Here is another guy that has been doing that for well over 10 years. He has made a business of it for a long time now.

Geeee.. Nice -Duster- there definetly. I will like to recommend to modify and adapt somekind of transmission for that puppy, absolutly. Probably between some gear reducer or something that relief some load out of the motor in order to have some constant torque available. Just brainstorming here a little for the fun of it, don't take to the bank yet!

Good idea the whole thing congratulation pal's....

Sound Strong to Me,

MC

OK, now, I AM an environmentalist, not just someone who says he is. My educational background is environmental biology (chemistry minor), and I have been working in the environmental, health, and safety (ES&H) field for about 30 years. I have dealt with land use, air quality, water quality, threatened and endangered species, hazardous materials and waste management, basically every environmental protocol. I do not pretend to speak for all environmental scientists (let alone wannabes), and I am disturbed by those who do. Which you just did.

Granted, there are some loonies in the field, what area of endeavor has none? I don't think I am one, although opinions may differ. But PLEASE refrain from tarring us all with the same brush. We are not all Sierra Club members, Greenpeace supporters, or PETA petitioners. Some of us actually DO things to make the world a better place to live. And I have yet to say even once that any of the things you describe are "evil and destructive". The behavior of some of the people and companies doing them have been rather shabby upon occasion, though. Some of the things done by industry were so obviously wrong that even without regulations in place they really should have known better.

Unlike reasoned professionals, like Enviroman, the environmental whackos do not think beyond their emotions. The environuts though are loud, often famous and almost invariably politically Leftist. They do not think through the results of getting what they wish for. The PETA, militant vegans, organic-only food and raw food types want to ban using animals for labor and any animal product as food or clothing. The extreme anti-CO2 types would ban fire, therefore no smelting of metal for tools. The extreme wildlife protectors would reduce the population [themselves excepted] so as not to impact on animal habitats.

The result of all these groups getting what they wish for would be a drastically reduced population, living only on tiny reservations, eating raw, uncooked, food, grown on bug-infested organic plants, grubbed out using stone tools by hand labor. They would likely be nearly naked as cloth would be difficult to make cloth by hand. In other words they would live in a Stone Age. LOL

They will never see that as the end result of their combined efforts because they are the elite to which none of this will really apply, they are in denial. You got a GA from me.

I think that the more important issue is that the "zero carbon" car isn't - in more ways than has already been discussed. Yes, parts come from carbon-based industries, but what of the energy itself? Has anyone checked how much of the electricity they will use to power the car comes from burning coal, natural gas, and other oil-based products? Combine that with energy loss every time we do an energy conversion from one form to another and then the loss due to battery storage and the "zero-carbon" car will cause more "carbon-pollution" than it would if it had a modern internal combustion engine and burned gasoline. Most folks, and it appears especially politicians and environmental radicals (note I did not say environmentalists - some of which are extremely bright individuals doing very important things for our country and world), don't understand the physical principles or the math. If we ran purely nuclear, solar, hydro-electric, and/or wind power etc, they would have a much better arguement, but until we do, they are actually making more carbon by "going electric".

Yes, there are two significant electric cars on the radar screen: the GM Volt and Tesla Motors TR35 sports car.

The Volt a $23thousand car, that in electric form promises at $40thousand, the same performance. The battery needs replacement every 100thousand miles for $20thousand or therebout. On the market: dead on arrival.

The TR35 sports car is $100thousand (yes, you read it right), the battery is some $40thousand every 100thousand miles. The Times Magazine just awarded it as one of the greatest recent innovation of the year(?!?), even when the company is going under. It is a rich mans NiMBY toy, where the fool believes doing "something". He will buy it in Beverly Hills, where it is clean for HIM. The juice is generated in Idaho in a coal fired power plant, and the rest of us peons in the east can enjoy double pollution. When you consider all the (in)efficiencies in the scheme, They double the fuel needed to generate the power. Just for starters, you will get 60 - 65% of the charge out of a battery you put into it. On the market:deader than dead on arrival.

Do I want the prospect of a lithium fire in the back of my car? Not any more, than I want to sit over pressurized hydrogen bottle bomb. I leave those exercises for the true believers.

Compared to the blooming morons involved here, the Edsel was a stroke of genius.

I was remiss not to include the following in my previous note.

EnviroMan, I read many of your previous notes. And most of the time our goals meshed reasonably well. Why is it so? Because we are worker bees. We have to confront and solve REAL problems, and know, there are very, very few ideal solutions available. I do confidently include the professor speaking before.

On the other hand, there are people, who would not be found dead getting their fingers dirty with lowly real life problems. They just wish, demand and try to force their less than halfbaked ideas via the courts or legislations. And those high flying wishes invariably lead to guaranted flops and misery. Do they learn from it? Naw, what for?

Recent examples are :

Ethanol fuel in north america. It was pushed for decades. Now, that is in our law, within one year everybody is running away from it, as it is - predictably - asinine. Biofuel picked up recently on some scale, and guess what? Major food dislocations and hunger and political instability resulted around the globe. Murphy's law in action? Recapturing power plant exhausts. 3 - 10 times energy price, permanent dirtying of the ground water. Other than that it is a stroke of genius. Atomic power? Gremlins and hobgoblins including slaying of invisible dragons. How do the French and Japanese manage it, for example? They simply must be all superman dealing with Cryptonite! And the list could go on and on....

No, my friend, us worker bees doing things in real world are generally accountable and therefore responsible. Those, whose contribution is pollinating us with less than halfbaked ideas, want to be judged by the grandness of their ideas, never mind the consquences. Nice gig, if you can get it!

"Nice gig, if you can get it!"

I suppose, but who'd WANT it? I'm happier getting my hands dirty finding real solutions to real problems. You are too, correct? So let them have their pie in the sky, and eat it, too - I'll take a baloney sandwich (ham, on a good day...) any day.

An EV is expensive to build, is limited in range and speed, go slow and go farther, go fast and the distance is shorter. Unless you are a zealot who likes to only go 25 miles from home at 45 mph, and never drives farther, even in emergency, going home first to recharge or going to rent or get a standard IC powered car for those longer trips, an EV is not the best solution.

What you start with is that short-range, plug-in EV, but to overcome the shortcomings you need to add an onboard electric generating system. Since 80% of your driving would be about 25 miles from home it would be as an EV. Most electricity is generated using steam power. Steam power is not ideal to directly power the wheels of a car, but it is excellent at making electricity. Use a small, efficient, safe Lamont design water-tube boiler, a Lysholm expander or a Tesla Turbine with a condenser in a sealed system. The open flame is cleaner than an IC engine and it can be built for more types of fuel.

Saw a lot more on this by e-mail from - beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk - asked about steam-electric hybrid.

Hallo

You are absolutely right. Maybe not the way it is convenient, but right. EV in our lifetime? My best assessment: I don't think so, not on your life. Better technology beyond that? Better technology is a natural. Are you kidding??!!?? Obviously, it is a stupid comparison.

Every two or three generation the science world view is changing, fundamentally. Therefore, projecting the charcoal regime to the coal regime and the atomic regime, the fusion regime, the xxxx regime is PLAIN IDIOTIC, WHILE THE CHATTERING CLASSES DO NOT DO ANYTHING, BUT TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY'S ISSUES.

They are famous for discussing the levantine vs. triangular sails etc, etc.... looong after that issue entered the engineering vocabulary. Today, you need an enthusiast and an antiquity specialist event to talk about meaningfully.

The same for radioactivity. For a century and half it is known to us. But the COGNOSCENTI are willfully and intentionally ignorant of it.

Well, screw them, the slow ones. Do they have the desire to be part of the solution? Then, better get their asses in gear, and be the part of the solution, not just the problem.

I do not give a rip about, what they propose. But:

"Be part of the solution, be quiet, or just get out of the way."

best regard

Levente