[launche]

From the quoted website:

"Hydrogen and Oxygen gas spilt from water, we can "Hydroxy gas"
the molecules are bonded together positively in a ortho hydrogen state,
2.4x's to 4x's more powerful than the normal "para hydrogen" The common hydrogen "para hydrogen" the apposing negative state of hydrogen that can be pressurized into a metal tank or bottle. NOw they store it in plastic bottles., that can take high pressure for long periods that we see in pressured into a liquid metal bottle of gas. Hydroxy gas can NOT be stored this way, it is too powerful to store in a tank. You make the Gas as you drive. Your alternator generates amps to run your stainless steel plate cell under the hood. You make the gas as you drive. You never hear much of this, expect for Nasa with rockets. Being illegal to run a car just off of water on a US hyway is a crime in the USA. Why this individual would drive an buy no road tax from the gasoline? He would STOP supporting the government gas tax, every time you fill up."

Not only is the chemistry in the first part of the paragraph incomprehensible B.S., the idea described later in the paragraph is that of a perpetual motion machine.  Violates Newton's 1st Law, not worth consideration.

That's what the guy riding the horse and buggy said to Carl Benz.

[launche]

I have seen this stuff for decades, and it never adds up.  A fairly simple understanding of chemistry tells you that 2H₂ + O₂ ---> 2H₂O + energy.  But to split water to get the fuel, you have to run the reaction backwards, including the addition of the same amount of energy (and actually a bit more).  Assuming a 100% efficiency (which you never get in reactions or energy conversions) the absolute best you can do is break even.  What this proposes is a classic "perpetual motion" machine that is absolutely impossible. 

http://searlsolution.com/

Everything's impossible until it's possible, therefore nothing is impossible.

Please fella's open your minds.

Question: We do have rocket ships that go to other planets right?
Because if it didn't already happen I bet we'd have posters on this board saying it's impossible based on whatever limited information they have.

Oh and the world wide web is crazy man talk too.

[turkey]

"Car makers don't benefit from sales of gasoline."  Ever heard of the stock market for one and lord knows what other insider dealings are involved. 

I didn't know that car makers made big profits from buying oil company stocks or commodities. I figured they mostly sold cars...

"A car maker would want to sell you a car that uses less gas."  Back to point one for starters.  A car maker is going to sell you are car that meets or just barely exceeds the going rate. They do the minimum that needs to be done to successful move a product.

Yes, they do the minimum needed to be done. However, there would also be a tendency to want to sell you cars and not to help you spend more money on gasoline. (Unless they're trying to sell you larger cars or ones that are faster, but the higher fuel consumption is just a side effect, not the reason they're selling it.)

Seriously folks.  Are you telling me in all the years we've only come up with one working mass production (fuel) powered engine, really.  For all we know a gear

It's all about cost. Gasoline IC engines have been the best, least expensive compromise for cars and many other vehicles (and other uses too).

margins are the only answer that question.  If a trillion dollar industry wasn't at stake trust me we would have made more progress.  Frankly, vehicles should be running on water.

The oil companies have been moving into other energy sources all along too, plus there are lots of other companies that want to become trillion dollar companies. If they had a product that actually cost less, they would have sold it to us.

The only way a car can "run on water" is if you use electricity to electrolyze it into hydrogen and oxygen first. It hasn't been as cost effective to do that as it is to just burn gasoline.

[turkey]

http://searlsolution.com/

That's just the perpetual motion machine tarted up with "quantum" this and "quantum" that.

[turkey]

Wow, this guy Searl has anti-gravity too.

Gosh, is it too late for me to send him some money? I want to get in on this!

[genjamon]

http://searlsolution.com/

Everything's impossible until it's possible, therefore nothing is impossible.

Please fella's open your minds.

Question: We do have rocket ships that go to other planets right?
Because if it didn't already happen I bet we'd have posters on this board saying it's impossible based on whatever limited information they have.

Oh and the world wide web is crazy man talk too.

I'm open to ideas that don't break fundamental physical laws.  Law 1 - matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Einstein's addendum - matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.  Law 2 - entropy - all physical interactions serve to increase overall entropy in the universe, entropy being an abstract thermodynamical expression somewhat analogous to "disorder". 

Rockets work according to these same laws, they violate neither the first or second laws.  Perpetual motion machines tend to violate either one or both of these.  Combustion of rocket fuel works according to thermodynamics dictated by the above laws, and when combined with a rocket structure creates a force (thrust) which can propel masses through space. 

I'd recommend a calculus-based physics class in your future, Launche.  It'll be a lot easier to see through the hype in a lot of this stuff.

[geezer]

I'm open to ideas that don't break fundamental physical laws.  Law 1 - matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Einstein's addendum - matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.  Law 2 - entropy - all physical interactions serve to increase overall entropy in the universe, entropy being an abstract thermodynamical expression somewhat analogous to "disorder". 

Rockets work according to these same laws, they violate neither the first or second laws.  Perpetual motion machines tend to violate either one or both of these.  Combustion of rocket fuel works according to thermodynamics dictated by the above laws, and when combined with a rocket structure creates a force (thrust) which can propel masses through space. 

I'd recommend a calculus-based physics class in your future, Launche.  It'll be a lot easier to see through the hype in a lot of this stuff.

Amen to that!

[turkey]

Amen to that!

Aw, you guys are no fun.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Ok I'm out......too much for me.  Turning off topic reply for this one.
Take care Bob. Good talking to you about the Volt, thanks for the picture.

Bob

[launche]

Didn't mean to steer far off course with a few links.  I understand the laws of physics.  I spent sometime in my life thinking I had a handle on things too.  Then I started to tweak my thought process a little and be more open to ideas whether they made immediate sense to me or not.  Nothing I linked to is necessarily anything I am in whole agreement with. I am just pointing out anti-establishment thought processes that might be of interest. You wouldn't be the first to disagree or agree with these people's ideas.  Most people don't believe anything until it happens anyway and that's why none of those people ever invent, discover or advance society.  They are the herd, not the leaders.

I'm sure I believe in and follow the most of the same principles of life that you do but I've seen enough to know something smells rotten.  I've never been the smartest guy in the room but I've always been noted for having common sense.  If you don't think all these players are in on the game then so be it.  But look around, it's who we are as people, why would it be any different.  I bet if you could check the investment holdings of all Automaker executives you'd find a healthy ownership and trading of you know what.  Not that that proves much beyond being a savvy investor but it should raise some eyebrows.  I bet if I replaced the word government with Automaker or Big Oil then the light bulb would go off since we are so conditioned that way.  Pretty interesting how corporate media has swayed people to view large corporations is a more favorably light even though your instincts should tell you not too.  Large corporations have bought the media, have bought the government and buy us on a daily basis.  Know thy enemy.
If you believe that cars can't run on anything but gas then you've bought what they're selling and that's fine.

Well I'll revert back to what my father asked me a few years ago.

When was the last time you changed a grown man's mind?

He concluded most men will debate you to their grave rather than admit that they might be wrong or you might be right.  Don't waste your time and just move on to someone who's smart enough to know they don't know it all.

Sorry about that Bob.

[turkey]

I bet if I replaced the word government with Automaker or Big Oil then the light bulb would go off since we are so conditioned that way.  Pretty interesting how corporate media has swayed people to view large corporations is a more favorably light even though your instincts should tell you not too.  Large
corporations have bought the media, have bought the government and buy us on a daily basis.  Know thy enemy.

I am very far from being fond of big corporations. I think everyone should start by reading "The People's Business."

http://www.citizenworks.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Business-Controlling-Corporations-Restoring/dp/1576753093

If you believe that cars can't run on anything but gas then you've bought what they're selling and that's fine.

I know I never said that. I said that gas has been the cheapest thing to run cars on. If something else becomes cheaper then cars will be changed to run on that.

He concluded most men will debate you to their grave rather than admit that they might be wrong or you might be right.  Don't waste your time and just move on to someone who's smart enough to know they don't know it all.

You haven't presented anything that would lead us to believe that we are wrong and you are right, or that would change our minds in any way.

Why did you present this guy Searl and his lunatic ideas if you didn't expect people to figure that you were supporting them?

[launche]

That book looks interesting Turkey I'm going to pick that one up, thanks.

I'm not trying convince anyone of wrong or right, how can I have the answer. I was just saying we have to keep an open mind and connect dots where interests are involved.

Searl  just came to mind when someone mentioned perpetual motion.  Have a look at Searl's entire story before you write him off as a lunatic, maybe he is or isn't but explore more then judge.  Einstein, Newton etc... were are probably considered lunatics too in their time.  Not saying anyone's right or wrong but we initially criticize and slander what we don't understand.

I thought about what my dad said not so much literally in every respect so I mentioned it, not implying I'm right.  But I find more and more truth in it.  No one's wrong anymore, very few except new ideas anymore.  I don't mind the thread took a slight left turn, that's how you learn and nothing offensive has occurred.  How much can we talk strictly about the Volt that's not even out and only a handful have driven.  Conversations evolve, good information is shared and we get exposed to other ideas.

Cars running on water, apple juice or whatever, I don't think it's driven by wants cheapest to produce as it is what has the most profit margin.  If cars can run on water or any cheap, safe end product.  Almost no matter what the start up cost wouldn't it be worth it?  But then the profits base would largely disappear and that's bad for business.

Why are they making a Volt?  Why try to make a sporty electric/green car?  Why not just make a electric/green econobox or minivan or something more representative of it's target market. Wouldn't it make more sense to make electric cars to help aid the gas mileage challenge vehicles like SUV and minivans who could use the 10-20mpg bump as opposed to a car that could naturally get 25-35mpg anyway.

[Letitroll98]

I'm starting to lose what any of this has to do with a guy test driving a Chevy Volt. 

BTW, there is no mysterious government or corporate conspiracy going on here.  Petroleum is the most insanely cheap and efficient form of energy there is to run cars and trucks on, period.  Extending that efficiency with hybrid vehicles makes a great deal of sense.  Electricity is a close second in efficiency to gasoline, but if you run the numbers of what would be required to put every vehicle in America on the grid today, it's staggering.  There is simply no way at present capacity to supply even a fraction of what would be needed.  So electric cars and trucks are a quaint novelty, not a near term answer.  Hydrogen fuel cells are a distant third in efficiency, given present technology.

None of this dispels the fact that we are running out of petroleum, fast.  Without cheap gas to fuel our economy we will starve.  There is no way to grow, harvest and deliver food without vast quantities of gasoline and diesel fuel.  The planet cannot support the number of people on it now and in the future without petroleum to feed them all.  My calculations indicate somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 billion people will have to be eliminated to have a sustainable non-petroleum based society.  This is a best case number.  No one, and I mean no one, has presented a viable alternative to this scenario.  Enjoy life while it is good, pray for your descendants.

But as I said, I can't see what any of this has to do with a test drive.             

[lonewolfny42]

There is no way to grow, harvest and deliver food without vast quantities of gasoline and diesel fuel.

"Freight trains can carry 1 ton of cargo 423 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel — the distance between Detroit and Syracuse, N.Y."

Link.... 

[mort]

No matter how we address this issue the problem is too many people using too many resources. One American Child will use 5 times that of other children in the world durring his or her lifetime. If 1/4 of the Chineese hit these disasterous levels of consumption, we are fucked. Besides that looming beast there are things that can be done. I have read that the ntsb and the epa have done evaluations of the amount of electricity required to power electric vehicles and the numbers are not as bad as mentioned above. We have to remember that in a grid tie system (something that is within easy reach for our technologies) Cars with battery banks that are not in use can and will suplement those which are going to be used along with other areas of the grid.
Additionaly all energy is created from the sun. The fewer steps involved in harvesting distributing and applying this energy will prove to be the cheepest.  It is hard for me to imagine that the giant machine that is the gas and oil industry is efficiant in any way exept that it is the one currently online. If we had no energy sources today with are current technologies building a fully solar powered system would require a fraction of the cost of an oil production system. For comparrison

Oil: Explore, purchase land, build drilling machines, drill, contain, truck/train, ship across oceans, truck/train refine, truck/train, truck, distribute.

Solar: Purchase land, build colectors, generate from steem, distribute on existing power lines.

 As for Land purcases according to a recent National geographic article (September 2009)the energy required to operate the U.S.A could be colected with only 100 square miles of land using solar thermal collection methods. every year aproximatly 745834 terawatt-hours of solar energy fall on the earths surface. In 2006 the entire world demand was only 19015 terawatt-hours. We should begin to capture this energy from the source, not after it has sat rotting and dorment for 10000 years.

As for the range of electic vehicles people need to think out side of the box. The nissan Leaf's original concept was set for Isreal. Exchangeble batteries would drop out of a slowly moving Nissan and be replaced by refreshed ones in a process similar to that of a car-wash, requiring half of the time a normal fill up now requires. Peoples credit cards would be debited according to replacements. A second method not mentiond above was sucsesfuly tested by M.I.T students in the 90's. They built a 1 mile test bed with a magnetic induction cupler device under the paved surface.  On this pavement a vehicle would receive the magnetic charge as it drove along the road way, The batteries remaining full untill it left the road bed. This could be adopted on our interstates (Think of the stimulus this would provide) When a vehicle would leave the interstate it's batteries would begin to discharge up to, say 100 miles of range for local driving. Couple that with an ability to charge at home and who needs anything more. Exon bought all of the patents and that was the end of that idea.

These progressive Ideas combined with high speed electric trains eventualy replacing domestic air travell are the future. Whether that is tomorow or in a hundred years when we have depleated all of the oil reserves is up to the people who write the checks and purchse the vehicles. Tell your dealer that you want to plug in for all of the range not just 40 miles!!!

[mort]

"The oil companies have been moving into other energy sources all along too"

Thats the truth B.P. is the worlds largest producer of solar panels.

[Letitroll98]

............It is hard for me to imagine that the giant machine that is the gas and oil industry is efficiant in any way exept that it is the one currently online. If we had no energy sources today with are current technologies building a fully solar powered system would require a fraction of the cost of an oil production system. For comparrison............(etc)

Mort, I quote only a portion to save space.  All wonderfully inventive ideas, but you are forgetting one crucial element, logistics.  Very few people understand the scale of the logistics involved.  All wars are won or lost based on logistics, all economies succeed or fail based on logistics, and petroleum works so well as a fuel source because of logistics.  It's not that any of the ideas you presented are bad, they won't work because they can't be implemented on the scale necessary to meet the demand.  I say not work which is not entirely correct, many of these things can work and can be implemented in the future and work quite well, after we dispense with 3.5 billion excess people.  It's that dispensing that's the rub. 

Massive social upheaval is never very pleasant for the participants.  But it will happen, it will be nasty and brutal.  When it gets that nasty, people will use any means at their disposal to survive.  And unfortunately for the human race, we have readily at hand the means for our own destruction in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  I give the human race only a one in five chance of surviving the next 150 years, and that will be mostly in the underdeveloped areas of the planet that nobody wants now.  Those that are dominated by tribal societies unlikely to implement solar power and magnetic recharging strips built under their non existent highway systems.       

[mort]

Letitroll98, Nicely put, however I disagree with the logistical problems. We built those freeways durring a ressesion it helped us out. We built a space program that took us to the moon seemingly out of competition only. Now as we lag behind the rest of the developed world in alternative energy production I beleive that it is time for some more, healty competition. It is estimated that a Solar thermal producing system capable of powering two thirds of the U.S.A. would cost in the ball park of 400 billion Thats halve of the  financial bailout. Wich do you believe would have a more benificial and stimulus effect on this country? As for the petroleum I feel that it is only logistical because it is the system we use currently. It is rudementery, sloppy, archean, massively inefficiant (think of the process in witch it is recoverd from oil to gasoline) and detremental to the planet. The technologie in wich we use these fuels (internal combustion engines) was invented over 100 years ago and remains largly unchanged. I feel that in todays world of inventions the internal combustion motor would be obsolete if Ideas were alowed to flourish and meet fruition before beeing purchased and squashed.

[Wind Chaser]

"Freight trains can carry 1 ton of cargo 423 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel — the distance between Detroit and Syracuse, N.Y."

Link.... 

Hmm...  About 30 years ago I was in canoe with a buddy paddling along some scenic river near Banff Alberta.  RR tracks ran along one side of the river and a freight train stopped for some reason or another.  I saw the engineer looking out from his window towards the back of his train.  So I yelled out "How many miles to the gallon?" to which replied "3 gallons to the mile!"

[genjamon]

Yeah, but that's a lot of tons per mile!!