Are Electric Cars Practical

Good luck feeding OPEC Neil! The rest of us will be driving our impossible cars!

See Ya Blue

I appreciate your come back Blue; Toomuchfun here!

I have determined that I will not respond to either Neil nor tagumandrun. It seems that because Neil couldn't figure his problems out, Neither can anyone else in his lone opinion. As for Tagumandrun he doesn't have a clue either. He clearly is trying to compare electrical energy input against the explosive out put of Oxy-hydrogen. It is like trying to compare small fire works against the MOAB. Real Scientists know that hydrogen contains more than 1400 times the explosive force of gasoline. However I doubt that anyone can say without some doubt the exact explosive force of Oxy-hydrogen, as I doubt that there is any way of accurately determining the exact percentage of hydrogen that has been separated from the oxygen atoms. Similar issues surface when attempting to determine exact gasoline mileages. For instance just how much ethanol or methanol remained in the gasohol blend at the time it was pumped. Both if these are alcohols and will readily blend with water. Every fuel tank in this nation has water/ condensation in it. Most have as much as 1/3 of the tank intentionally filled with water to keep it in the ground. The gasoline floats on top, the plumbing never reaches the water level. And in time the alcohol will be attracted to the water and or condensation, and the tanks with Diesel fuel are known to be come contaminated with water and algae both. I could go on for at least another half hour explaining the kinds of difficulties that impair those who wish to establish exact fuel mileages and why they can differ from day to day. These kinds of issues are exactly what stands in the way of scientists attempting to get exact numbers. Tagumandruns' comments seem to classify him with the group that hasn't a clue. I won't waste anymore time with responding to his comments. Life is to short!

Toomuchfun

Dear electrolysis fans, we have no doubts that oxidising hydrogen will yield significant exotherm.

The discussion devolved at claims that a bootstraps electrolysis system, using the same prime mover to generate electricity for same, plus drive vehicle would be useful transportation.

At last look, generators were ~ 80-95% efficient, I.C. engines 20-45%; no bootstrapping here!

Try a FUEL CELL, don't burn it!

Dear Sidevalveguru, You are correct about the standard efficiency ratings of generators and ICE's.

The main problems with the CURRENT technology of fuel cells (note I said current) are

(1 the extraordinary expense (ranging from $345,000 for the cell being developed by Daimler-Benz to $495,000 for the unit designed by GM).

(2 The units each must be completely overhauled (stripped down and the permeable membrane that creates the electron flow replaced) every 3000 hours. Not 3000 miles, hours. That is of course a longer interval (125 days) than the recommended oil change, however, the standard oil change for most road capable ICE's does not cost $123,000 USD. The present cost of manufacturing the membrane.

If, and I stress that word, the membrane construction enters mainstream manufacturing, then one would assume the cost to come down. I will believe the automotive manufacturers to be reliable when I see the cost of a fuel cell vehicle comparable to a current production fuel efficient automobile setting in a showroom for purchase, NOT display.

So therefore I and others will continue "hauling on our bootstraps" to produce some method more efficient than paying some one else for the "privilege" of putting more money in the pockets of people who have shown their lack of concern for the environment and humanity at large for nearly half a century.

My opinion of course, Dragon

My personal favourite 'solution' for the requirement of an alternative for petrol: Methanol

1 Hydroxyl/molecule; pretty clean.

I see it synthsised from JUNK MAIL; an abundant supply!

(4)H₂O + (2)CO → CH₃OH + O₂

Seems reasonably straightforward to me; where in an urban setting could we find a source of CO?

A very similar process is already in use, using natural gas w/ catalyst.

Methanol makes an excellent motor fuel.

Guest, OPEC reportedly gets $3 barrel oil under longterm contracts- the financial markets are what sets the prices to the refiners, marketers, distributors- manipulated by Govt,s' for financial gain- guess who pays?- thats right- the consumer suckers!!. The whole point that has been missed here is that we are fighting gravity in everything we do- why do we drive heavy vehicles with their hungry energy demand- great when fuel was cheap- now we have to lighten up!. As an example, drive a moped- you will get 10x further on same fuel- or stay at home, drink hb beer etc & let your mind wander!. Or believe in Astral travel & practice it!. Or research what gravity is- nobody knows yet!. Have to go- glug,glug,gluggity glug-<burp>- Florida, here I come!.

Neil - I think you nailed Toomuchfun exactly, which is why he is so upset. None of anything about HHO can be proven by his conspiracy theory or rants. All I asked was how much energy in and how much out. His figures, using his methods and he rants that every person must do their own tests because he doesn't have that kind of equipment. He cannot provide even his own energy in, energy out numbers, because he has none. The only way to treat such a True Believer is to ignore him.

My first post on this thread stated my opinion that EVs are not now practical unless you use a fueled generator for distances over 25 miles, because of the expanse of the batteries. To reduce the pollution and make the fueling more flexible using a more efficient design, I suggested a short-range EV with a steam engine to operate a generator. With modern materials, designs and techniques steam is more efficient than IC. I have done some online research which shows that this a very workable alternative choice with a hybrid car.

If anyone wishes I will send everything I have for their consideration and comment.

Taganan, I agree with you about the points you made- as to steam, I also agree-but new technology is needed-New Scientist 15 Dec 2001 had an article- "The new age of steam". As to HHO fuelling ice,s, a long time proponent, Dingle of the phillipines, has been found fraudelent- a local college used emission equipment to monitor the tailpipe gases of the supposedly water burning car- found exactly the same as petrol emissions- proving that this is a fraud, as I would say are 99% of so called HHO on demand are!!!.

Neil- Thank goodness Toomuchfun will not reply to us. He was so childish as to have to make fun of the name I use here rather than use it correctly, showing his mental level.

Toomuchfun, thanks for your kind comments, I am of the opinion that none of the nay sayers here have read any historical work. If they read around the subject they would find that in the 1950's there were many jerry built add ons to cars that hydrolysed water as a fuel addative. Many people had this done by the local mechanic, as to whether this truly added to the fuel or simply increased the gaseous pressure in the carburettor and thus increased the compression in the engine, I don't know.

I do believe that Archie Blue had a working car, it was featured on a BBC show called tomorrows world. I am not suprised that his patented design does not universally work, bearing in mind that the car that was used was a mini, which is a fairly light car which had a small but reasonably efficient engine. The other thing to bear in was that his working prototype was based on one of the channel islands, which have a very unique weather system. They always have rainy days and hot summers, which would help a car running on water. For those who have researched this properly, they will find that his car was independently checked and verified by the RAC(royal automobile club). If you wish to verify this, then you can contact them.

A lot of the doubters also seem to have missed the fact that a carburettor is used, thus the hydrolysed water is mixed with air and a rudimentary fuel is formed, this is simple physics and if people cannot see this and insist that we are talking about a type of perpetual motion, then they should go back to school and try to find a way of opening and broadening their mind.

Guest, Archie Blue used only the base of the carby- the HHo was blown in under pressure by a blower- the supposed RAC endorser said the car drove ok till blower burnt out at speeds up to 30 mph- Blue had millionaires backing him- yet he returned from the islands, said nothing, did nothing, till he died- in other words he found that his sytem did not work reliably!. It is interesting that devotees in NZ trying to emulate his supposed design used 3 of his electrolysers, as 1 did nothing- then they all stopped experiments- for the simple reason that it JUST DON't WORK!!!!.

Dear Neil,

Thanks for your reply, I won't argue with you about Archie Blue as you have your opinion and I have mine and that being the beauty of our sociological system we can agree to disagree. I do notice that you have'nt commented on the fact that people in the 1950s had a hydrolysed water system in their cars, this is a documented fact and a similar system as an addition is being championed in Australia. Nobody is reinventing the wheel, we are not coming up with urban legends like the Buick that never needed refuelling! In simple terms, like a lot of technology, it gets forgotten. There is no conspiracy theory, technology moved on, conventional thinking moved in a different direction, but when you look back there is evidence of this being tried before, the human race has a habit of reinventing technology time and again, I guess that we really are just stupid, but who Knows?

Guest, I have experimented with all forms of hydrolysis- the only thing it does is to slow the rate of burn in an ice- there is no more economy- I had a 11 to 1 comp v8- it pinged on acceleration- I found solution by either retarding ignition thru a lever & cable, or pressing a momentary switch which ran a windshield wiper pump thru a jet into the top of carby- all thru auto history scammers have claimed that THEIR solution is THE ANSWER- unfortunately time has revealed ALL- YES ALL_ are out to make money or are genuinely deluded- the EPA in USA has tested ALL devices- in NO case are any that work as claimed!!!.

Dear Neil,

As I have tested no devices so far, I will defer to your judgement, all I will add to this is that a student of physics at leicester university some 15 years ago developed a water powered engine, he decided that the design that he had used was inefficient. It did work for pushing a small boat down the local canal, however when a larger version was made and mounted in a basement, the vibrations from it were felt 12 sories above where another poor student was trying to take an exam and his desk was moving. I hope that this would give other engineers some insights into the possibility of water powered cars, because I believe it to be possible and the benefits in areas like Tokyo or London are obvious, performance may always elude engineers though. Perhaps it is a time for a change in attitude from consumers, oil wont last forever!