The economy going bankrupt

A fuel cell car is an electric car that gets its electrons from a charged membrane that peels them off of hydrogen. You can use pure hydrogen, or a reformer can pull the hydrogen out of methanol (plus there are several other ways to store some form of H2). Big benefit is zero smog, and hydrogen can be made a dozen ways. However, they are expensive and short range.

Here's a discussion about a Browns gas generator similar to the one in your link. They pop up every time there's a rise in fuel prices, nothing very high tech and they are easy to copy. Why aren't they more prevalent? actual performance never anywhere near as good as the salesmens claims.

You "might" displace 20% of your fuel per mile...sounds good, right? There is a noticeable drop in power as H2 is much less dense than gasoline.

http://visforvoltage.org/forum/2228-water-fuel

Alias,
Last year I bought a Hydrogen Generator from this web site. http://www.savefuel.ca/hydrogen/
It came with no understandable instructions and my friend mechanic that was trained at tech school and works at a ford dealership could not understand the instructions. I email the company with questions, but got no reply.
My friend (mechanic) and some other mechanics at the dealership install the device on an old ford taurus to test it out. They basically drill, threaded, and install a fittings right into the intake manifold. This was the only logical way they could see how this thing could work. To make a long story short, after trying several different configurations and test runs they determined that using the device made the gas mileage worse. That was a good waste of $250.

Check out this website for good info on fuel saving devices of all kinds. The general rule is don't trust any claim that isn't backed up with a full 'rolling road' simulation, that the EPA or other public bodies use to determine MPG. This is the only kind of test that can prove whether a device increases fuel economy or not.

Interesting page on browns gas, basically says that yeah it might work but it would need the right kind of engine tuning to even make it worth testing.

http://www.fuelsaving.info/hydrogen.htm

Hello guys.Search this website www.water4gas.com. This guy have a reputation over the net like no other.He answer calls with good knowledge.He was recompiled all the water fuel technology,mistakes,solutions etc...to make possible his job.I believe on this technology.It sound for a long time.Recently a man invents a car thats runs with water.The headline news browscast his job.Just write water car on you tube and search. Also search .06 per gallon.This is for something new: http://www.angelfire.com/fl5/pix622/x/gas.html pay only .06 per gallon!I dont know what technoly is behind this because it claims that there is no water or air involved.Someone who knows please let us know.Thanks for the attention.

Somehow I'm a little skeptical of the whole internet "free gas!" thing, and water4gas.com smells very fishy. Where are you getting the power for electralisis? Batteries? In that case why not convert the electrisity directly into kenetic energy with a motor? It can't be from any generators, as that will sap power away from the wheels and be less efficent.

I mean as far as "miricle gas savers" go, lighter weight, better aerodynamics, proper gearing, smaller an more refined engines, bio-diesel/veggie oil, driving a stick instead of an automatic, and hybrid systems are the best ways to save money at the pump. Though thats leaving out the best way, which is to leave your car behind and walk, bike, take public trasit, or use an EV if you have one.

If you are certain that you want to get a browns gas generator to offset some of your gasoline consumption, you will get better mileage, but you will also get 4-cylinder power from an 8-cylinder engine.

Rather than buy a kit, you can build something that is safer and more productive once you understand the simple principles behind its operation.

An 18-wheeler alternator should be easy to find that has two side-by-side pulleys, mine is a 12-volt/140-amp unit. Adapt it onto the stock location, then make custom brackets so the second pulley feeds the stock alternator of your vehicle which is now located near it.

The stock alternator operates in the normal fashion, and the truck alt feeds the electrolysis cell. Use quality (expensive) stainless steel for the plates instead of cheap Chinese stainless that has impurities.

It can be done, but the results will be disappointing.

http://www.fieldlines.com/story/2008/1/4/153132/8385

My recommendation? find a fuel-injected pre-'97 Geo Metro with the 1.0L engine and a manual trans. Paint, seat cover, new clutch/tires/brakes/stereo, and you'll get 50 MPG if you try to.

Oh, and also a 100-MPG ZNEN 150CC scooter, and a Lithium E-Bike

Hello.I respect the diferent opinions about this thing.I never use something like this and im not an expert about hydrogen generators.My hope for a posible use of this gadget is that this really sound.Yes is a 110% fact.Search on ebay below hydrogen generators the sellers feedback .There are hundreds or probably thousands of positive feedbacks to the generators.This genertors constantly go for hundreds dollars even tousands with a smile on theirs customers faces. For me ebay is serious business and their feedbacks are legitimate from real serious peoples.Thanks for the attention.Good Luck.

One of the pages from the site linked by NikF23 is worth reading:
General Comments on Fuel Saving Gadgets

I've seen dozens if not hundreds of supposed "fuel saving devices" advertised. Without exception, I advise you not to buy them! Over and over again, a company starts selling a "miracle" fuel-saving product, which of course is supposedly revolutionary and different to every other product that's been offered in the past; over and over again, the product turns out to be bogus and buyers lose thousands (or even millions) of pounds / dollars. To the best of my knowledge, no "add-on" fuel economy device or product has ever demonstrated worthwhile savings, yet new ones are always being introduced to the market, and uninformed customers are easily taken in by the claims and marketing "hype".
...
I have worked for or with some of the world's biggest car makers and component suppliers, and nobody I have spoken to in the industry has ever regarded these fuel "saving" devices as anything other than a con. They are never advertised in the journals aimed at engineers within the new car industry, the makers never present results at trade conferences, and no serious books on the subject (of which I have read dozens) even give them a mention.
...
One more thing to remember is that thousands of scientists and engineers all over the world have been working on car engines for decades. The physics of engines is pretty well known now and you have to ask yourself if some amazing new breakthrough, only involving bolting something to the outside of your engine, would really have escaped the car industry's notice all that time.

ebay feedback doesn't prove anything. The above page outlines the proper testing that would need to be carried out to mimic the EPA guidelines. That would provide something substantial, and not surprisingly the makers of water4gas haven't done anything of the sort. This is what they say:
from water4gas.com:

According to extensive road tests in the USA and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and now in Asia and Africa...

What kind of testing? What was the setup? Even if it was a rough test, do they provided anything substantial? Nope. Was the device evaluated by the EPA? Apparently there has been no EPA evaluation:
Gas Saving and Emission Reduction Devices Evaluation.

I don't know if it will work or not, because I have nothing substantial to support either claim.

But, if it was really worth anything, than the required testing is actually not very hard to have done for EPA evaluation. This is the most difficult one:
EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program (PDF)

Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy:
Furnish all information related to the product and its effects on regulated emissions and
fuel economy(4) obtained through screening tests at an independent laboratory which
conforms with applicable regulations for emissions and fuel economy testing.

(4) The FTP (40 CFR Part 86) is the primary test for vehicle emissions. The FTP and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET, 40 CFR Part 600) are the only tests recognized by EPA for evaluating fuel
economy of light-duty vehicles. Data which have been collected in accordance with other standardized
procedures may be used to supplement results from the FTP and HFET and will be considered in EPA’s
evaluation of the product.

This can be carried out by an independent laboratory, or by the EPA at cost.

Independent Laboratory List

From the EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program (PDF)

Test Costs
Minimum testing at EPA’s laboratory requires three tests in baseline configuration, three with the
device and three baseline configuration tests after removal of the device. The minimum cost for
two different vehicles in this test format is $27,000. Additions to the minimum test plan, such as
providing test vehicles, mileage accumulation, parameter adjustment, or additional testing, etc.
will increase cost. EPA will provide a specific cost based on the test requirements for individual
device evaluations. EPA, however, does not charge applicants for consultation or report writing
time.

This cost would be trivial if the device really lived up to it's claim. It would be available in every auto parts store, and the inventor would make billions.

Call me conservitive, but I'm still skeptical of fuel saving divices.

I've always loved cars to some extent (please don't hurt me) and have been a fan of the ideals behind lotus, that is "Simplicate, then add lightness"...now this is good for economy as well as performance. And my feeling is that if you are going to be throwing some divice on your car that reduces power signifigantely and saves fuel, why not just use a smaller engine and save weight as well.

Now, one thing I'm interested in is weather a naturally asperated engine (say a 1500 cc engine) would be more or less efficent than a supercharged engine of equal horsepower in a smaller displacement (though you don't get as much low end torque this way). I know turbos are more efficent, but those suffer from lag, which isn't good if you are trying to use an engine as small as possible for a given vehicle.

spinningmagnets wrote

My recommendation? find a fuel-injected pre-'97 Geo Metro with the 1.0L engine and a manual trans

hmmm just curious if flex-fuel vehicles will work??

Flex-fuel is a type of automobile that can use different sources of fuel, either mixed in the same tank or separate
tanks for each fuel. A vehicle that can accept gasoline mixed with varying levels of bioethanol. Some cars
also carry a natural gas tank making it possible to switch back and forth from regular gasoline to natural gas.

Too bad I didn't have my Ford Taurus it was a v6 flex-fuel engine that would have been an interesting candidate.

I think biodiesel is the best way to save money at the moment. Easy to do, free in manny areas, and not as ridiculous as corn ethinol. When we get around to non-corn ethinol I think that will be a good option.

Also, I read somewhere that ethinol increases octane, which could mean higher compression ratios, which means you can get the same power froma smaller engine that uses less fuel if E85 becomes the norm.

Dear SPED, I definitely agree about diesel, I don't recommend it for everyone, but for myself it is my first choice (am currently trying to talk the wife into a used 4-cyl VW turbo-Diesel)

"Bio-Diesel", is when you take vegetable oil and run a simple chemical process on it in your garage, and bio-diesel can be mixed with regular diesel in any ratio (soybean bio-diesel is currently the 5% additive that adds the lubrication that was removed when "low-sulfur" diesel was mandated)

I am a big proponent of a Waste-Vegetable-Oil (WVO) kit. Used french fry oil cannot be thrown down the drain, so it costs money to have it hauled away (where its added to dog food, lipstick, etc). You can vacuum up free fuel with a wet/dry vac from restaurants(just take the top half, and then filter it).

Veggie oil gets thick when its cold, so, you must start the engine on diesel or B-D until the coolant has warmed a heat exchanger that warms the WVO to thin it. Then after about 5 minutes, you can switch over to burning WVO. One minute before you turn off the engine, switch back to flush out the WVO in the injectors. If you forget, you have to warm the injectors the next morning with a hair dryer.

Add a small second tank for the start-up diesel, and a 3-way switch to the fuel line. Then add a heat exchanger that uses warm coolant to heat the fuel line. Free veggie fuel around town, and for long trips you just buy regular diesel.

I was read an article about the use of acetone in the fuel.This is something the comercial Fuel Optimizers have inside. Roughly 2 ounces of acetone and 1 ounce of Xylene will increase your gas mileage for every 10 gallons of gas. If you are having problems with your gasoline rubber lines, replace them from an auto parts store with 'gasoline rubber lines' designed to be used with newer fuels.In my opinion do not overdid the acetone. For me the correct amount is 3 ounces per 10 gallons, or 8.8 ml per gallon. A graduated cylinder would have helped.Some new engines do not get good results with acetone.The bad part is that will kill some parts like F.injectors and hoses.Also i was read that using mineral oil to the engine and 2oz per 10 gallons of gasoline in the gas tank can increase the mpg.I dont know if using mineral oil with acetone and Xylene in the gas tank can eliminate the danger on the rubber seals because the mineral oil make a very good lubrication.Also use the leading syntetic oil amsoil for better gas mileage. Thanks for the attention.Good luck.

Think about this:

Titan, the largest moon about Saturn
has SEAS, as in OCEANS of methane. Methane is the precursor to all hydrocarbons
that we use for fuel. Methane, as in natural gas.
Now, there has never been dinosaurs or forests on Titan. ( hmm? )

Maybe, just maybe, "oil" is being made by inorganic geological forces as we speak.
This is heresy, I know. But, think about this:

Why is Helium, the second lighest gas, mined from the ground?
How is helium formed? ( hint; geo-nuclear processes)

The petro economy is unsettled, but the Earth is still turning...

The sky is not falling.

But fuel prices ARE hurting our economy.

"THEY" want it that way.
"THEY" are hearding us into a corner.
"THEY" are manipulating a political change
in this election year.
"THEY" are "OUR" political leaders.

RE-ELECT NO ONE IN '08 !

That's how you vote for change in USA.

My opinion.

Bob K

PS. Google Titan and methane

Bob, that may be true, but we are using it extremely fast. I just scanned through the wikipedia peak oil article: Peak oil and found some very interesting information:

For the most part, 'proven reserves' are stated by the oil companies, the producer states and the consumer states. All three have reasons to overstate their proven reserves:

* Oil companies may look to increase their potential worth.
* Producer countries are bestowed a stronger international stature
* Governments of consumer countries may seek a means to foster sentiments of security and stability within their economies and among consumers.

Check out the accompanying chart of declared reserves. One might argue that they have incentive to understate their reserves to raise prices which may be true. But I doubt it. I get a sense of, "no one really knows".

Policy can help make change. L-Ion batteries are perfectly fine right now, problem is they're expensive. Policy could give grants to people wishing to start L-ion factories, or taking similar actions to bring cost down. Policy could be made to force companies to produce EVs or plug ins. Policy could be done to get rid of this hydrogen infrustructure crap and set up a battery-swap infrustructure and charging stations+grid reinforcement (which we need anyways).

All this would make EVs more practical. Thats the only thing getting in the way. People don't want to spend $25-30,000 (which is the price everyone says is "reasonable") for a 100 mile range 2 seater that does 0-60 in 2 minutes. Now there are EVs that are faster, carry more people, and have better range, but not at a price that most people can justify.

For $10,000 I can get a brand new Yaris. It's relyable. It has support. It has about the performance of most EVs, and about the space. It gets 39 miles per gallon (provided I get a stickshift, which I'll need if I want to get it for 10 grand) which is realy good, so it's not like I'm saving a ton of cash by paying more for an EV, and I have unlimited rance. For an EV to of similar performance to compete it needs to be sold for about $17,000 or less and have a range of at least 100 miles, unless a battery swap system is put in place.

EDIT: Oh, and vote in 08, because if you don't somone else will. And all the canidates are pretty good. They all belive that Global warming is real, that torture is bad, and got better than all C's in high school, which after Bush is really all you need.

Policy can help make change. L-Ion batteries are perfectly fine right now, problem is they're expensive. Policy could give grants to people wishing to start L-ion factories, or taking similar actions to bring cost down. Policy could be made to force companies to produce EVs or plug ins. Policy could be done to get rid of this hydrogen infrustructure crap and set up a battery-swap infrustructure and charging stations+grid reinforcement (which we need anyways).

Yep - this would be a great way to kick start the adoption of FPBEVs (full power BEVs). The trouble is there's no big US manufacturer of batteries lobbying for change. To get legislation passed you need to play the game and spend big lobbying dollars - even more than big oil spends.

For $10,000 I can get a brand new Yaris. It's relyable. It has support. It has about the performance of most EVs, and about the space. It gets 39 miles per gallon (provided I get a stickshift, which I'll need if I want to get it for 10 grand) which is realy good, so it's not like I'm saving a ton of cash by paying more for an EV, and I have unlimited rance. For an EV to of similar performance to compete it needs to be sold for about $17,000 or less and have a range of at least 100 miles, unless a battery swap system is put in place.

Yes, I agree with those numbers. Everything about an EV except the batteries should make it cheaper to produce than an ICE. One interesting way to mitigate the cost of the batteries is to have folks lease batteries rather than include them in the purchase price of the vehicle. But hopefully battery prices will continue to fall and this will become a moot point.

EDIT: Oh, and vote in 08, because if you don't somone else will. And all the canidates are pretty good. They all belive that Global warming is real, that torture is bad, and got better than all C's in high school, which after Bush is really all you need.

Yep, I agree with this - anyone is better than the fool on the hill - Bush. However don't reward the GOP for giving us such a lame president - remember they're responsible for nominating him in the first place!

"....A vehicle that can accept gasoline mixed with varying levels of bioethanol...."

This is not producing any fuel savings PLUS it creates the nastiest and most delusional scenario of the 21st century:

Shifting the staggering demand for energy into the food chain!

At a time of the most perilous water crisis (read PLAN B 3.0 by Lester Brown) which will be greatly exacerbated by Global Weirding, we don't have enough water to produce food, period.

It takes 1000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of food (Lester Brown) and the global water table has fallen sharply and dramatically.

GE is getting very very deep into De-Salination plants (the suggestion "don't be evil doesn't mean anything to these guys ;-) --which actually shows that they're viciously smart.

We need to take the water from the oceans and make that process as cheap as we can, as fast as we can! As long as we have money, a commodity only availble to socially stable nations.

Okay, I digressed enough, back to 2 wheelers and batteries etc. ;-)

It takes 1000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of food (Lester Brown) and the global water table has fallen sharply and dramatically.

GE is getting very very deep into De-Salination plants.....

We need to take the water from the oceans and make that process as cheap as we can, as fast as we can! As long as we have money, a commodity only availble to socially stable nations.

Okay, I digressed enough, back to 2 wheelers and batteries etc. ;-)

The topic is "The economy going bankrupt" - I'd replace the "economy" in that sentence with "We are..", though. You are not digressing.

The economy has always been heading for bankruptcy due to it's central credo, which is the necessity of growth.
A ten year old can understand this.

And as far as EV's of any number of wheels go: When the majority of ICE fuel guzzlers are permanently stranded in lineups in front of empty fuel stations, then any EV will be king. Only if electricity is available, of course, but there are many ways of producing it locally.
And that will happen sooner or later, and can happen any day now.

Of course, the majority of the readers will not get it or believe it until it happens.

Regarding water: It only takes a lot of water to grow food if it is done in an intensive fashion by huge machines etc.
If you live in a moderate climate zone and collect the runoff from your roof etc. you need no extra water to grow a lot of food.

Get your hands on a book by Bill Mollison or something similar and start growing some non-hybrid food varieties in your yard.

Regarding "as long as we have money": You have simply been printing more money for a while now (assuming you are talking about America) and you should rather say: "As long as our money is still accepted as valid currency..." - and that could also change any day. I believe it is already changing...

Mr. Mik

Honestly I think human electric hybrid is better than pure BEV, at least for personal transportation.

A recumbant tricycle with 2-5 KW of power, a windscreen, and waterproof baskets/bags set up for cargo would be greately preferable to any pure BEV I could get for less than 10 grand as range can be increased by pedaling, and because pedalling can be used if you do run out of power.

This with some hub motors (personally I'd want 3 1.5 or 2kw motors to deal witht he crappy new england weather), LiFEPO4 batteries, and a BugE canopy or something similar would be a near perfect vehicle doing without gasoline.