Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Back in the late 70's my mom worked for Westinghouse in Oak Ridge, TN, on the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project. Too bad, because as I remember it was a prototype, and would have been a fundamental achievement that should have led to more reactors of its type around the nation. Apparently Congress, in its infinite wisdom, voted to close the project before it was finished. Duane 72 Cutlass Convertible On 11/9/06, Infinite Space Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, 6 Nov 06 Infinite Space Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Their electrical power generation from the output of their nuclear reactors is much more efficient than the power we get. Overall, about a 50% improvement, including fuel production in the more progressive countries' fast-breeder reactors. It's an entire system improvement, which we don't have. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Thanks Milton This is all very interesting. An engine the size of a VW could produce the same thrust as the entire space shuttle. This would give my 442 some real scat! Kerry
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Bruce, 6 Nov 06 Infinite Space Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Their electrical power generation from the output of their nuclear reactors is much more efficient than the power we get. Overall, about a 50% improvement, including fuel production in the more progressive countries' fast-breeder reactors. It's an entire system improvement, which we don't have. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Return Receipt Your document: Re: thoughts on fuel economy was received by: Steve Kammerer/MP/US/Alberto at: 11/08/2006 09:04:55 AM
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
I'm waiting for Mr. Fusion (Back To The Future) that runs off our garbage! Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He was building a car. Put water in, Hydrogen and Oxygen somewhere inside, water comes out the end. I don't believe that, might just as well redirect the water back to the source tank for perpetual motion. Patents are available to the public. If this stuff is so good, how come nobody else in the world is trying these ideas? Bruce Roe 5 Nov 06 1 SoCal67Olds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This subject hits a nerve with me... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-992194168790800q=water+car This is not a hoax. It is fact. Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Kerry, OK Milton I agree with most of what you have said here but Nuke power plants produce more energy than they consume?? Right?? No. The Law of Conservation of Energy applies everywhere in our universe. The power produced by a nuclear power plant is covered by Einstein's famous equation: E=MC2. All the energy comes from the breaking of particle bonds in the nucleus of each atom. That is a tremendous amount of energy release. The energy equation still balances inside a nuclear reactor, energy in equals energy out. The difference in nuclear power reactors is that some designs are much more efficient than older designs. The U.S. is saddled with old style nuclear reactors. The Europeans, the British, and the Japanese are 3-4 generations ahead of us in the types of nuclear reactors they use. Their electrical power generation from the output of their nuclear reactors is much more efficient than the power we get. So the energy is contained in the atomic structure and is converted to another form in the reactor? No, not in the reactor, outside the reactor. The energy from the reactor is used to heat water, or liquid cessium, or another working fliud, which carries the heat to water, creating a superheated steam to run turbine electrical power generators. Can't the H2O's energy be converted to a more usable form and be used to produce work. Its still there and conserved according to the laws of physics. at the end there would be what, less H2O?? That's not the real problem. First, it takes a certain amount of energy to separate the H2 and the O2 from the water. Then, the H2 and the O2 is burned together to make power and do work. The question is, how much energy was necessary to produce a sufficient quantity of H2 and O2 to be able to burn it together and make the required power. So far, even with this guy's improved electrolyis method, it's not economical, at least on a smal scale, and ramp up to large scale has posed some problems that haven't been overcome. There's also one other small problem with using H2 that I've been simply amazed that no one has been talking about. H2 at low pressure burns with a clear flame in daylight. That's right, one can't see it. Even a high pressure H2 jet is mostly invisible. Take a look at the space shuttle main engines burning. The color in the flame cone is almost non-existant. Just thing\k of a small low pressure leak at a H2 refueling station for a H2 fueled car. Somehow it ignites. No one can see the flame. A motorist who is refueling their car walks into it and catches their pants leg on fire. I've used H2. We used it in our NASA funded Scram-Jet experiments to keep the flame lit in the combustion stage at high Mach numbers to stop flame-out. The safety precautions for using H2 as a fuel are extensive, because one can't see the flame burning in daylight. NASA has had hydrogen generators and motors for years right? I wonder how they work verses this guys low voltage water fracture machine? I don't know how they compare, except the items at NASA that burn liquid H2 are rocket engines. I do have a small problem with the term fracture. The bond in the electron shell of a H2O molecule must be broken to separate H2 from O2. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with describing it as fracture. That seems to say that energy is released, yet he claims there is no increase in water temperature. I'd really like to sit down and talk to the inventor. BTW, would you like to know how the NERVA and ROVER nuclear rocket engines worked in the late '50s and early '60s, the engines that would have put us on Mars in 1975 and were killed by LBJ? Basically, one just injected water straight through a ultra high temperature nuclear reactor. The intense heat ripped the H2O molecules apart, creating a high pressure stream of H2 and O2 gas, which was the initial propulsion source. Then the H2 and O2 were reignited at the rear of the exhaust nozzle, like an afterburner of sorts. An engine the size of a VW could produce the same thrust as the entire space shuttle. Water, in the form of ice, is available throughout our solar system. I have at home, sitting on my shelf, the scale model we built of our autotonomous robotic nuclear powered water miner we proposed to NASA while I was at the University of Arizona. The spacecraft used onboard water to power her nuclear rocket engine, based after the NERVA and ROVER concepts. Upon landing at a promising site on an icy asteroid, a superheated steam drill, powered by superheated steam from the reactor, drilled through the crust, the steam melted the ice, the water was sucked up into the water storage tank, when the tank was full, the spacecraft tookoff back to her homebase, using a small portion of the water she just harvested to get there through her nuclear rocket engine. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Thanks Jim Very interesting. Kerry --- Zito, James A (GE Infra, Energy) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Kerry: Nuke power plants produce more energy than they consume?? Right?? Wrong nuclear plants work based on the equation E=MC^2 they are consuming mass to generate power. Since C the speed of light is such a large value only a VERY VERY small amount of matter is actually used in the process.
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
OK Milton I agree with most of what you have said here but Nuke power plants produce more energy than they consume?? Right?? So the energy is contained in the atomic structure and is converted to another form in the reactor? Can't the H2O's energy be converted to a more usable form and be used to produce work. Its still there and conserved according to the laws of physics. at the end there would be what, less H2O?? NASA has had hydrogen generators and motors for years right? I wonder how they work verses this guys low voltage water fracture machine? Kerry --- Infinite Space Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: law of physics that is called The Conservation of Energy. It cannot be violated. Energy into a system *must* equal the energy out of the system.
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
At 06:31 AM 11/6/06 -0800, Kerry wrote: OK Milton I agree with most of what you have said here but Nuke power plants produce more energy than they consume?? Right?? So the energy is contained in the atomic structure and is converted to another form in the reactor? I think the problem is that the raw materials used in a fission reaction (uranium, plutonium? I can't remember) is much like the oil we get out of the ground. Starting the reaction does take some energy, but then again, starting combustion takes some energy as well (the spark). However, what results is the release of far more stored energy than was needed to initiate the reaction. But you didn't put that energy in there in the first place; it was there, it just had to be released. In a way, the hydrogen combustion would be much the same as gasoline *if* we happened to have a whole bunch of free hydgrogen just sitting around like we have oil in the ground. However, the energy released in hydrogen combustion is the energy that's released when H2 combines with O2. If I recall right, it's H2 + H2 + O2 - H2O + H2O (I wrote it that odd way because I can't differentiate between factors and subscripts!) However, creating the free H2 in the first place requires doing the precise reverse of that. So, if we need X amount of energy to do this: H2O + H2O - H2 + H2 + O2 Then we only can get, at most, X amount of energy by burning hydrogen and doing this: H2 + H2 + O2 - H2O + H2O Basically, we're just using hydrogen as temporary storage of energy. Of course, if you could create all your hydrogen just by electrolysis using solar energy, well, then you come out ahead, because you're basically using the hydrogren to store energy you got from the sun, more or less for free (er, well, hypothetically free, anyway). Anyway, I hope this clarifies things more than muddles it. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Bruce, He was building a car. Put water in, Hydrogen and Oxygen somewhere inside, water comes out the end. I don't believe that, might just as well redirect the water back to the source tank for perpetual motion. Right, and petpetual motion won't work, not in this universe. Patents are available to the public. If this stuff is so good, how come nobody else in the world is trying these ideas? Precisely! No truer words were ever spoken. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: thoughts on fuel economy
This subject hits a nerve with me... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-992194168790800q=water+car This is not a hoax. It is fact. 67 Olds From: Joe Vahabzadeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: thoughts on fuel economy A recent Hot Rod magazine (Nov 06) had a little blurb on the bottom of p30 that said 100 MPG is yesterday's news, and mentioned the 1982 result of Project Saturn, which was a 2-seater economy car, 3 cylinder, 5 speed, that averaged 105 MPG on the highway and 75 MPG in the city (on a trip from Warren, Michigan, to New York). The last sentence: Since meeting federal safety requirements and adding creature comforts would have added 200 pounds to the car and required extra horsepower to propel it, GM dropped the program. == A car can run on an engine the size of a medium lawnmower. However, it will not have much acceleration. Be like driving my Jeep. Only with good fuel economy. Many cars get great mileage. VW Diesels got around 50 mpg, with sluggish acceleration. My 45 in^3 motorcycle never got near that mileage on gasoline. A guy down the road here has a NMG car he commutes with No More Gas funky looking 3-wheeled electric car, goes 70 on the hiway All electric, requires 220V ckt to recharge. Employer lets him charge at work for free. Google NMG car to find out more. And, of course, my further question: If they could do that with the technology available in 1982, where's the 100 MPG car of today? === Apparently $2.2x a gallon is not enough to get folks to give up their Huge SUV's When even the rich folks feel the squeeze, then folks will buy small sluggish cars. Too many rich folks yet. --- Chris Witt *the* Rocket Scientist 1303 W. Miller Rd. Lansing MI 48911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message. Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days _ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo005002msn/direct/01/?href=http://www .windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
67 Olds, This subject hits a nerve with me... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-992194168790800q=water+car This is not a hoax. It is fact. Unfortunately, there is another real problem. There is a little law of physics that is called The Conservation of Energy. It cannot be violated. Energy into a system *must* equal the energy out of the system. The inventer must separate H2 and O2 from water and then use the H2 for fuel, which recombines with O2 to make water as a by-product. See anything wrong here? When was the work done? The energy equation for this system will not balance. Also, there is no trick to running electrolyis with tap water. It's done with seawater every single day. Don't get me wrong, I want a zero-point energy device right this minute, along with a cold fusion device. I, personally, have an urgent need for that type of power system. There's a couple of people on this List who know why. But I don't think this device is it. On another note in relation to this invention, the Lone Lantern Society http://www.lonelantern.org/ is a sponsor for the inventer. There's just one problem with that. The Lone Lantern Society is one of those groups that claims 9/11 was a hoax put on by our government. That destroys any credibility the inventer may have been able to claim. No one wants to get into an arguement with me by claiming 9/11 was a hoax. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Bill, Got my vote for more nuke power plants with one condition With the oil we save they give back the 98 octane gas for my 67 Delta 88 Custom 425 so I can get the performance it was made for. That's a deal! Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
May I say that I myself would add 250 lbs to the car just by getting it? 60/40 mpg sounds fair ! - Original Message - From: Joe Vahabzadeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: OT: thoughts on fuel economy Okay, I meant to ask something about this before, but kept putting it off A recent Hot Rod magazine (Nov 06) had a little blurb on the bottom of p30 that said 100 MPG is yesterday's news, and mentioned the 1982 result of Project Saturn, which was a 2-seater economy car, 3 cylinder, 5 speed, that averaged 105 MPG on the highway and 75 MPG in the city (on a trip from Warren, Michigan, to New York). The last sentence: Since meeting federal safety requirements and adding creature comforts would have added 200 pounds to the car and required extra horsepower to propel it, GM dropped the program. Ok, now, this isn't exactly a car that would necessarily appeal to us from an enthusiast's point of view, but for the majority of people, and yes, myself included, as a car just to get to and from work everyday, it seems like it would've been a good idea. After all, I've heard/read a number of stories about people in the 70s and 80s picking up musclecars dirt cheap because so many of the commuting public in general were discarding their gas-guzzlers for economy cars. Alright . . so, how much/little could this car have weighed? So, let's say they added the 200 lbs or whatever. What would that have brought the fuel economy down to? Would it be fair to say, maybe, 60 MPG highway, and 40 city, or a loss of about 40% of fuel economy due to the extra weight? Wouldn't this have sold well in 1982, given the price of gas then? So then, why drop the program? I mean, heck, the Honda CRX, HF version, which came out in, what, 1983 or 1984, could manage over 50 MPG on the highway. It wasn't going to impress anyone with its acceleration, but they did it with a carburetor, and in a car weighing 1900 lbs. I imagine the Project Saturn car weighed notably less to achieve the fuel economy numbers that it did... enough so that I would assume that the 200 extra pounds would've still had this car under the 1900 lb mark. And, of course, my further question: If they could do that with the technology available in 1982, where's the 100 MPG car of today? Yes, these are the things that sometimes puzzle me at odd hours - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
Joe - The higher fuel economy cars died on the vine so to speak because fuel became cheap / readily available again after the 70's early 80's. The Civic that you mention was rated at 67 highway and 55 in the city - in 1984 ! Of course, dropping the CAFE requirements did not help anyone either in the long run. I am different that a lot on here - I do believe that we need to start to build fuel efficient cars as things are different that in the 60's. Nothing wrong with the 60's cars, and not that I want in anyway to stop driving them. No in fact, I believe in going forward, we as a nation need to stop producing inefficient vehicles that are capable of speeds in excess of 125 mph, when nowhere in this nation can you legally drive faster than 75 mph. Personally I would rather drive something with better mileage than less, if nothing more than to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Same reason I drive ONLY American cars to begin with I guess. Set the base minimal highway mileage at say, 50 mpg minimum for cars, 30 mpg for light trucks - and see what happens - well I can tell you what will happen as it has happened in the past - you will get cars and trucks that will do just that, get better mileage and still be fast enough to get a speeding ticket in ANY of the fifty states - (yes - the aforementioned 84' Civic had a top speed of 89 mph - I know, I drove one) and we as a nation will still get to our jobs, get to the store and do those things that need to get done, and as a bonus, it will make all of those with a older / higher performance car richer - as I am sure that it will make them more valuable. More rambling / puzzling thoughts to add to your own Joe - David
