cost involved in batteries and electric motors. I'm not sure yet whether there will be a weight penalty -- motors need copper and iron, and batteries aren't lightweight either. (Plus it takes a lot of energy to make all that stuff, too!)

I always loved the smell of alcohol fueled cars. Adobe, I agree there is an element that doesn't want alcohol fuel to succeed, and there are elements that do. But right now it is a payola game with tax dollars and political action committees and zealots raising a cacophony of unreason. Big oil wants their profits and are not above using government to secure an advantage, but their enemies want to use the government to deny the common man his ability to drive what he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants. They don't see a need for him to do it, so they want to be able to stop him.

All of these ideas for alternative energy and hybrid vehicles, and only a scant few have ever taken their ideas and made something of them. For that, Adobe, you have my respect. As well, there are plenty enough capitalists out there who will jump at the chance to produce and sell something new that can make a profit. And a vehicle that will save people money, or any idea that puts more energy in the hands of people at a better cost, will make them money and be a boon to mankind. But you can't lower the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of something or to move it. The best we will be able to do is to find the most efficient way of obtaining that energy and converting it to the motion or heat we want. Depriving people of it will only make them live their lives in misery.

Ethanol is ultimately derived from solar power, as is hydroelectric. Solar power is low density. You lose a lot of the energy in concentrating it. Even when mother nature concentrates it for you, as in a mighty river, the energy can only be extracted at great effort, and still it is finite and only portable for as far as you can run costly cables and distribution systems. We have a few nearly ideal fuels; nuclear which is not free but which could be much less expensive, and we know how that will work politically; oil, which comes out of the ground with lots of pent up energy, and natural gas which comes out of the ground almost free.

There is no such thing as "alternative energy". There is energy, and there are fuels that you can extract it from. The amount of energy you get back after whatever it takes to extract it will ultimately decide the value of a fuel. And this will determine its suitability for large scale use, no matter what political persuasion anyone is. It takes a lot of sunlight to make ethanol, and it's a straightforward calculation to figure out how many acres it would take to move our transportation system. Especially if you made the system run completely off ethanol, no fair using oil or coal-derived electricity in the farming or distillation steps, at least when doing the calculations for what it would take to get the job done. Just as biodiesel is a great hobby and possibly a money saver if you can get a source of waste oil, it shows difficulty in the scaling problem if you wanted to replace gasoline with it. If you own enough woodlands, you could probably drive to town with a steam powered car, it's been done before, very elegantly. All the exercise would probably be good for you too. But I don't think the wife would find it very convenient.

One of the fellas where I work is a big advocate of alternative energy schemes, and he particularly likes the idea of wind power. Always looking at stocks for companies that make and sell wind power systems. Well, my opinion is that they make sense where they make sense, just like anything else, but they are not the answer for everyone everywhere. I gave him a challenge when he asked me to look at a stock offer for one of these whiz-bang startups for large scale wind generators. I reminded him we just built and installed a machine to process parts for a customer, he helped sell the project. I asked him to call that company, or any company and get them to quote us a system that will power that machine. It needs 150 KW of power, 3 phase, 60 cycles, on demand, able to run whenever we get parts to process, which will be pretty much two shifts for five or six days a week. No hemming or hawing, just how much for a system to supply the power for that one machine. Well, they'll sell you a tower, and a generator, but ... and but .... and so on. You'd pretty much have to design your own storage system, and an inverter, and maintain the thing, give it heated floor space, and so on. Every time he talks about wind generators I ask him if he got me that quote yet, for a turn-key system to power his bread and butter. He's still looking. Even doing all the engineering yourself, the system to collect that free power would cost more than the gross receipts for the job, and wouldn't pay off before it wore out. The advocates dream that if our energy cost were ten times what it is now, then their ideas would make economic sense. But if energy costs went that high, we probably couldn't afford to buy a loaf of bread, let alone be able have a business to produce metal parts so that people can buy inexpensive transportation. Because high energy costs drag every single aspect of life down in direct proportion to the cost. It affects the cost of everything. You won't be able to buy a cheap car to put that expensive gas in. And when the car companies fail, there won't be much money floating around the other sectors of the economy either. The cost of everything will be higher, and there won't be much disposable income to go around. We're headed in that direction now for political reasons anyway. I just hope I can retire to a place where I can grow things, walk to a market if necessary, and heat with firewood before they get their way.

Ahh, there's my therapy for the day. Thanks for listening. If anyone still is, hehe.

--97T--

97T the dieselelectric is more of a transmision thany a hybred the altanator makes the electricty and the motor drives the wheels and does some of the breacking I have an idea for a much larger renuilbe enegry sourse lawerdiesel a process where diesel is refined from lawers/polition's mostley the same BTU you could burn the junkmail and political mail to cook them into a usible consistincy We would be recycling!!!

There are a lot of really sharp, knowledgeable people on this forum, and I want some pros and cons why the following system would not be feasible and using the present technology at hand, off the shelf parts etc, reduce hydrocarbons, increase fuel milage per unit, and still have a vehicle with enough torque to make it enjoyable to drive. I'll admit , have had some prescribed pain killers today, but I'm not seeing any funny stuff, or having delusions.
This unit would have: DC electric wheel motors ( either 2 or 4 if you needed 4 drive) with regen capabilities ( IE can generate DC also) a small 3 or 4 cyl.diesel /hybrid engine )( jeese corn oil, cooking oil, J2 etc ) or an engine to run alcohol,with a high pressure computor controlled injection system..no idle, no mid throttle, just off or on)a small turbo charger that would also blow a portion into the exaust to help reduce emmissions . The latest battery tech with stationary battery charger and a Generator hooked directly to the hybred engine.

The real core of the system would be the drive computor, that ,through various inputs ( temp, load, speed, throttle position, re-gen braking , battery charge,engine fuel consumption etc) and out put the most efficient use of the diesel/hybred engine, route voltage back to the batteries during slowing, coasting, and control the incomming charge to the batteries when stationary.

Some requirements would be that the engine could in fact use different Bio fuels and therefore would require a fuel tank heater ( pure bio is fine,but when cool it wants to clog filters and worse stop the engine ) and may require a
2nd tank for diesel to start and run untill the Bio is warm enough ( another function of the computor, we would not want Miss Blondie having to think much about starting and running the engine).

I feel that there are enough people that are intelligent enough to run this type of system ( although I saw a lady putting gas in her husbands brand new GMC Diesel 3500 the other day , she got mad when 2 guys told her not to, and called hubby right away..man you could hear her a block away yelling at the poor hubby..like why did you buy this pos, I hate you..etc) so am I looking through the wrong lens ? Is something like this feasible ? And then the last question, if it is , why has not Detroit or others done this ?

I would like to know, when I have some projects out of the way, and completley mobil, I know where there is a little Honda with a trashed engine but good exterior and interior that maybe would make a good conversion.
Wife says no more racing, no more sky-diving , so gotta do something ?

Comments..please

Adobe (old as dirt)

Adobe I think the only technical argument against what you are proposing would be the weight aspect, mostly due to the batteries, which also comes into play a little bit with the existing hybrids. Have you read anything on energy storage flywheels? They have a higher energy density than most batteries and can take extremely rapid 'recharge' rates.

I think what you describe could also be adapted to local generated electricity on a home scale up to apartment building scale. Of course there is not much regen braking involved :D but in this application the waste heat can be utilized for building heat and if the absorption type refrigerators where used also for building cooling. There is some work being done on this type of cogeneration but most of it seems to be still hung up on also hooking into the grid and feeding power back and forth.

Kevin Taylor; There does exist one diesel electric unit on the market that is really a true hybrid not just an electric transmission system but it is a yard engine not a mainline unit. I believe the rational behind it is they run the diesel at optimum output all the time, or as much as possible, and this way the increased emissions that result from running a diesel at various throttle openings is avoided and the overall diesel efficiency is inproved. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,66998,00.html#comments

http://www.railpower.com/

Also Seattle had diesel hybrid buses with regen braking and everything but things did not work out as efficiently as hoped for.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/203509_metro13.html

Geof:The rail engines are exactley what I'm proposing, but would like to see a
Bio product used ( renewable) Those are some amazing figures of fuel savings,especially comming from an industry that has had a lot of experiance..The Seattle deal:I just do not understand this at all "They were designed for a Cummins, then the Federal Gov. came in with new emmission standards, so they had to use a Cat certified Engine instead" ( which killed their fuel economy) That is pure B.S...The manufactures have known about the "new" emmission regulations for 2006 for the last four years ,at least !
All of the engine manufactures ( Cummins, Detroit, Cat, ect) were monaning and groaning in 2003 about the costs of the new regulations. I got to visit one of Cats engine plants in 2003, and the manager said then that with their high pressure (22,000 lbs) EFI and combustion chamber changes they would make it by 2005 ok..So my question is how did the manufacture of these buses and not know about the Feds new regulations ? ? Somebody is not telling the whole truth about that..also, they are using the elec motors as a "boost", so that means the diesel is in fact being throttled all the time ,instead of a constant rate. How did you like the comments about the busses from Italy ?
Reminds me of an X19 Fiat I let my oldest daughter buy..What a POS.Anyway, the Train guys got it right !Diesel for charging, elec for wheel power.

I got to talk to the then MPH and ETA record holder of electric drags in 2002, as he was servicing one of our TIG welders. He brought one of his elec motors in for us to see...Was about 16" long , maybe 7-8 inches in diameter and produced 90 hp ( elec), ( Thats a bunch of torque) and weighed maybe 60 lbs..He ( I think his name is Dennis, lives in Phoenix or Maricopa Ariz)said that he had a new battery manufacturer that was going to sponser him. The weight of the batteries was only 220 lbs..He did go over 280 mph at 6+ seconds with that set up.Said he charged the batteries with an old AC/DC welder. He commented that a 3000 lb car would need about 60 hp DC elec. to stay in the fast lane.? I do not know, has anybody got any calculations ? DC motors put out some real torque figures, but I do not fully understand their Horse Power ratings as opposed to a gas engine, due to limits on RPM.
Thanks for the research, it does help me. Wonder if they use a real good EFI and computerized fuel managment system ( the choo-choo trains )?

Adobe (old as dirt)

Kevin: I like your idea the best. We could extract the oil with something like a huge olive press.

Adobe, on your idea about per-wheel motors, I've thought about that idea at length myself. I don't know if electric motor technology is up to it yet, but in my spare time I'm looking at it. Might have to use driveshafts though, unsprung weight is a bad thing.

On the new regulations, they knew they were coming, but the costs are there just the same. They are predicting a pretty big sales slump this quarter because of it. They pushed production levels as high as they could until time ran out, to make as many of the older ones as they could. (This from a supplier's perspective.)

On the drag car, you didn't mention it, but he must have needed more than a few of those 90 HP motors to turn in numbers like that. In answer to your query, yes it takes somewhere in that neighborhood of 60 - 70 HP to drive on the freeway. And naturally a lot more than that to get decent acceleration. HP = torque ft-lbs X RPM/5250, in any engine, period. The differences in motors relate to how torque varies with RPM. If supply voltage is constant, DC motors generally have maximum torque at minimum RPM, and the torque falls with increasing speed in a pretty straight line. The best horsepower is the point on the line where the product of torque X RPM is the highest. The torque is directly proportional to the current, which is directly proportional to the voltage applied. So they are usually controlled with variable DC voltage if you want variable speed.

Cheers,

--97T--

Check out this EV:
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/reviews.php


Dual motors:
http://photos.plasmaboyracing.com/buildsequence/Siamese8
http://photos.plasmaboyracing.com/album02


Video:
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/videos.php


.

Switcher: Wow, that is fantastic ! Besides the racing woes that I can understand, those guys did one heck of a job keeping that Datsun up and running, despite all the " carnage" ( like racing in the fuel ( nitro) classes).

That does partially support my thoughts that with the right combo of DC motor(s) , a diesel/Bio charging engine,and computor controls, a viable auto could be built, that would give excellent fuel milage and very low emmissions.
I think that one of the keys is to use all "off the shelf parts" , that means were not re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, plus the ability to use renewable resources as 90% of the fuel.A stationary charging system that would give a range of 35-40 miles with out the Bio diesel charging engine having to start would be mandantory.

The little Honda Civic I'm looking at as the base for a conversion to Bio/Electric must not have a GVW of over what, 2100 lbs ? Lose an engine, transmission and add 400 lbs of batteries plus 300 lbs of elec motor, wiring ect and my preliminary estimate is that combo would add 200-250 lbs to the weight of the auto.Because of the DC elec motor torque curves 97T mentioned above, I could believe 90-110 elec HP at 200 Volts would be more than sufficient and fun to drive, especially if the new NiCads become avialable at decent prices. If it becomes necessary in order to keep the elec motor rpms at a deceant leval, a CVT or a small 3 speed auto trans with out a torque converter may be the answer, and would not add much weight.
Just thoughts..certinly have machining and fabrication ability, and have a couple of play toys that could go on the block to finance the costs, with out getting into retirement funds.


The only thing I lack to complete this type of project is the DC Electrical knowledge ( and experiance with High Voltage DC)and the ability to tie that into a vehicle computor that can be programed as needed.

Adobe (old as dirt)

Adobe I think you could get away with something rated at quite a bit less than 90 -110 hp continuous duty. How about two so-called, y/ delta vector drives such as are used for VMC spindles rated at 30 hp continuous with a thirty minute overload at 120% and a ten minute overload at 195%. This means at the ten minute level you are a bit above your 110 hp.

In a VMC these are driven by a VFD controlled by a computer and they can have a very wide rpm range with good torque through quite a large region. Everything could be salvaged from junk machines and if things worked well the motors and control units are off-the-shelf items already.

Geof, thanks for the reply, I do need to get some things about your idea in my foggy old brain :
1)y/delta drives are related to AC 3 phase or DC ? Can they act as a Generator ?

2)I installed a VFD on my Retro fit Tree mill, and purchased an interface that can control F-R, speed and braking thru the software ( Desk CNC).the VFD goes from single phase 220 and converts to 220 3 phase, so there fore the next question:

3)We have a 240 Volt battery pack suppling DC voltage to a pair of y/delta elec motors thru a VFD , a Bio Fuel engine turning a DC alternator/Generator to recharge the battery pack Plus a stationary charging system at home).

a) Do we have to convert DC to AC before the VFD ? Or what other options are there ( as you can see, I know nothing about y/delta elec motors, and in fact little about High Voltage DC) and what kind of loss could I expect in avaliable voltage and amperage if I use an inverter to change from DC to AC ?

b) Does the y/delta motor have the same torque characteristics as a DC driven motor ? And could you estimate an approx operating range for a 30 hp spindle motor.(RPM)

4) What are your thoughts about hooking the 2 motors together ? Side by side, mounted to a case with chain(oiled) or Gilmer Belt drive(dry) ? I have designed and built a duel motor to single propshaft drive for a boat, using a chain out of a GMC 4 wheel drive transfer case , that was successful, although it started leaking about 2 years later, the owner told me they could never get it to stop leaking, but never brought it by for me to look at and evaluate)I really do not favor a chain, they are heavy and would absorb a lot of HP. We also manufactured Asphalt speciality Equip, and in the later years started using Gilmar belts, one product did have a 25 hp elec motor, and as far as I know , there were never any failures..Of course there was not a lot of stop/go/accel/decell.

I made a commitment on the little Honda Hatch back with the blown motor, but I must complete some other "in progress" projects before I can devote the time necessary ( along with some home projects that must be done to keep my wife from ousting me into the cold ).In the mean time, I will start trying to learn all I can about High Voltage DC . I will leave the programming to someone else, as I do not think I could stuff that into my head at the same time.

I just got the March issue of car and driver and they had an article about the Detroit Auto Show...GM had a prototype small chevy with guess what..battery powered Front drive, with a small gas engine to recharge the battery pack ( niCad) The estimated a 12 gallon tank of gas will take the car 640 miles..This is of course after charging the pack at home before the trip. I think they are going in the right direction, just had they used a Bio-Fuel I would really give them credit.

I can see lots of CNC parts being made for this project .

Thanks for your input !

Adobe (old as dirt)

Adobe;

Quick reply...a few weeks (months?) ago someone had a thread asking about powering a boat with batteries feeding directly into a VFD. I posted in the thread and some of your answers are there. Sorry, my foggy brain cannot remember the title, try searching with terms like 'boat battery VFD'.

I will have to postpone a longer reply until this evening...getting a new Haas VF2 up and running today. My Production Manage is fretting because we have stuff to make and the machine was delayed a week. That's the problem with hiring someone who does their job, they expect you to do yours also instead of wasting time fooling around on some forum.

Geof, thanks for the reply, I do need to get some things about your idea in my foggy old brain :)

I should mention I am not an electrician or anything like that so some details below may not be completely accurate. No doubt someone will jump down my throat telling me I don't know what I am talking about but I am used to that. I have done a lot of reading and thinking about the ideas you proposed and just wish I had the time to play around.

1)y/delta drives are related to AC 3 phase or DC ? Can they act as a Generator ?

AC 3 phase. The y/delta is just a fancy way of saying they are a multipole motor that can be connected differently to vary the number of poles. When an AC motor is driven through a speed range by varying the frequency they are limited to a smallish range of frequency. I don't really know exactly what the practical limits are but it is something like low end 40hz and high end 200hz. The limit at one end is that you have to push too much current throught the motor to get decent torque the limit at the other end is that the high frequency causes a lot of inductance so you have to run the driving voltage very high. Or something like.

They can act like a generator and I think I will be expanding on that aspect below.

2)I installed a VFD on my Retro fit Tree mill, and purchased an interface that can control F-R, speed and braking thru the software ( Desk CNC).the VFD goes from single phase 220 and converts to 220 3 phase, so there fore the next question:

3)We have a 240 Volt battery pack suppling DC voltage to a pair of y/delta elec motors thru a VFD , a Bio Fuel engine turning a DC alternator/Generator to recharge the battery pack Plus a stationary charging system at home).

a) Do we have to convert DC to AC before the VFD ? Or what other options are there ( as you can see, I know nothing about y/delta elec motors, and in fact little about High Voltage DC) and what kind of loss could I expect in avaliable voltage and amperage if I use an inverter to change from DC to AC ?

No you do not have to change the DC to AC. The VFD is an inverter that operates at a variable frequency.

The normal way that a VFD works is you supply it with an AC source, single phase or three phase. Neglect all the control circuits for the moment and just concentrate on the power circuits. The incoming AC is rectified onto a DC buss with capacitors to smooth the ripple from the AC a bit. Then the variable frequency inverter uses the DC voltage on this buss to synthesize variable frequency 3 phase AC at a variable voltage. DC voltage is DC voltage and it does not matter whether it is coming from a battery bank or a rectifier/ca[acitor bank. Your 240 volts DC is a bit low however, the AC that can be synthesized from this would peak at around 170volts (I think); you would need around 360 volts DC.

Regarding losses I think that a good VFD can be around 95% efficient although I may be pulled up on this.

In your scheme the engine/generator/battery bank would be equivalent to the rectifier/capacitor/DC buss.

b) Does the y/delta motor have the same torque characteristics as a DC driven motor ? And could you estimate an approx operating range for a 30 hp spindle motor.(RPM)

Simple answer...don't really know. I can tell you that electric subway systems and electric buses used to use DC motors but modern systems use three phase variable frequency motors. Also I am pretty sure that on a power for weight basis three phase motors are better than DC motors and on a maintenance basis motors without brushes win hands down.

Operating range for 30 hp variable frequency AC motor? Probably minimum 1500 rpm for useful torque up to 7500 maybe higher, maximum torque probably around 3000 or 3500. I do know electric trains use fixed drive motors (no gearbox) to go from standstill to 80 mph but of course they do not do much hill climbing and their acceleration is noticeable but low. If you want good acceleration you probably would need a mechanical transmission of some type.


4) What are your thoughts about hooking the 2 motors together ? Side by side, mounted to a case with chain(oiled) or Gilmer Belt drive(dry) ? I have designed and built a duel motor to single propshaft drive for a boat, using a chain out of a GMC 4 wheel drive transfer case , that was successful, although it started leaking about 2 years later, the owner told me they could never get it to stop leaking, but never brought it by for me to look at and evaluate)I really do not favor a chain, they are heavy and would absorb a lot of HP. We also manufactured Asphalt speciality Equip, and in the later years started using Gilmar belts, one product did have a 25 hp elec motor, and as far as I know , there were never any failures..Of course there was not a lot of stop/go/accel/decell.

I suggest each motor drive its own wheel. Your control computer is going to monitor things like load and rpm so you can avoid wheelspin so there should be no problem letting the motors act like an electric differential. This is how it is done with electric wheelchairs.

Chain drive???? Yuck!!!! Toothed belts are the way to go. For your transmission a pair of toothed belts with a dog clutch selector between them. Again your computer is going to control things so the motor speed can be synchronized with the road speed to do the change without crashing.


I made a commitment on the little Honda Hatch back with the blown motor, but I must complete some other "in progress" projects before I can devote the time necessary ( along with some home projects that must be done to keep my wife from ousting me into the cold ).In the mean time, I will start trying to learn all I can about High Voltage DC . I will leave the programming to someone else, as I do not think I could stuff that into my head at the same time.

Yes the programming is something that would need a good programmer. The other stuff I think is within reach of someone who studies a bit. All the equipment is more or less standard.

Further up I mentioned the three phase motor acting as an alternator. This is a nice aspect of this type of system, they cannot avoid acting as an alternator when they are slowed down. A variable frequency motor speeds up because the controller keeps the frequency slightly ahead of the synchronous frequency for the speed of the motor. Note it is not exactly synchronous; the motors do have a slip so the rotational frequency of the motor slightly lags the driving frequency. To slow the motor down the controller keeps the frequency slightly behind the motor which pulls electrical energy out of the motor and dumps it back on the DC bus. This pushes the bus voltage up until it spills over into a resistor bank that dissipates the energy. These are the regen resistors; if they cannot dissipate the energy fast enough, i.e. if the controller tries to pull the motor down too fast, smoke starts escaping. With a battery bank system the elevated voltage acts to recharge the batteries but there are complications here because the batteries cannot have charge crammed into them really fast. If you are coasting down a hill or coasting to a gentle stop it is possible to reclaim the energy into the batteries (maybe) but when stopping fast you have to dump it through the resistors. If you do get deeply into this there are ways that I think it may be possible to reclaim even the rapidly dumped energy in a small energy storage flywheel. This is getting more complicated but not unreasonably so. Or at least that is what I think.

And I hope you did not find too many typos; it is too late for me to reread carefully and correct them.

Adobe,

1) 3 Ph AC, yes. Generator, not so easy. But with the right control scheme, the energy can be dumped back into the batteries. If they'll take it. Probably have to disconnect your primary generator while this is going on.

3) a. The VFD is an inverter. It chops the DC to make AC to drive the motor. Inverters are relatively efficient, typically in the 80 to 90 percent range. The inverse of the efficiency is the waste heat generated in the switching devices, which has to be watched very carefully. When they fail, they short out.

3) b. The y / Delta configuration actually shifts the constant torque and constant HP regions of the performance curve up into higher RPMs (170%). It is intended to make the performance come closer to that of a DC motor but without the hassles of dealing with brushes. The frequency of the inverter controls the speed, current controls the torque. Switching the windings like that allows the limits on volts/hertz to be extended. The upper limit is determined by the inductance and insulation qualities of the windings. Speed control is tricky at very low speeds but this might not matter as much in a vehicle. Upper limit on RPM is usually given at 8,000 RPM or a little more on commercial units. As you go faster the torque drops off quickly. Looking at RPM's like that means you would have to consider some kind of gear reduction, I think. Below a minimum RPM the current goes up a LOT and efficiency goes down.

GM's approach is to use the grunt of the gas motor for acceleration, and build smaller electric motors directly into the transmission.
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/300_hybrids/fact_suvs_fullsize.html

4) Electronic control would work for directly connecting two motor shafts, you would need a separate drive for each, then you could balance the current in both to get them to share the load. It would be a special design, though. Maybe you could get away with a single drive, but other complications will probably creep in. Inline shaft-to-shaft mechanical connection would be the most efficient way to connect them if the shaft at the drive end were stout enough. No mechanical losses if you lock them together.

The Chevy you mention is a concept -- they haven't invented the batteries yet. For a homebrew car, you will probably have to use tried and true battery technology, accepting the limitations (more weight and less current density, but waaaaaaay less expensive).

Being that you don't have to deal with committees, politicians, regulations, and the styling department, you could probably make your car in 1/10th the time at 1/10th the cost as GM.

What are you thinking of using as the generator motor?

--97T--

Edit: I typed all that in before I noticed that Geof already answered your questions. Hehe.

That is an enormous amount of information to absorb..thanks both of you. The Small diesel engine is a Izuzu 4 cyl..At present it has direct injection and no turbo..it was originally intended as an industrial , governor controlled engine with a rpm limit of 2800 rpm. It is small, compact, likes a turbo, and the later ones are in fact has an EFI that is licensed from CAT (high pressure).
I propose that a portion of the boost will dump in the exaust to help reduce emmisions, which will be low if using a bio fuel. I have a small , home built dyno ( call it a load cell) that I will use to set up and "tune " the engine prior to installation.Run at a constant speed, with 5-7 lbs of boost should make it very efficient.I already own the engine, bought for a proposed piece of equipment but the customer was unable to follow through on the puchase.

I invite other comments about this system, It looks like both Geof and 97t have really thought this through...I will also explore the the storage flywheel..seems during the 70's that this storage flywheel theory gained some puplicity, then died away, but seemed very feasible.

Thanks, this information is invaluable, and now to the books and research!

Adobe (old as dirt)

The flywheels didn't die away just changed application, here is an article put out by your govt. The big advantage of flywheels is that it is possible to 'recharge' them very rapidly. Also they have an energy density that is higher than batteries. The technology can be complex with exotic bearings and vacuum chambers but I think a low speed, up to 15,000 - 20,000 rpm unit would be feasible in a DIY project. Spindle motors running at these speeds on VMCs are fairly common. My idea is that the energy would be dumped rapidly into the flywheel and then bled out over a longer time period to recharge the batteries. In rapid stop - start applications the energy would just shuttle between the flywheel and the drive system protecting the batteries from short steep discharges.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_flywheel.pdf

A flywheel would raise the complexity a notch or two, but it would serve as a transient energy reservoir. You could drive it mechanically with the engine, using an overrunning clutch. You would need to find or (more likely) design a multiphase motor/generator and control that would couple directly to it or be integrated with it.

It might pay to analyze the energy requirements and go for the heaviest, longest, slowest spinning one you can get away with. The lower the surface speed, the less you have to worry about friction losses. But the lower the diameter, the less energy it will store at a given RPM. You need to store most of the energy for around 5 minutes or so as an initial goal, long enough to wait out a traffic light. The added weight will detract from the fuel savings, but it will pay back with lower RPM and smaller diameter. I've often wondered whether by just making the motor- generator rotor heavy enough and long enough, you might be able to store enough energy in it to handle exactly one decel - accel cycle. If you could pull that off, it would cut complexity a lot. I've never even started to run the numbers to find out what it would take, though.

The issues you have to design around would include an energy dissipating shroud in case of catastrophic failure, especially in case of a collision. I'm sure you've seen pictures of cars at the drag strip after a clutch flies apart. It usually totals the car, not to mention the driver! Plus you might want to orient the shaft vertically because of gyroscopic precession issues.

If you decide to use vacuum or helium to cut friction losses, then you will have cooling issues with the motor/generator, unless you design a way to keep that part outside the chamber, or design a way to carry the heat out through the mounting mechanism. Motors and generators are generally in the 80% efficiency range, so that gives you an idea of how much waste heat you'll have to dissipate.

All of the above could be wrong because it's all mind-speculation on my part. Just the results of a little subroutine that runs in the background once in awhile. The minute you start thinking about a practical design, the trade-offs and compromises begin.

If you design one that works, you could probably sell quite a few, I'd wager.

--97T--

I was leaning the other way, smallish and fast electrically coupled. Think about it this way: Slow speed (max 7500rpm) motors driving the wheels from a VFD using the DC bank. Fast (25,000rpm) motor driving the flywheel also from a VFD using the DC bank. Controller accelerates wheel motor while slowing flywheel motor. Remember the diesel is keeping the bank at recharge voltage whenever nothing is being drawn from it so the controller uses flywheel power for acceleration until the DC bank goes below recharge voltage. Then it just lets the flywheel idle because of course the batteries start taking up the slack. It means the VFD has to be able to work through a fairly large DC range.

A decceleration/acceleration cycle is; slow wheel motors and speed up flywheel then the reverse. If you stop quickly the energy that is rapidly dumped into the flywheel can be slowly extracted and put in the battery.

Flywheel efficiency will be about the same as battery efficiency. The difference is that the flywheel can be 'charged' very fast but it 'leaks' via friction; batteries cannot be charged fast but they don't leak.

A mechanically coupled (I think) flywheel system was (is?) used on electric buses in Sweden back in the 1980s and I think something was proposed for BART but may have never been used.

It would be interesting to do a study comparing the overall efficiency of a big slow flywheel versus a small fast one when everything was taken into account; losses, vehicle weight, etc etc. The slow system does not need vacuum containment to reduce friction but my fast system only briefly runs the flywheel fast enough to worry about air friction and I would probably have a partially evacuated chamber anyway down at around 28 inches Hg which would cut it a lot.

EDIT forgot a point: Small, fast and made of composite is better for safety and easier to shroud.

Couple of questions:How do we transmit the stored energy of the flywheel back to either the batteries or direct to the drive wheels.?

This is a pretty small car, would the flywheel act as a gyroscope and impair the handling ? I can see how that could happen, unless you mounted in a floating cage ? or no effect at all ?

I do not think the mechanical portion of the storage flywheel is that complicated, including a safety shield. ( I use a blanket on my '34 supercharged coupe's auto trans to keep my feet safe!)but the electronics and programming is going to be a hurdle talken one jump at a time.

I'm going over all of the web sites suggested by the Government write up, hoping to gain some knowledge on application and try to simplify the set up.
Any and all suggestions appreciated.


Adobe (old as dirt)

Couple of questions:How do we transmit the stored energy of the flywheel back to either the batteries or direct to the drive wheels.?....

When you slow a motor down with a VFD the motor acts like a generator and feeds electrical energy back onto the DC buss; this is dynamic braking or regenerative braking. That is why you need the regen resistors to dissipate the energy; the DC bus voltage goes up and it 'spills' over into the resistors.

So if you have a motor driving the vehicle when you deccelerate the vehicle using the motor the energy goes back onto the DC buss. But, instead of having regen resistors that waste the energy as heat, the controller starts accelerating the flywheel motor which draws electrical energy from the buss and stores it as energy in the spinning flywheel. The controller balances things to keep the buss voltage at or below the charging voltage for the batteries so the batteries are not overcharged and damaged.

I should mention that while all this is happening, because the buss voltage is at the maximum charging voltage your diesel backs off on the throttle because for a moment it is not needed.

Now you have brought the vehicle to a stop so no more electrical energy can be provided by the vehicle drive motors; the controller stops accelerating the flywheel motor which just spins freely but because of friction the flywheel will slow down. Meanwhile because nothing is being added to or taken away from the buss the voltage drops down to whatever the current state of charge of the battery is. If the battery is low the diesel picks up the slack and starts charging. In addition the controller can start to slowly reduce the speed of the flywheel and also use the electrical energy from this to charge the battery rather than just letting the flywheel lose energy by friction. This is what I mean by dumping energy rapidly into the flywheel and then extracting slowly to charge the battery.

When the vehicle is started again the drive motor starts drawing electrical energy from the buss. This pulls the buss voltage down, the controller deccelerates the flywheel and pulls all the available energy out of it. Then when the flywheel is almost stopped and the diesel is at maximum output the buss voltage drops low enough the the major source of energy accelerating the vehicle is coming from the batteries.

Once the vehicle has reached a constant speed the demand on the buss falls down to around what the diesel can provide on a constant basis.

The control software certainly would have to be complex but I do not think it would be any more complex than what is needed to run a CNC machine doing 3 axis contouring.

Adobe If the Isuzu is like the ones used on TK reifer unit's there was one in the same used by isuzu in pickup's I dont know if they ever offered it in a turbo version but there very good on fuel check out the info on thermoking's refer unit's for the trucking industry One more thing on my consept for lawer diesel would be the reduced output of hot air from the L&P's this would contrubte to a reduction in globel warming though minutly How about methane It's being harvested from landfills and livestock operation's And if memory serves me I think that D.C. is built on a Landfill Sink a well and start burning the mathane It has simular propertys to propane I'm not shure of the BTU's I know the wasetwater plant near me burn's it in large supeor's to make the plant's electricty The bigest drawback is the volume of a fuel tank and to compress it like LP would take enegry Same with hydrogen One warning about the biodiesel around hear where the temp has been in the teen's for week's it get's stif below 30F so that becomes a distinct problem
Kevin

I had suggested lower speeds and higher mass in order to get around the issues of exotic materials, containment, and exotic bearings for a do-it- yourself project. On the other hand, you might just be able to make a home-brew carbon fiber flywheel, which will yield a much higher energy density before flying apart, and balance it sufficient to spin it at 10-20K RPM. But I still wonder about the bearings, and bumping around on a dirt road. Perhaps there is some compromise where you could make it larger in diameter and still keep the RPM down to ball bearing territory.

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/231590.pdf

Here is a link to a paper where the trade-offs were considered from a performance and efficiency standpoint in a strictly mathematical exercise. It seems to suggest that a relatively modest total energy storage capacity would be required to store only energy from decel / accel cycles. Interestingly, they chart a rather marked decrease in fuel efficiency for any gains in weight. If it were me, I'd probably opt for about 1KW-Hr of total energy storage, with peak capacity at 65 KW or so. What that would translate to in a physical design, I haven't investigated yet.

Designing and building the flywheel/motor/generator might dwarf all other aspects of the project.

Adobe, the gyroscopic forces must be taken into account. If you had a single flywheel with the axis horizontal, then it will try to spin your car every time the axis gets tilted. Might be enough to cause an upset in snow.

If you mount the thing with the axis vertical, then it will not try to spin your car if the car gets tilted, it will try to tilt the car 90 degrees off from the upsetting force. But then you will be slamming the bearings in the thrust direction when you hit bumps, and thrust bearings are not low friction. The other thing you can do to is to cancel the effects by putting two counter-rotating disks in the same housing. There will be stress on the housing, but the forces will cancel.

--97T--

Hello ALL,
Sincerely you need to take a look at biodiesel , her in Brazil its going on in a fast pace, taken from various vegetables oil seeds like castor, palm, coconuts, soy, etc... this just send CO2 that was collected by the vegetables and will be catched again by other crops, without a lot of pollutants of the mineral combustibles...look at the stocks of Petrobras ( PBR on NYSE )

Regards to ALL

Biodiesel will make an interesting hobby, but there are problems of scale for widespread usage.

--97T--

Biodiesel will make an interesting hobby, but there are problems of scale for widespread usage.

--97T--

Not as many as one might think. Biodiesel can be made from soybean oil, corn oil, and many other types of oil sold cheaply on the market. The only biproduct of biodiesel is glycoren which can be processed into propaline glycol(a less hazardious antifreeze and pharmacutical product) or mixed back into the processed soybeans to make feed for livestock and the excess processed soybeans can be made into "biocomposites."

Yes, Tate, all true.

But bio anything is ultimately solar powered. Solar power is low density. So it takes a lot of space to grow whatever it is you are going to get the oil from.

So if you consider what it would take to scale it up for a large portion of our transportation energy, the numbers don't add up too well. A few problems come to mind;

The cost of oil for a hobby or relatively small-scale operation is pretty attractive. A lot of the oil can be had from recycling it after other use or from other inexpensive sources. But primarily, it is inexpensive because we have inexpensive oil-derived energy to farm and process it with. If you take away the inexpensive energy to make it with, and raise demand, the recycled oil becomes insignificant overall, and the energy cost goes up. A lot.

If you take away the inexpensive oil and switch to biodiesel, then demand goes up. With scarce supply, the price goes up. As farmland gets converted to grow the energy product, the price of food goes up. (Already there have been riots in Mexico because the use of corn for ethanol is pricing it out of the reach of poor people there, and they depend on it.)

And then you have a problem similar to that posed by ethanol. To push our transportation system at roughly the same level in use today, you run out of acreage very quickly.

That's why I reached the conclusion I wrote above. As long as there are nice surpluses from our existing system, someone willing to put in the effort to make it can have an interesting hobby, and save some money to boot. It's just that there's a practical limit for scaling it up.

--97T--

If we switched to biofuel as the sole energy source there would be about enough for each of us to have one biofueled prime mover. Otherwise known as a horse.

A horse? Then we'd have to start regulating methane emissions. And once a year you gotta smog your horse. Ha! You stick that probe up it's tailpipe!!

Lest anyone believe that ethanol isn't about big money too, just take a gander at this....

".....ADM, meanwhile, has thrived. The company's third-quarter 2006 financial statement testifies to the strength of the business model built by Andreas. Its corn-processing division (read: ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup) generated $290.5 million in operating profit, up from $136.2 million a year earlier. From ethanol alone, the company earned $177.5 million. Overall, the company churned out $575.2 million in profit for the quarter. That means that ethanol and corn syrup -- two business lines that wouldn't exist without heavy and persistent government support -- supplied half of the company's profit.......

It should be noted, too, that ADM also dominates the small but growing U.S. biodiesel market, and also ranks as the No. 1 biodiesel producer in Europe, where use of the fuel is much more substantial. ADM will thus have a powerful say in choosing the main feedstock for biodiesel. Depressingly, the company favors another heavily subsidized crop, soybeans, for which it's the largest U.S. buyer. According to the Worldwatch Institute, soy has the lowest fuel-yield per acre of any major biodiesel crop.

The lesson here, I think, is that for biofuel to become a serious response to the climate-change crisis, its political economy will have to be transformed. One company can't be allowed to dominate decisions and manipulate public resources in service of its own bottom line, rather than the broader public good."

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/06/ADM/index.html

At the bottom of the page is a list of companies...and did I see Goldman Sachs in that list??? Do the names Blood and Gore ring a bell???

Stumbled on an article on welfare queens, and who should show up but ADM!!!

".......ADM collects welfare because of two cleverly designed special deals. The first is the government’s mandated minimum price for sugar. Because of the price supports, if a soft drink maker wants to buy sugar for its soda, it has to pay 22 cents a pound -- more than twice the world price. So Coca-Cola (and almost everyone else) buys corn sweetener instead. Guess who makes corn sweetener? ADM, of course. Now guess who finances the groups that lobby to keep sugar prices high?

ADM’s second federal feeding trough is the tax break on ethanol. Ethanol is a fuel additive made from corn, kind of like Hamburger Helper for gasoline, except that it’s more expensive, so no one would buy it if government didn’t give companies that use ethanol a special 52-cent-a-gallon tax break. That costs the treasury half a billion dollars a year. ADM produces half the ethanol made in America......"

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29067.html

Ya don't suppose AlGore has some ADM stock??

97T
I am not saying that we have to convert everything to biodiesel. If you got the southwest US to convert to running diesel with a 20% biodiesel think of how much of a savings that would be. Think of it like wind turbine power, each 3 megawatt wind turbine puts out enough energy to power more than 1,000 houses, that is 1,000 houses less relying on coal and fossil fuels, we won't be able to get rid of coal and fossil fuels entirely but every little bit helps. Using Waste Vegetable Oil is good on a small production but like you said it is impractable to use on a large scale. There are methods of producing biodiesel that can be done on a large scale. All of the methods you see on the internet work on small scales but there are methods that can used on a large scale.

Plus we have large amounts of farmland that is not being used because the cost of farm goods is so low. As the demand rose the supply would rise more than the price does. I know personnaly that my family has land in western Oklahoma that is not being used because the profit margin is to low for a lot of private farmers to make it. That is one of the reasons that there is price floors on products like wheat.

It is just that it is to big of a hassle to deal with the government. If we can't get a new oil refinery built do you think they will provide permits to produce biodiesel? Plus before you can sell any of the biodiesel you have to send samples to the EPA and the IRS. I understand the EPA but why do you need to send biodiesel samples to the IRS?

It just happens that the very next page from the link I posted in #92 above has a story about a guy who decided to produce his own biofuel!!!

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/07/gertz/

It discusses things like EPA compliance, etc.

Tate,

How much of a savings would that actually be?

And that 3 megawatt wind turbine -- all made of high energy density metals and composites -- its cost is what it is because of the relatively cheap energy that was used to produce it. Take away the cheap energy, and it is even more inefficient. Have you ever tried to harvest wind energy for electricity?

The problem is that energy return on effort is what determines the efficiency of a fuel. Biofuels, wind power, solar, and even firewood all have their place (like extremely remote locations away from distribution networks). But they are all very inefficient compared to coal and fossil fuels. That inefficiency gets reflected in the price. So the only way to get large scale acceptance of it, if for political reasons it is deemed to be desirable, is through the force of the government gun, one way or another.

And that inevitably winds up as with most government programs - lots of people paying and suffering a lower standard of living while others are enriched by it. Like a corpse rotting in the sun, the process draws the most vile creatures from every direction, looking to slurp up some of that corruption.

Then the law of unintended consequences kicks in. It shouldn't be called that, because the game has been known for a long, long time. Let's say you subsidize the less efficient power to the hilt (yay, free money!). The limit to this subsidization is the extent to which you can impoverish the taxpayers without an armed revolt. Then, let's say you dictate a certain minimum usage of the inefficient power, and maybe outlaw some devices that use the more efficient power. Ignoring the honest businessmen that would be hurt by this, and the loss of jobs, and the lowering of everyone's standard of living for a moment, let's assume that the program enjoys some success, as defined by a decrease in the amount of the more efficient energy used. To the politician and his favored businesses, the program is a resounding success. Money for everyone -- except the forgotten man, the one who pays for it until he loses his job.

But the market doesn't care about these political games. When demand for the more efficient energy falls, its price will fall right along with it. The lower price will attract more usage of it. Now this development will be viewed with alarm by the backers of the program. They will have a huge political investment in usage of the less efficient source, and cannot allow the market to show their schemes up for the flim flammery that they are. So there will be another introduction of the government gun into the market, maybe with the introduction of price controls to put a price floor on cheaper energy (hey, it works for wheat, right?). And an encyclopedia of illogical regulations to destroy efficiency at every level of the operation and artificially drive costs up. And punitive taxes to get the price up a little more and 'discourage consumption'.

In order to prevent the populace from taking up arms and throwing the rascals out, there will be a huge propaganda effort to vilify the people who generate and use the cheaper energy. This program can be seen around us already, beginning with brainwashing kindergarteners and bombarding the people from every possible direction in the mass media every day.

The degree of success of the program will measurably be the degree to which the country makes itself uncompetitive on the world market. Goods and foodstuffs made with more expensive energy cost more than the same goods made with cheaper energy. The same products made by taxpayers who are getting fleeced within an inch of their lives by taxes and regulations will cost more than those made elsewhere. Evidence of this can be seen already, as manufacturing businesses dry up and the population runs increasing debt levels, borrowing money to buy cheap goods produced overseas. This raises more opportunities for ambitious politicians to regulate and tax imports to 'save the economy' and swell their influence (while pocketing the duties and tariffs). The game can only continue until all of the assets have been sold off and the proceeds used to buy and consume imported goods. When you start seeing huge mortgage lenders on the verge of bankruptcy (today's paper), you know that the end game is on. What happens next is uncertain, but I expect that the parasitic element will figure out that one way to limit the advantage of the other countries will be to try to impose the same kinds of burdens on the citizens of the competing economies. It will be interesting to see whether they try to accomplish it by force. If the peoples and their governments refuse to be brainwashed into it, then we might have to make an example of them. After all, we're trying to save the world from humanity, right?

Of course, it could be argued that the government and its minions realize that you can't really make a dent in petroleum and coal usage without huge repercussions. And they don't really intend to do so. All they really want is to create an atmosphere where they can play their political patronage game to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the taxpayer, while reaping the admiration and adulation of the true believers. Making millionaires out of each other, and being "respectable", "important", "influential", and maybe even looking "presidential" while doing it.

So, what premise are we basing these policies on? The premise that fossil fuel usage is bad? Based on the wobbly models of the climate science that these venal politicians have paid for? Does it matter that the science has been shown to be junk? That there are overwhelmingly more convincing explanations for the long term trends that have been happening since before humankind populated the earth? No, it doesn't matter. What matters is that grade schools teach climate science without teaching about climate or science. About alternative energy without teaching about energy. About socialist ideals without ever allowing that there are possible alternatives. We have a populace that doesn't understand any basic science at all. "Common sense" has come to mean half believing what you read in the newspaper, which is good enough to accomplish the ultimate end.

Ultimately, low density, low efficiency energy sources will not be used when more efficient energy is available, except by the coercion of the government gun. With predictable consequences.

--97T--

I'm still commited to a true Bio-Fuel /electric project..just my satisfaction..I will incorporate , if possible, a storage flywheel, just to make things intresting.
I believe that a bio-fuel electric/flywheel vehicle will emit far less emmissions that any gas fuel vehicle of the same weight, I believe that with the efficenecy of a compression ignighted engine and computor controls both fuel milage and emmissions will be further reduced. I do not believe there will be any "unintended consequenses" except my and my wife'swallet, which may affect our children upon our passing, but they are well provided for anyway. There will be no government subsidies, but will reduce my taxes through our LLC..So, getting some projects out of the way, then we will begin..Still solicit help and comments !

How do you use spell check here on the Zone ?

Thanks...

Adobe (old as dirt )

... How do you use spell check here on the Zone ? Thanks...
Adobe (old as dirt )

Write your posts in Wordpad and then cut and paste.:D

Write your posts in Wordpad and then cut and paste.:D

Or, download Mozilla Firefox for free. I've come to really like it. It has auto spell check built in. As you type, it underlines words it has never heard of.

Adobe, if you have any questions or need help, I'll do my best for you. It sounds like a fun project!

--97T--

Biofusion hopeful on hydrogen

Hydrogen could replace traditional energy sources, says Biofusion

Ros Snowdon Deputy City Editor
FORGET nuclear, coal and gas fuelled power stations. According to Sheffield University spin-off Biofusion, the future lies in hydrogen.

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2220190&SectionID=56

Unfortunately, all of the energy to be extracted from the process is ultimately solar energy. Which is low density. Which would take huge tracts of land to generate measly energy output.

But their strategy does do an admirable job of converting tax dollars and dupe dollars into private salaries, while losing money for any dupes who buy stocks.

Hydrogen fuel - the new dupe-a-nomics.

--97T--

But ****FUSION POWER**** is ****JUST AROUND THE CORNER****

I can't remember what newspaper it was but I recently read that it is confidently expected that a new ****FUSION REACTOR**** which is being commissioned someplace will go energy positive within 2 years. Power generation is confidently expected within a decade.

****WE ARE SAVED****

If only we can get past that little confinement thingy.

Not to worry, if we use government policy to put the right incentives in place, those scientists will invent it. Hasn't it always been that way?

--97T--

i think its called "Mr. Fusion" they have had that technology ever since Doc Brown got it from the future.

Actually that would be pretty awesome if we all just had a "Mr. Fusion" to power our cars and homes. i did see that some county in Florida is building a Plasma generation plant. it is almost mr fusion... they take the garbage and put it into the reactor, a high voltage arc is run through the ground up garbage and it melts/burns/consumes the garbage creating an enormous amount of heat, which they use to run turbines to create electricity. the left over slag is to be sold off for road construction additives. i am not sure when this is going to be built, but i think that it is to be built soon and will process 4000 tons of garbage per day. which is pretty good, since we live in a "throw away" society.

I can remember my dad and i going through my grandfathers garage many years back, he had peices and parts to repair just about anything around the house. nowadays you are lucky if you can find an O-ring at the hardware store to fix your faucet.

Found a good holding /storage tank ( Stainless Steel ) for the Bio-fuel. Has a 2 inch ball valve at the bottom, a one inch bung (npt) near the bottom, and three other one inch bungs located near the top.The top opening is hinged, and lockable,O ringed and big enough for a small person to get into, so if I decide to use elec to heat I can get the heat