Electrical Components

Nanotechology has provided some nice breakthroughs for storage battery technology. Something like 10 times the capacity of batteries currently on the market. Probably won't be any available, however, before 2010. I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel. Forget biofuels, forget coal and oil. Use photovoltaic cells, daylight and water. Who could ask for anything more?

As a part of the 'grid system', or @ home for stationary use, they have a part to play. Very useful w/ plug-ins, hybrid or EV.

Please don't try to convince us that vehicle mounted perp'l-motion will help.

I agree with you Joe (mostly). I would like a car that similar to to tesla motors or phoenix motors that I could drive daily and charge in a number of ways. Like at night from my household circuit. The battery life should be good enough that I would get about 200 to 300 miles on a charge and at the replacement it would still get me say about 50 to 75 miles on a charge. I believe the charging rate of the batteries is most important, they need to be able to be rapidly charged up in not more than 1/2 hour. That way if you are traveling you could go into a resturaunt and have a meal while you are being charged up at a charging station in the parking lot.

Based on my cell phone, I believe the batteries in the hybrid are not allowed to be discharged enough. This will cause premature battery failure and a large cost to the owner sooner than needed.

A number of years ago i saw on a program a bus that had a tranformer (half to be more precise) mounted close to the road and the other half(many on them) buried in the road, as the bus moved over the various sensors would detect and activate the buried transformer there by inducing power on the bus transformer now this worked but no one has heard of it since the bus would run on batteries where the road had not been modified for the bus.. Why cant this be adopted that new roads have these transformers built in and a system that records milage and charges you on your electric bill no need for heavy duty batteries as most roads would have this built in .. in fact solar panel/battery near the highways could store power and invert it for use there by reducing the so called emission.

I believe what made the in-roadway induction charging work for muni busses work was the repetitive, fixed nature of the route. A waiting period at each stop would give relatively long charge time with a few coils, for minimum cost.

It's not really technology that's the hold-back; it's our expectations.

10+ yr ago i was working for an EV mfg, 150 mi/chg was the usual, then. For those of us on the right coast that would suffice 350 days/year.

For those 15 days, an excuse could be contrived to purchase a hummmer.

Ultimately, i guess, it will be cost & availability of fuels (& maybe emission regs) that push us toward electrics.

There is no doubt that battery technology is behind the times, but it is rapidly catching up. Creating powerful batteries doesn't seem to be the issue. The primary issue is with the short life span and replacement costs that must be considered as the result if this issue. With the electric motors the primary issue is the immediate current draw that is required for starting off and accelerating. As the engineers overcome these two issues the likely hood of using a small 4 cycle, or possibly a dynacam or rotary engine powering up a small dynamo to provide an almost continuous charge to very deep cycle batteries becomes a serious likely hood. Just a few days ago I saw a small gocart powered by a 4 cycle engine that was only 149cc's. with electric start. It was about the size of a 1 gallon water jug. Back in the 1980's John Deere tractor co. made a lawn tractor that had a small dynamo for electrical power. It was about 4 1/2" in dia. and 3 1/2" thk. was belt driven and the max output was 20 amps. Seeing these small pieces of equipment as a possible source of energy, or something not much larger that would be powered by oxy-hydrogen on demand certainly looks like a reasonable way to go. Given the expertise demonstrated by such mfg's as yamaha, honda, suziki and kawasaki, I see no reason that an almost indestructable engine and dynamo combo couldn't be in the works almost immediately.

Given the above information and the understanding that small light weight cars would be the best candidates for using this technology, I believe that compact and mid-size commuters could already be on the road. The larger vehicles would likely see a reduction in fuel cost as the bottom began dropping out of the fuel market. These new cars should be much cheaper to construct as they would not have to deal with the immission issues.

For those who are considering trying to go with the electric powered car only, powered by batteries, I find it hard to believe that one will eventually find the savings they will expect. That is unless you only drive less than 50 miles one way and have all day to recharge your power source while you work. What happens when you get an early out from work and can leave after only a couple of hr's work. I would suggest that for less than $400.00 a generator and dynamo married to a "real long life producing engine would solve the matter in it's tracks. Hydroxy fuelgas is already powering up stand-by generators and pumps. A small system like that would likely take up less than cubic ft of space, and run for at least 10,000 between servicing needs.

Toomuchfun

"Creating powerful batteries doesn't seem to be the issue. The primary issue is with the short life span and replacement costs that must be considered as the result if this issue."

I would beg to differ there. The lifespan for a battery pack is going to be about 100,000 miles with current technology. That is about 1/2 of where it really needs to be.

However, the energy density is a problem. Right now the mass of 1 gallon of gas has an energy density that is about two orders of magnitude better than the equivalent mass of a fully charged Lithium Ion battery!

"With the electric motors the primary issue is the immediate current draw that is required for starting off and accelerating"

Again, I would differ with that opinion. Electric motors are better than 90% efficient now. That doesn't leave a lot of room for improvement, so expending research dollars in this area will have a poor return on investment.

You are spot-on about the hybrid design. You only need a small internal combustion engine to power an alternator and keep a vehicle rolling. That is exactly what a friend at work has been doing. This will extend his 40 mile limit such that he could drive cross country (obviously stopping for fuel along the way) by augmenting his electric car's battery.

That is exactly what a friend at work has been doing. This will extend his 40 mile limit such that he could drive cross country (obviously stopping for fuel along the way) by augmenting his electric car's battery.
I agree this is the way to go; however, even this is not a cheap approach. To get an adequate diesel/gasoline generator would likely cost several thousand dollars.

I just asked and that number was closer to $330 for the alternator and $490 for the gas engine. Better than $1800, but not cheap. Now, a car company's cost would be way, way, cheaper.

The biggest cost is the batteries and their charging system. Each battery requires an independent monitoring and charging matrix. He is using lead-acid, but the power density is very low. The trade-off is lower cost than NiMH and Li-Ion (Lithium Ion). I think he has about $1500 invested in mil-spec 12 Volt lead acid batteries. He uses about 30 of them to power a 65 hp electric motor, which is directly coupled to the Toyota MR2 manual transmission. The car does not need a clutch and he only uses the first two gears. He can start in either gear.

Li-Ion has a much better power density, but requires special chemistry to prevent toxic accidents. Thy can explode under some conditions! Lithium is also fussy about temperature, so the pack needs to be cooled when hot and warmed in the winter. The new Chevy Volt is working on that issue now and that solution adds weight and cost.

Right now Li-Ion is the most expensive technology, but offers the highest power density of the various battery chemistries. As the number of vehicles increase the volume discounts and the payback in initial research and development will bring that price down.

Still, even Li-Ion is not the answer. We need a breakthrough in technology on the order of a factor of ten and bring down costs at the same time. I think that will happen in time.

Just remember, if the cost for gasoline goes down (or usage goes down) the govt will have to get money some way. We would likely be hit with a road usage tax like the "big rigs".

"BIG RIGS" & road use: Seems like heavy trucking beats the $#!+ out of our roadways, while coughing-up a meagre % of repair costs!

Bring back RAILROADS! (the original hybrid BTW) A lot more efficient; & @ last look, 100% responsible for their own repairs.

Ultra capacitors, used with or without batteries, are the latest breakthrough-www.siliconchip.com.au

I know little or nothing about electrical..... So I'll make this a question.

Don't capacitors have the characteristic to be able to release all of their energy at once? In a collision there would be a risk of this would there not?

ZAP!

Guy

One question: How is that different from a tank of gasoline with a spark in a collision?

Any concentrated form of energy is dangerous and must be treated carefully.

Hydroxy fuel made on demand is only produced in sufficient quantity to run the engine for the moment. There is no storage of fuel. The few cubic inches of oxy-hydrogen that haven't been used up at the time of an accident is very minimal. We are likely talking about under 2 cubic ft. of fuel gas. The system can be designed with safety features such as auto shut off in case of collision. Not a difficult thing to do.

Toomuchfun

Not much greater risk if you think of having a tank of hydrogen under the back seat.

Anonymous hero

If the battery life doesn't begin falling off at say 50,000 miles and continues it's performance ability for the full 100,000 miles, I'll take that any day if the cost is reasonable. But if the cost doesn't save me considerable over the same cost as gas or diesel for the similar miles traveled we haven't accomplished much. Even tho the batteries might be recycled, there is still a huge cost involved.

I found the little motor I mentioned for $150.00 new in the box. It is likely a China knock-off. Other options are the Sach's rotary types, that powered chainsaws, snowmobiles and motorcycles. Even tho the rotary isn't particularly the most efficient, If you are running the thing on HHO on demand, Water and a little white vinegar, who cares. The Dynacam motor was being developed for aircraft use. It is basically a pipe with a scroll type drive shaft. Not exactly a lot of moving parts. I understand that someone in California bought the tooling and patent rights. An engine small enough to turn a small dynamo just might be the answer, considering the minimal parts involved. Maybe the core of the dynamo could be assembled right on the extended drive shaft.

Even Fewer parts. The 20 amp dynamo was available as late as 4 years ago for $85.00. I considered using one on a homebuilt aircraft. It only weighs a couple of pounds.

Toomuchfun

Ahh, yeah, battery cost is a problem. When you look at spending $20,000 for a battery pack, that is a bit more than what consumers are expecting to spend! Now, that price is a low quantity number, so with mass production prices will tumble, but the technology is still not mature. So, nobody is ready to invest large startup funds into a technology/chemistry that is likely to be obsolete in a few years.

Still, even with long term durable batteries, a 40 to 80 mile daily range is not going to be accepted by the public no matter how long the batteries last. So that was why I put power density at the top. I think people would start feeling more comfortable if that number was a reliable 200 miles.

Yes, Tesla and others claim higher numbers, but that is not a car the average buyer wants/needs. Do that in a Toyota Camry and, "You gotta deal!"

Unfortunately, stuffing a car with enough batteries to do that and not have the acceleration of a Yugo with the wheels off leaves little room for groceries.

You are Very Correct regarding costs. However neighbor hood EV's are becoming very popular in some communities, especially with the older population, and they don't even get a hundred miles per charge. That can certainly be improved. Sun City Florida has laws specifically for the benefit of EV's. With the Baby Boom population reaching retirement, an overall slowing down of the population should occur. For those who only run around their residential area and sometimes to the mall or supermarket etc. just a bit more speed and a little more extended range would be just fine.

The golf cart mfg.s just need motivation and affordable batteries. The small engines in these gasoline powered golf carts could be easily designed to reliably run on hho, eliminating the battery need altogether, except for starting, etc.

Even city dwellers might like the convenience of having their own transportation rather than having to walk to public transportation. In many communities around the nation folks drive to a high speed train service that may only be a few miles from their home and park their cars and bikes on their way to work. Owning this form of commuter transportation may be come very affordable. Rental cars could fill the need for longer trips when necessary.

Toomuchfun

Sounds like you might be in Florida. North of me, where my dad lives, almost every house has one parked in their drive way. One of what? They are electric golf carts, the neighborhood vehicle.

They don't mix well with cars, although!

Have you seen the Vectrix and the Aptera?

Toomuchfun lives in Sebring, Florida. Nice to meet ya!

Not sure about Vectrix and Aptera, are they Greek Goddesses or fancy boats.

toomuchfun

Our collective paradigm seems to be centered around hydrocarbons as a fuel source. Forget hydrocarbons! Hydrocarbon is a dirty word!

As to limitations regarding power or acceleration.....we have all the technology we need right now. If you are looking for high end performance there may be a few trade-offs using off the shelf parts. But if you just want to burn rubber, you can be accommodated as well. If you want 75 to 150 amps, you can have it.....for a little while. Have you checked the specs on your starter motor for your gasoline engine lately?

"powering up a small dynamo to provide an almost continuous charge"

I have been doing a little sideline research into this. It makes very good sense. A compact generator designed to run at optimum rpm to spin an alternator (or other type) at optimum rpm. Controlled to come on when it is needed. You could be at work while it charges it's self sitting in the parking lot. Not a fast charge but a constant on demand charge.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is consumer expectations. Hammering the throttle and taking off like a rocket seems to be the normal thing today. Jack rabbiting from light to light. Controllers programmed to use the energy stored in the batteries efficiently will not act like this. I know current status quo is to build an E-car to fit in the slot of an IC-car, but that is probably our first mistake.

Stepping into an E-car should be the opportunity to change all of the older technologies and introduce some of the new. Like drive-by-wire. Old steering positions could be traded for joystick control. Who knows what is out there that does not fit the "normal" car idea.

Guy

You are very right on. AND; DRIVING STYLES WILL CHANGE WHEN THE VEHICLES THAT ARE AVAILABLE DICTATE THAT CHANGE.

Toomuchfun

As yet they are either too expensive or too under-performing to compete with IC cars or with hybrids.

I saw an interesting report yesterday about a soon to be released hybrid from Chevrolet. The spokesman said that if you drove it X miles per day and plugged it in overnight every night, you would never have to buy gas for it again.

Nice idea except, if the engine never has to run and the gas is not used, one day when the daily trip is extended to the point where the engine has to kick in, won't that old gas have gone bad and ruin the engine, causing great repair expense.

After rebuilding the engine of a project car, after six months (which I didn't think was that long) I started the engine. It ran fine during the half hour initial break-in. Upon trying to start it the next day, it would only turn very slowly and didn't start. I bent a valve due to a tremendous amount of varnish in the guides. The valves had to be driven out with a hammer. All the rings had to be changed and the valve job redone.

How efficient would this kind of hybrid be if every three months the owner has to have the gas changed or risk an expensive repair bill.

Jaguar, they make an additive just for that purpose. Try Stabil, it's available at any automotive supply store and even in WalMart, Meirs, Costco, etc.

Regarding the crossover car varieties available today. They are far to complicated in their design. It seems that No one really had a clue!

They started with an ICE and tried to switch to electric and now are almost at wits end trying to marry both together. They are putting the drive motors in the wheels where they will ultimately be pounded into a pile of rust and miscellaneous parts. Just how many pot holes do you believe you can hit and have the motor-wheel continue to function. What happens when you have to drive thru 18" of water on a flooded street. As long as the public has to buy gas opec will continue to raise the price.

If the automotive mfg.s had put as much money and engineering technology into oxy-hydrogen development as they have trying to comply with emissions control and better fuel mileage from their ICE's we likely would all be using oxy-hydrogen as our fuel today. Carbon emisssions would be way down. However our maintenance costs would like fall off considerably.That would not bode well with the dealers that soak us every time we need service.

Believe it or not the first on demand hho patent issued for an automobile carb. was issued way back in the 1930's. We have had a long time to develop the technology. A few inventers have died mysteriously along the way!

Toomuchfun

yes

"Are Electric Cars Practical"

Depends on who you are asking doesn't it. Oil companies would say no. Auto companies would say no. Auto repair companies would say no. Auto manufacturers would say no. The list goes on and on.

It appears the only "yes" in the crowd would be the consumer. And the consumer is so finicky that we will all never agree. Generally we create a target that no manufacturer can meet.

Electric vehicles are everywhere right now. They meet or exceed the function that they are developed for. Forklifts, carts, cranes, lifts…. The list goes on.

The amount of work a forklift does in one day should be enough to carry a person to and from work once a day. But we want style and comforts and convenience and power. We are a bunch of spoiled brats that will eventually be drowning in our own tears when it eventually comes crashing down.

I totally agree with you. And would like to make a point that I'm sure that can't be missed by consumer and Mfg.s alike.

Gasoline powered utility vehicles are in use along the highways on farms, golf courses and just about any where else that is practicable.. These vehicles are mfg. by Kawasaki, Yamaha, Kuboto, John Deere and others. They are priced at least twice as much as they are worth. BUT they do a specific kind of work. I see no reason that these vehicles can't be made even more consumer friendly and support runaway sales at affordable prices. Remember the Metropolitan, and the Mustang, the VW's and other minis. They didn't have tom toms and all of the other gadgets that come on vehicles today. Like them or not. Basic transportation is still needed.

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun again here. I forgot to mention that here in central Florida folks are having a ball driving these utility vehicles and golf carts on the back streets and roads virtually every night, rain or shine. Our Govt. needs a new source of revenue. They don't even have to go looking for it. A $25.00 convenience vehicle permit will bring in new revenue. Permits for children, properly tested and licensed of a responsible age could bring in even more revenue. Certain times of the day, and a certain class of community streets could be designated for this class of transportation, and insurance could be required. They are doing it any way, why not try to make it safer and legal.

Toomuchfun

Just take the best power density battery available now and design quick battery swapout stations to augment recharging needs. It would be just like stopping at a gas station only quicker. I know I just opened a can of worms.

Not sure I want to depend on someone else to keep the batteries up. Can you imagine pulling in to your service area and having some "jamoke' THAT DOESN'T KNOW POS. FROM NEG. REPLACING BATTERIES HE CAN'T EVEN LIFT, IN YOUR SHINY NEW CAR.

It's bad enough when you go to a certified dealer and a trainee is assigned to replace your tranny or brakes or wheel bearings. I have had the experience, "and experienced the results.

Toomuchfun

They've probably figured out a way that the battery will only fit in the right way. Anyway who says you'll need a Joe Blow to put it in. We ought to be able to automate this.

Of course a Joe Blow might not be bad - create a few jobs.

Current battery exchange program:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1705518,00.html

From the article you posted, "which may eventually consist of 500,000 charging points and up to 200 battery-exchange stations."

With an eventual maximum of 200 exchange stations available (compared to 1/2 million charging stations), it would seem exchanging a battery pack is not going to be all that common.

Another thought, Israel is not much bigger than the state of New Jersey. Driving in the US is a paradigm shift compared to Europe and most other countries. In the US traveling in excess of 100 miles at a pop is not that hard to do when destinations are spaced out (particularly in the western states).

It's a great article, but I still believe that people will not find the logistics of a battery pack exchange and all of the issues that it drags along with it acceptable when compared to gas powered cars.

Think of it. Most gas cars can go 400 miles on a tank. Afterward, it takes 5 minutes to fill it up (if you want a receipt) and get back onto the road. Now, an electric car can only go 1/4 th that distance and it takes two to three times that amount of time to get a new pack (assuming you are not waiting for the guy ahead of you to get his done). So you have to do that 4 times to go the same distance!

I know I may not be like everyone else, but when I have to make a long trip I am not looking for ways to make that trip any longer.

Over the course of 4 years and 50,000 miles that will mean I will need to stop and exchange my batteries 500 times! Let's say it only takes 15 minutes per exchange, that's 125 hours of waiting. Yuck. That is going to get old.

I agree for long trips. But I believe most people in urban centres rarely do that. Only true stats would tell.

A simple docking station in your driveway or garage would be plenty for the daily driving. Long tirps involve the stop.

"Well Martha, when we get to Boston we'll have to remember to go to one of those new fancy battery exchange centres."

That would suit me fine. Most of my driving is within a 100 mile daily range.

My friend at work just plugs his car in when he gets here and it is ready to go in 4 to 6 hours. However, he only gets 40 miles on a charge.

Today at the price of gas... I guess we will all have to move within the 49 mile mark.

There is a program going on over seas like this right now......

If they go through with the project in Israel, it will likely lead to a surge in technological advances. Who knows, before long battery technology might be getting you 400 mi/chg. It might be a good pilot project. You have to start somewhere if you're ever going to reduce dependence on gas/oil.

By the way, anyone heard any developments with hydrogen powered cars lately?

Yeah I know. But seriously, there was a report on all of these alternative types of cars on some channel a little while back. As I recal, they reported that the fuel cell would pretty much be safer than a gas tank. Something to do with its small size, design and location in the center of the chassis.

After reviewing blogs 33 thru 40 I am convinced that I want to use my own on board small hydroxy powered dynamo / alternator / generator two cylindered engine for continued and replacement
electrical energy. Hydroxy powered generators are produced by a firm in Arizona. We ain't recreating the wheel. we might just have to find a way to make it roll a little more efficiently.

Toomuchfun

I think you are on the right track (no pun intended).

Thanks for agreeing. In fact it isn't like we have to recreate the wheel. The Sachs Motor Co. of Germany has produced small rotary engines for snowmobiles personal water craft motorcycles boats and chain saws. Mazda is working with development of a rotary hydrogen powered engine at this time. The dynamos /alternators / generators manufactured to day produce a lot of power, from a small package, and there is room for improvement to both the engine and alternator. A small rotary engine could use the same drive shaft to power an alternator on each end of the engine. This would make for a very compact package.

Toomuchfun

My friend's alternator needs to be driven at 18000 RPM! That is probably not going to be a direct drive to the engine, so some belts and pulleys are in order to get the 370 VDC he needs.

There have been very successful tests with a Tesla turbine running at 50,000 rpm. The problem as I see it is will the alternator hold together.

Blue

Guest see response 53

Well Hero, It sounds as if your friends alternator was designed for use with turbine engines, possibly jet air craft. I remember that years ago I saw advertisements for generators that were military surplus that called for up to 36,000 rpm. These were being sold to persons that wanted to build their home made welders. I can tell you this. You can buy altered automotive alternators on ebay that will produce 24- 36 & 48 volts. These are being made for use in home made wind generators. If your EV auto needs 48 volts, You might be able to adapt one to each end of a rotary engine, such as one that was used in Bombardier snowmobiles back in the early 1980's. Forklifts typically use long life deep cycle batteries in 12 /24 /36 & 48 volts. If I were going to try to modify a small car or truck to run on electricity alone I would certainly look at this sort of adaption. I truly believe that the rotary engine may be more easier to adapt to HHO alone than any other workable possibility. Think about it. If you need some sort of cylinder lubrication, there already exists this technology in motorcycle and and outboard engines. Whatdoyouthinkaboutthat!!!!

Toomuchfun

I think he needs 370 VDC!

I am busy finishing several diferent set ups resonating water in a sell. If I acheive any resolts I will keep everybody posted.Last week associate af mine (cheif engeneer in VW Motosport)mentionet something interesting that I thing to pay some atention as well: Molecule of gasoline consist of 85% water??? I must reed more about it........sound interesting!

"Mazda is working with development of a rotary hydrogen powered engine at this time."

I remember rading about a Hydrogen powered Rx-7 back when the third generation of this model was out. That was before 1995!!

Toomuchfun here!

I too have read this information. AND I also understand the problems that occur with attempting to have enough of the fuel gas available for acceleration. There is no problem with getting an engine to run on hydroxy alone. This has been done by experts and wannabe's alike many times. I wish to inform everyone that the Sach's motor co. in Germany has produced reliable rotary engines much smaller than the Mazda power plant. These smaller engines should make a very reliable and vibration free generating system for continued and re-supply of electrical energy for batteries that are readily available "NOW". I see no reason that the rotary engine could not be manufactured with an alternator mounted on a common shaft that included the normal out put shaft for the engine. One alternater might be dedicated for the production of the fuel gas needed to run the engine while the other would resupply the current needed to recharge the batteries. This engine alternator combo likely would be smaller and lighter than even one forklift battery. THINK ABOUT!

OK, you've more than peaked my curiosity toomuchfun. Give me some good web sites to kick off my education on hydroxy. I know I could surf but I wouldn't mind skipping the crap and getting to the meat of it.

Guy

GOOD MOVE gdevine!

1- HydroPowerCar.com cull the crap and look at the real info.

2-PureEnergyResearch.com Bob Boyce free hho plans this site provides 43 pages of the best info available--- also check with the yahoo forum. the site info is given in the text

3- Youtube (latest hho technology) you must cull the crap yourself and glean the valuable info from within.

4-Google "type" latest oxy-hydrogen technology

5- Moxilla Firefox (same as google.)

Some folks such as Denny Kline are trying to sell their SPIN in this technology. Consider what they say and move on!

Toomuchfun

The problem with EVs are several. First the average person wants a car that will go 400 mi. without stopping, then stop no more than 10 min, will travel that distance at highway speeds [with the capability of short bursts of higher speed] and will carry the number of people and/or cargo desired, for the cost of an ICE car. Check to range, cost and speeds of the Tesla Motors, AC-150 Power System or Myers Motors cars. None of them have the range, "refueling" speed, capacity or lower cost of an ICE car.

Consider the average family, with only one car. They get a short range EV that will go 50 miles at 45 mph with 5 people for the price of, say $70,000 [the cost of a Scion e-5 conversion]. The husband only has to drive to work 20 miles in city traffic, the wife stays home and only drives the kids around on weekends. Remember that if they get more than 25 mi from home they will not get back before the batteries are dead. What do they do when they have to go farther than that, rent a car? Then the husband is transferred to an office 30 miles away. Do they move, sell the car and get an IC car, or lease an IC car. Do you think that every time they need to go more than 25 miles in a day they should rent a car? How convenient for them.

So you say get the little one-man EV from Myers, it only costs $38,000 and it can go 70 mph and get a bit more range for the husband. Then they either rent a car to go anywhere together or buy a second car, an IC car for the same price. That is not practical. I know there are some who would do this, no matter how costly or inconvenient, but I doubt the majority would. Also remember that having heat, AC, power steering/brakes and accessories eats up electricity, giving even less range.

EVs have a niche, but the cost to get them to have the range, capacity, cost and convenience of IC cars is not yet possible. Electric cars also just move the emissions to the coal-fired generating plants, the nuclear waste producing nuclear electric plants or the hydroelectric dams that change the environment and of which we will need twice as many to power all the EVs.

Studies have found that about 80% of driving is within 25 miles of home, the kicker is the other 20%. An IC-electric hybrid using a short-range EV as its basis would save fuel and the motor would kick in anytime it was needed to recharge the batteries. Most people make at least one trip over 25 mi. from home in a month and the engine could always be set on a timer to run a few minutes a month. Yet IC engines are inherently emitters of pollution, requiring complex and expensive pollution controls.

There are modern steam engines which are more efficient and less polluting which could be used in a hybrid to generate electricity, keeping the batteries charged as needed, while it could still go 50 miles on just battery power from plugging in overnight at home. They could also fit into a standard appearing body. Check and see what the Doble Steam car could do and the size of the boiler, engine and car. A Lamont boiler is smaller than that used by Doble. To run a generator you want rotary power so check the Cyclone engine, the Green Steam engine, the Lysholm expander design and the Tesla Turbine, all of which provide rotary power. Cars powered as steam-electric hybrids would have lower emissions naturally. They could be an interim design until something better comes along.

Hydrogen is NOT zero emissions because of the fact that it has to be made by electricity generated in plants. Using solar will only make a limited amount of H and it is the most expensive way to make it. The emissions and waste and environmental problems are still there, plus the fact of increasing the number of generating plants/dams.

Although biofuels are CO2 neutral for those who are concerned with CO2, they do compete with food production now. Someday they will make batteries so cheaply that an EV will cost the same as a regular IC car and perform the same. Then they only have to get fusion power and get past the NIMBYs to build the electric generating plants. Until then we have several centuries worth of coal that can be made into synthetic fuel.

Electric cars are not practical now, but someday they may be.

You are generally correct with most of your response. However: oxy-hydrogen/hydroxy/browns gas/Klines Gas etc. are not made in an electricity producing establishment. This fuel gas is made on demand in the vehicle. It is not beyond reality for a small rotary or similar sized engine to be manufactured that would be suitable of producing sufficient on-demand power to recharge batteries as they are being discharged. This would extend the range of the primary power supply. And this fuel needed to run the small on board power pack would be produced by the same or a second attached generator. It is not like we would be using the small power pack to power the vehicle. Only to provide continued re-supply of electricity. Where batteries alone might provide 50 miles of distance, with the continued re-supply of current the range might be extended to 450 or maybe 500 miles, before the batteries discharged enough to require a stop period long enough for a recharge that might include external as well as on board power sources.

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun - it sounds good, but according to a number of sources, Aquygen may just be another scam. Until it is proven to work, I will go with my previous statements and idea.

Get your head out of the sand!

There are lot of get rich quick efforts on Ebay and other sources that are trashing the real progress that has been made with oxy-hydrogen research. Unfortunately there are some folks out there that are both so desperate and naive at the same time that they are easy prey for those who will take advantage of their ignorance. EXAMPLE; Double your gas mileage with this new technology ( a technology that has been around more than a 100 years). The only thing new is the scamer that is telling you that you can double your gas mileage with a little water-bakeing soda and a mason jar, the kind that mom's and grand moms made jelly in. You are only partially correct with your opinion. Clearly you are not aware of the fact that saturating the plate packet of electrodes with just a couple of volts of low voltage and low amps is enough to free up some of the Hydrogen atoms and that by pulsing these already saturated plate electrodes with high voltage will cause the water molecule to practically explode the three atoms apart. This yields a powerful fuel gas (properly called {single duct oxy-hydrogen fuel gas.}) The atoms remain separated long enough to be used as a fuel in ICE's. As I have personally proven that this technology works I can and will step on any nay-sayers un-supported negetive comments. I am not looking to make even one cent profit, nor am I asking for donations to continue to refine the already progressive technology. Just as BOB BOYCE has already proven that you can run automobiles and race very powerful boats with hydroxy made on demand, and has given his Knowledge regarding this subject to the PUBLIC DOMAIN, I too will give to the PUBLIC DOMAIN any information that I learn as I and others continue to find better ways in which we can improve the performance and safety needed to make this the way {"NOW NOT IN THE FUTURE"} as we move forward to educate the world to a better way. I am not a petroleum producer basher. The world needs their products now and for the future. However we need changes now!

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun, I think you are getting your fun out of promoting utter BS- I will say here that no m,atter what the process of on demand uses, it is all negative- Except for chemical means!. Boyce, Meyer, etc etc- believed in by fanatics only!. We will believe you only when we can duplicate the process- hasn't been done yet!.

Sorry Niel but you can check with the American Power Boat racing Association and verify that Bob Boyce raced his power boats on HHO alone. I am putting a system together as this is written that will provide fuel gas to a two cylinder 15 hp Briggs & Stratton engine I salvaged from a Snapper mower just for this use. Two cylinders is chosen as it will safely use both spark inputs to fire the HHO, and the timing can be adjusted just by changing the key in the keyway on the shaft that sets the placement of the flywheel. I suggest that you get better educated and get your own act together or step aside. The crowd has come running.

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun

Please keep us updated as to the results of your twin B&S modification.

Guy

Agreed!

Will do., Looking for a couple of 7/8 hp generators with destroyed engines. Would like to attach them to this Briggs. It has power output shafts on both ends.

Toomuchfun

Guy send me an email address and we will certainly keep intouch there is more to this story than just the prelude.

Toomuchfun

As others have said, seeing it work is believing it will work. Is it cost efficient? Does it produce enough HHO to perform as well as a gasoline powered car? Can the system make enough power to run the car and make the HHO at the same time? Until it is proven by independent studies and tests, I'll stick to the proven technology, with upgrades, that I proposed.

For your dreams and ideas I do hope it works and I would like to hear of your progress.

Correct me if i'm wrong, here. This sounds like another perpetual motion scheme; combustion of (2)H2+02=(2)HOH won't yield more energy than it took to electrolise the H2 & O2 apart in the 1st place.

Throw in the conversion losses (heat/meehanica0/electrical), what's left?

Lets see if we can find another way to say this that can't possibly be mis-understood.!!!!!!!!!

You might consider this PERPETUAL MOTION --- Mom and Pop have two children and the neighboring mom and pop have two children. we assume 2 males and 2 females. moms and pops account for 4 people. children also account for 4 people that is 8 altogether. now the children issue two children per pair

that is four more and their children do it a gain that is four more.

addem up 4 became 8 became 12 and then 16. Original Mom's and Pops are great grand parents nearing the end of their life span but are not yet passed on. That all took place IN of Mom's And Pop's lifetime a cycle of 70 to 80 years. Now that is perpetual motion. There is nothing more difficult to penetrate than a stubborn closed human mind. NUFF SAID!

TOOMUCHFUN

Well, I don't think that a good example. PM is means that the energy required to drive a mechanism is recovered at least 100% That is, imagine a motor that was driving a generator. The generator produces an electrical current, which powers the motor ad infinitum.

I did not see HHO propulsion as such. I assume you can't generate more energy than it takes to create it.

Try this one then. take a 1 1/2 volt battery and connect it to a high voltage capacitor, say just 300 or so volts capacity. You can find these in some small cameras. leave it connected for a little while.

The absolute most voltage you are in-putting is 1 1/2 volts.

Place your finger across the capacitor contacts and feel the power of what has happened to your measly 1 1/2 volts. I think that if you do this you're you must be a fool. However the mixing of low voltage and high voltage in certain circumstances will change the expected out put to a greater value than just the low voltage input that lives entirely within the law of thermodynamics. This is where the nay-sayers of the current method of the separation of the water molecules falls apart. They insist that you cannot get more energy out than you put in. They are blindly looking at the electrical input. THE REST OF THE STORY--- they fail to include the explosive energy of the HHO that is produced by the combination of both saturated low voltage and amperage, when pulsed by 60,000 volts of momentary high voltage. The value of the electrical energy, "both low and high voltage is miniscule in comparison. Stick your finger in that.

Toomuchfun

No, no. You are still charging a capacitor to some known number of joules and to some known voltage potential.

A 300 VDC capacitor @ 1 µF is simply the maximum voltage a 1µF capacitor is rated for.

The difference is the discharge rate. The capacitor discharges that current faster than a battery, which has internal resistance. However, if to charge a capacitor with 100 Joules and a battery with 100 Joules the both hold the same amount of energy, but the capacitor will discharge it faster than the battery. That's what you feel.

I think what you are trying to say is a poor example.

However, a previous poster did make a valid point that splitting the oxygen and hydrogen in water requires energy. The amount of energy required is exactly equal to the amount of energy liberated when you combine gaseous oxygen and hydrogen together to form water. That's basic chemistry/physics.

Maybe so! But I received a memo from fellow partners in crime just a little while ago in which they informed me that by following my ideas for the construction of and the testing of said contraption they were able to produce about four liters per minute of hydroxy fuel with only a 12 volt battery and we are anxiously waiting for the member involved to finish the construction of the high voltage pulsing equipment. Don't cha see!

Still just "havin" a lil fun.

Toomuchfun

"HERO"

I am entertained by your effort to up-hold thermo's law. However it's like this some folks see a glass half full and others see the same glass half empty. The 90% of the native Americans that died who were here before the white man brought small pox to this part of the world thought that their distruction was perpetual, if they got the virus. Today we know that it doesn't have to be that way. Prevent the virus and it cannot become perpetually a death warrant. We didn't believe we could prevent small pox, but we can . We didn't believe that we could prevent polio but we can, and while many believe we cannot find a way around thermo's law we will, and when we do they will say that it isn't the same thing. GREAT SPIN!

Toomuchfun

who's Thermo, and can he be bribed?

while we're at let's circumvent gravity, too! i just heard of this cool device, it's called an "oscillation overthruster"

You kinda missed on that one. UPPER thrustor then oscillatem. You know sorta the way we feel just , right after we have pumped our own gasoline, and no one came out to check the oil for a nickel per can sold and smeared crap all over the windshield that you just cleaned knowing that you were about to take a long ride to grandma's house. Gravity, if I remember was something that the kid down the street attempted to violate, and his daddy beat his butt for after he got home from the Dr.'s office. He had a hard time walking for a while. Wow, that was some beatin he got. Kinda the way I feel when I have to buy gas. I know that it is a long way to OPEC. Does anyone have any ideas where we might find a short cut. I'm a little low on gas. But I have just ordered enough guns and ammo to start another war.

Toomuchfun

Toomuchfun- the louder you rant rather than providing facts and figures the less believable you are. All that was requested was some actual figures showing energy used in making the HHO and the surplus of energy created from burning it, so more HHO would be created and still provide power to drive the car. It really does sound like a bit of quackery without those figures.

This last post of yours does a lot to destroy your credibility. "Mom and Pop, ...", what a load of Bullenscheiss.

Hey! Tagumanrun! I have been studying the efforts of others who have been refining the process for about four years with out a let up. When I determined that I had learned enough from their work bench experimentation I began to design my own Hydrogen booster. Eliminating their mistakes along the way. I have found that there have been a few people who have successfully run automobiles on hho alone. Their work is documented and their information now resides in the public domain In other words it is there for you I and anyone else to use to construct their own veriation of what they think will work. It is very well documented that one Bob Boyce raced some rather powerful power boats in Florida back in the 80's on battery powered HHO alone. He also put around 60,000 miles on a slant six chrysler product in his shop while the vehicle was up on jackstands. Too many investigators annoyed him. SOOOOO! HE DECIDED NOT TO PUT THE VEHICLE TO ROAD TESTS. I can't say that I blame him. It seems that mysterious things have happened to those who have developed alternative energy out side of the mainstream of the wealthy and powerful. As for me, I am not afraid of those kind of folks. I am 65 years old and I can drop a side ways running hog with a head shot a 100 or so yards. If these folks come to threaten me they will leave in an ems vehicle.

As for my success with the HHO generator I can tell you that I am very close to revealing sufficient info to the public that they can successfully construct their own, and safely install and use it. I have no intention of selling anything. It will be up to each individual to solve their own installation issues. As for providing you and others with the scientific data, You are invited to build your own and do your own testing. Just like the rest of us are doing.

Read my lips! I have no reason nor do I desire to prove any thing to anyone. If it is not enough that I share that which I have learned with my fellow man. They need to continue supporting OPEC and paying the billions in taxes to the GOVT. If you have not done it yet, do yourself a favor and get just a little education before you continue to knock the inevitable. Google up Pure Energy Systems .com Bob Boyce free hho plans. For absolutly nothing but effort you can get 43 pages if documented educational information that will surely enlighten you beyond you imagination.

I do respect your opinion even tho I may not agree with it. That is the American way!

Toomuchfun

I have no doubt that you can run a combustion engine on H2 and O2. I also have no doubt you can use electricity to break water into H2 and O2. (Heck, I did it with a toy train transformer when I was but a lad about 40 years go. Loved the bang I got when I lit the test tube with a match!)

The only real question is: is it possible to push a car further with such an inefficient setup compared to connecting the battery to an > 80% efficient electric motor? The NUMBERS I've seen say you will get about 4 times further using the battery to push magnets than to use it to create gas which you burn and spend 80% of the energy heating the air.

Stanley Meyers, after years of research, and from what I have been able to determine, borrowed information from a scientist/engineer from some where in Northern Europe, I don't remember the country. found that electrically saturated electrodes will only produce a moderate quantity of HHO. He was basically just expanding on the work of Dr. William A. Rhodes who around 1960 patented Single Duct Oxy-hydrogen gas. Today we call that Browns gas, hydroxy, and a variety of other names. Stanley found that by introducing High voltage at milliamps of power would cause the electrodes to excite the electrolite, that is the H2O in the electrolite to release far more of the hydrogen atoms. Bob Boyce found the same thing to be true, working separately around the same time period. Stanley also found that the HHO needed a significant volume to be able to compensate for the extra fuel needed for starting up and acceleration. Stanley accomplished this by causing a gas pressure build up to 13.4 lbs per sq in. before attempting to drive away. I have since learned that Stan didn't drive the VW Buggy faster than 60 mph. Having raced similar vehicles in the western desert, I cannot tell whether that speed limit was established as the result of the hho limitation or the safe limit that the buggy could be driven. Stans patents can be found by googleing Stanley Meyers Patents. They are in the Public Domain. Bob Boyce found by accident about the pulsing high voltage. I think I will let you find how that occurred yourself. It is a very interesting story. You can find out all about Bob Boyce's free hho plans by googleing Pure Energy Systems .com Bob Boyce free hho plans. If you are sincerely interested in finding the answers to your question look at these two sites. I am confident all of your questions will be answered. Good luck!

toomuchfun

Toomuchfun, the supposed few who have run ice,s with on- demand hydroxy are nothing but BS- Except for a few who used chemicals. I have personally proved on demand by electrolysis is not viable- the Boyce story I have read is that he stopped experiments after his workshop was broken into twice, & his equipment stolen or wrecked- then he was struck by lightning!. There are many people who believe in conspiracy theories- certainly there are collusions at all levels- but if electrolysis was viable, we would all be driving hydroxy on demand vehicles now!.

Neil I suppose that you have gleaned your knowledge about Boyce from the same folks that go around debunking conspiracy theories of all kinds. No one ever asked me, BUT I WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTENING WHILE ON AN ARCHERY HUNTING TRIP IN FLORIDA IN 1990', I WAS ALONE, MY HUNTING FRIEND HAD JUST DROPPED ME OFF NEAR THE AREA I CHOSE TO HUNT. It rained very hard and there was only one lightening strike all that day, no one was with me to witness the strike, but when my hunting friend arrived to pick me up he found me sitting in a foot of water under a very small palm tree out in a shallow pond. I felt like with all of the taller trees around the area I would be safer there. There is only one witness to testify why I was in that pond and he can only testify as to where he found me and the fact that my hair was difficult to get to go into place and remain there when I would comb it. I'm sure that this sounds like one hell of a story, and I Know that it is told exactly as it happened. Does that make it B.S., and me a false profit. Let me trumph your comment about not getting an ice to run on hho alone: You failed, where I did not. I guess that makes me one of those B.S. folks. I suggest that your limited skills and your lack of motivation, and likely possibly your inability to think the issue through to find what you might have done wrong never entered your mind.

It seems that you might just be one of those folks who are destined to let others do for you that which your are not willing to do your self. HANG IN THERE AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OPEC.

Those of us who persevere will share our findings with the world.

Toomuchfun

Allow me please to provide you with the answer that you want to hear. THIS IS JUST SOME MORE PERPETUAL MOTION B.S.!

You can go back to sleep now!

Toomuchfun

As all of the members replying to this are pointing out, there is a lot of controversy within this subject. In reality, in areas of very dense population and poor polution, I.e. Tokyo or London, then an electric car would work very well. It could be achieved in these areas because of the relatively small distances travelled and the relatively low speeds. In the US where population density is lower, electric cars are at present not a reality. As a thought, if we are looking to save fuel and knock our reliance on fossil fuels, perhaps the use of water should be considered. In 1974 a man called Archie blue converted a mini to run on water by simple hydrolysis and mixing of the released hydrogen and oxygen with air in the carburettor which made a rudimentary fuel allowing him to drive around reasonably successfully. The advantage for this is that water is readily available, and the emissions from your car would be, water, oxygen, and some nitrates. This would also be beneficial to areas of the world where there is heavy pollution helping to clear up some of the mess. I must stress that this is not a long term solution, but would supply us with a stop gap solution until hydrogen fuel cells or whatever more complicated system that scientists devise comes along. Alternatively, this could just go the same way as the lean burn engine!!

Regarding your comments about cities like Tokyo, you are correct. But have you flown over the north eastern united states lately. I have and I can asure you that from about Petersburg VA. to Main.
there is no break in the populated area. There does exist some rail transit available for some areas. And where it exists many folks use it. These would be great candidates for the use of EV.s provided they could travel the distances needed. HOWEVER; THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY THE OUTRAGEOUS ASKING PRICES DEMANDED FOR THESE VEHICLES. Build a better mouse trap and they will buy it.

Toomuchfun

I compliment you on your revealing the historical story about Archie Blue. Unfortunately the NAY-SAYERS believe its B.S.: Some Of them are just wanting to argue. They are just agravated folks looking for something to argue about, many with nothing else to do. Others are unwilling to do all of the work in a professional manner to absolutely provide their point of possible or not possible. These folks want to chastise those of us that are having successes with experimentation in this field for accomplishing that which we have, while we continue to refine the process. I suppose some of them are feeling threatened for their lively hoods as their incomes are likely to be affected as the world weans it self away from the control of the auto makers, and their chain of industrial supporters, and the petroleum producers and the extended chain of supporting businesses that feed off the production of petroleum. Collectively that may be as many as 20% of the population. It's not unlike those who dine at the Govt. trough. The pigs get fatter the longer they dine while the rest of us are force to find a little leaner diet.

Toomuchfun

There is no need to be nasty. All I wanted was some numbers, not a verbal whipping for daring to ask or doubt the possibility of HHO being viable and practical. I would be glad if it did work. I have yet to see ANYTHING from you that is definitive. You describe some processes that are supposed to work, but I see no numbers.

How much energy does it take to provide a given quantity of HHO? When that quantity of HHO is combusted how much energy is released?

Stop with the conspiracy theories and take off the tinfoil hat. All that is important are the numbers.

As A small time fabricator, I find that I do not need to own the type of equipment needed to accurately measure the performance of the fuel gas that you request. I need only to find away to make enough to satisfy my particular need. You ask for numbers! you were not very specific in the exact numbers that you asked for. Further you don't say what you need the numbers for. Only that you will crunch the numbers to check their validity. With all of the nay-sayers posting negative comments and putting their own spin on the subject why should anyone be willing to share such info with them.

Hydrogen and oxygen each have their specific atomic weights, with hydrogen being lighter, and creating smaller bubbles, than the oxygen, by a significant difference, It would take a very specialized piece of equipment to measure it. That is in quantity actually released vs the amount available for release. Electrolites differ in their atomic weights according to their chemical make-up. Electrolite difference will make a difference in production. I have chosen to use distilled white vinegar in distilled water. However I cannot attest that all brands that advertise that the mixture in the container is exactly 5% is exactly 5%. The water in Lake Tahoe is advertised to be 99.5% clean. But at what time of year and just where was the water sampled. There is only 73 miles of coast line, and I don't remember just how many towns are around the lake. You ask for the kind of information that you must get for yourself. Other wise you cannot with any certification state the results of my numbers
vs your numbers vs accurate numbers.

Their are potentially so many variables that it is impossible to accurately answer your question. If 1.23 volts are applied to the electrode how much hho is released. Do you presume that the same quantity of Hydrogen is released at all electrolite temperatures. And at what barometric pressure. Does the soluna table have any effect on the performance. For the kinds of questions you ask. YOU MUST DO YOUR OWN TESTING. No one else's numbers can lead to a reasonable affirmative answer.

Toomuchfun

In my humble opinion, what you are saying is utter BS-& you are a BS Artist. yes i have tried all the ways you sprout to make HHO- NONE are effective enough to produce enough hydroxy to even idle a ice- let alone leave the curb!. I started my efforts after reading Archie Blue story- I proved beyond doubt that his patent design can't work!. Same for Meyer, Boyce, Brown, Garret etc,etc,etc. The only design that can work is aluminium & caustic in H2O- I have used such to light a torch. All electrolytic design use so much power it is not viable(Brown eg ran a stationary small engine & blacked out an entire city block!). IF you towed a trailer with a engine & alternator to produce the 100's of amps needed, you could possibly power your car with enough HHO to go down the road- till you ran out of water!. (you need 4 times the volume of HHO to petrol to produce less power- & engine mods). IF you have spent 4 years non-stop studying this crap, you are a slow-learner at least- I learnt it all in a few months- I have downloaded 1000,s of pages- till I wised up- please wise up- BSA!.

Neil Kwyrer. After reading your post, digesting both what is said and what was not said, I can see that your effort was destined to fail. Uttering allegations that someone is a BS artist with out having examined the productive work accomplished by that individual shows that you are quick to jump to a negative conclusion. I see a tinge of anger that someone else may have succeeded where you failed. You make a comment that I must be a slow learner. I can assure I am not a slow learner, However I do not rush to judgment regarding any issue that needs no such hast. I see no need to build project after project only to have them end up in a box in the corner as just another experiment that did not work out. Professionally, prior to my retiring disabled as the result of an injured back, I was a building contractor. skilled in millwork and capable in all facets of the trade. In other words there was little that I didn't do as far as work is concerned.I found that you commanded far more respect from crew and sub-contractors alike, If you knew as much as or maybe more than they did about their trade. Competitive biding was huge in this industry where you competed against other companies. My bids were generally always among the lowest. If I failed to get the bid it was usually as the result that lower bidders left something out, or failed to comprehend all that would be needed to complete a project. A slow learner, I can't imagine where you get your information but I suggest you look elsewhere
and cease to embarrass your self by making ugly comments about someone you haver met, and even after your abusive conduct toward me I would still share with you the favorable results that I have achieved. No Charge.

Just don't ask me to provide the numbers, as there are no relevant numbers than can be crunched to assess this kind of experimentation. For instance-- Would any one be checking, at the time of the testing, ambient tempreature. relative humidity barrometric pressure. how much ethanol or possibility methanol was present in the comparison gasoline, engine and coolant tempreature, brand of lubricant in the test engines, how long was it in there. I can go on for another several minutes disclosing the stupidity that some of the naysayers have demonstrated through they doubting Thomas remarks. AS a hobby I built and raced cars. I am a fairly good mechanic.

Toomuchfun