Which Path for Auto Power?

The fact that the use of ethanol has a huge demand on corn crops that have been in turn raising the costs of food for all humans, much less americans is testing my patience.

A fuel alternative is not an alternative if it ends up costing just as much as before, for say crude oil, not any safer for the environment, and creates food shortages by forcing farmers to provide large percentages of their crops to supply for fuel consumption.

There is no winning if the same people control the means and profit from any source of energy. We are all being sucked into this black hole created by industry and their common practice of avarice and planned obsolescence.

Independent thought is the only way to traverse these terrains. And when a good idea comes about, those who have it must not let it be bought and buried so the very few can monopolize it for their own gain.

Good morning. Your note does not say who you are.

I have read where the cost of corn has risen from $2 a bushel to $8 a bushel, because of our politician's "wise" mandating of ethanol for mogas. And their ignorant laws mandate even further future increases. Such stupidity. I understand the large majority of "farmers" are not the mom and pop variety, but huge conglomerates that are making a killing on the corn increases. So I agree with your hint that this is a wrong consumption path.

I think the US should build more nuclear power plants. They say France obtains 70% of their power from nuclear. This would free up oil to power our autos until a breakthru is developed in another realm.

I take umbrage at your "yet again" comment. Oil has served us well for 100 years. How would you've powered our cars, with wind power?

The combustion engine was invented to make use the then waste product of Oil called petrol. Since then the combustion engine makers have had a real stake in ensuring no alternative to the their invention clanky clanky whirl grind bang idea of making straight bits of of metal rotate in a circle.

This antiquated system is world wide and used by every engine manufacturer except rotary. Its not that engines have not been invented that will give more power from a fart than a litre of Oil its just that so many inventors dont want to pour more money into making world boat moorings.

Does anyone realy beleive that in the near three hundred years since modifing the steam engine only rotary is the only one to come up with a different solution.

Please before you again take umbridge at someones "yet again" coment you give some consideration to these few simple facts.

Hello DaS ENERGY, Toomuchfun here!

Maybe I am a little older than you, but I learned years ago that the first ICE's were fueled by Hydrogen/any combustible gaseous fuel available, suitable for that purpose.

Not long after though it was found that alcohol distilled to a near 99% value was more affordable and quite suitable for this use.

Gasoline was an undesirable waste by-product from the cracking of crude oil, at the time. It was not intended for use in ICE's. However, after it was found to perform satisfactorily, and was quite available at almost give it away prices it became the fuel of choice for general transportation. Alcohol (ethanol and methanol) were the choice for most racing engines for many decades, and castor oil was the lubricant of choice as well.

Because of its availability, gasoline has been pushed to the fore front as the almost only available auto fuel world wide, challenged only by diesel fuel of course.

We are led to believe that ethanol is less expensive to produce as an alternative fuel than methanol, but if all issues are factored in, this is untrue. Ethanol is a product of grain distillation, cost lots of money for fertilizer and machinery to harvest and haul, and then to distill.

However: if you factor in the fact that local and state highway depts., utility companies and even local residents pay mightily to have trees and brush trimmed through out the year and hauled to land fills, where they take up valuable space that cost millions to create for refuse containment, and that all of these dollars are lost as a useful product that could be turned into methanol, a product that can also be blended with gasoline, the picture changes dramatically. Grains should be and could be used as food products for human and animal consumption only. Switch grass is one of the premium plants that can be used as a raw material for the production of methanol.

Unfortunately however: As long as "politicos" can be bought off by big industry, the better ways of fueling ICE's will never be available to the public.

TMF

Thank you Toomuchfun,

Any man can destroy a Castle but few can build the simpliest thing. So oft do we see the standard practice of politicos 1st deny it till that no longer works, then ridicule it for all its worth till the punter see your the joke, then promote it as your idea so obvious all along. Things only change for the better when few good men rise from the crowd and make a stand.

Cheers

Peter

Actually, many of the "Large conglomerates" actually in farming are just wealthy corporations owned by a few families. It is just the nature of the "family farm" when your farm increases to a certain size you form a closely held corporation to protect from liabilities. The farmers join cooperatives or other organized similar corporate structures to handle many tasks from harvesting to processing to resale. For large volume very low profit crops like corn and wheat, this is the best way to make any profits as these must be grown on very large areas of land (even as a grain source). Of course there are corporation like ADM, but for the most part if you research most other farming corporations you usually find they are closely held by one or two families. The corporate structure is used to pass the family farming interest down to the children, it is much lie the railroad families did with the post Civil war railroad companies. No grower of corn or wheat makes a huge killing, they are just doing better than when the only market was for a surplused market for food. They would make a much larger profits on much less land if the moved to one of the large agricultural states like Florida, Texas or California and grew iceberg lettuce, artichokes or strawberries, but corn or wheat is what they think they know. (Plus they could hold less land for a decade or so, and resell it to land developers at huge profits for home building.)

"Is this the right path?"

"some say...As much fossil fuel as the volume of fuel created."

Do the math.

milo

Hello Milo

Happy to hear you contribute. The multi-fuel engine is a good idea for someone who travels around the world in his personal car for obvious reasons! But I don't know anyone who does that! Do you? "SOME HOW": the need for such an engine with these capabilities escapes me as we do not have all of these fuels available at the local fill ups and it is not likely to happen any time soon. To me it is just some more Baffelum with B--- S---! Don't you see! Another waste of engineering time and expense. Don't you know! I suggest they invest in developing an engine that will perform on mostly Oxy-Hydrogen with a little of something else added as needed for upper cylinder lubricant.

My thoughts are that it would have more, but smaller cylinders with a shorter stroke, possibly a 2 cycle based design might work. Might even consider the "Scotch Yoke design" with multiple cylinders. Might be a waste of money to delve too deeply into any of the aforementioned suggestions, but I think that is what they are doing any way, wasting money. If the only fuel available is mostly gasoline based, we haven't gained any thing worth the added expense.

TMF

Automotive engineers are not redesigning engines, they are "tweaking" the fuel delivery systems. The only well known competitor to the reciprocating piston engine is the Wankel and it is not a true rotary engine. It is also inefficient and lacks power.

A true rotary turbine, like the Parsons, is unsuitable for motive power because of it's delicacy: very touchy about fuel mixture and type, subject to explosive destruction, (ask any turbine engineer),and high machining cost.

However an engine was designed and built at the beginning of the twentieth century that solves all of those problems: The Tesla Turbine engine.

It is over ninety percent efficient on any fuel, has been run at over 9,000 RPMs without any sign of failure, is very inexpensive to manufacture and produces nearly ten horsepower per pound weight of the engine.

If you are interested contact the Tesla Engine Builders Association.

My son and I are working out the details of building these engines commercially for retrofit to existing vehicles as well as totally new designs for the engine and vehicles.

Regards, Dragon