why is no one excited about ethanol?

reply to post by Hopup Dave
Yes Dave, I realize you weren't referring to free energy. QuickFix was, and I made the assumption it was the wireless power transmission, as I have seen many others also assume it was free energy.

As to your idea, I have considered it. But to be honest, I really don't yet know what I think of it overall. It would be a great way to provide transportation, but I also see a couple of flaws. There would have to be some way to meter the amount of power used for each vehicle, so the commuters could be charged an appropriate price for it. This would have to be pretty much foolproof, as people who do not wish to pay have this way of finding ways to not pay.

There would be a huge infrastructure change or addition, of course, to add electrical 'slot' power to all the highways.

Of course, new vehicles would have to be developed to use the power strips.

This would not work in driveways or dirt roads, unless the owners of such paid to have the power installed in them. No off-roading.

Changing lanes would be difficult, since the vehicle would have to follow the electrical strips. Perhaps some sort of built-in power reserve could allow a momentary disconnect from one strip until another could be contacted?

All in all, it is one of those proposals which is possible, but is it practical? I really don't know.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by MacSen191
...
Is this true? That it'll kill an older car faster? If that's the case that may be why people aren't excited about it.

I first used a Gane alcohol/water injector on a 55 Chevy

It will not harm a car, but newer cars have computers that will ovverride alcohol hydrogen and enrich the mixture to cancel out any benefits.
You need to get an eprom chip to make a newer car benefit from green tech

reply to post by TheRedneck


The whole point of using the Tesla Electrical Energy Transmitters is that:
1. There would not be any need to embed "slots" or rails. Since the transmission of energy would be wireless.
There are ways of charging the consumer the appropriate fee for use. Digitally identified cars, keys etc. Confirmation of "user identity" by fingerprint at the point of entry to the highway (not requiring stopping) by the use of technology available today. Infrastructure would be needed, but not nearly so expensive as embedded rails, as the Tesla coils can be roadside and therefore not hindering lane changes. The consumer charges his vehicle at home overnight and drives via battery power to the commuter highway where his vehicle is identified and begins it's low voltage DC recharging wirelessly on the go. He exits the commuter route at his exit and then drives by battery to his place of employment. Maybe he recharges if necessary there or he would probably have enough stored energy to return to the commuter route where he recharges while discharging on the way home.

When compared to the cost of other fuel alternative infrastructure and the length of time required to accomplish it, this would be the fastest conversion, the least expensive and begins the environmental and resource savings in near term.

My problem with all the other alternatives is that it will require many years of development to begin realizing any benefit and the cost to the user (you and I) will be exhorbitant. Look at the cost of hybrid cars today and what electric cars (with the hundred mile battery and quick recharge capability) are going to cost.

I cannot afford to take the loss of value of my car in a trade in to get a 30 to 50 thousand US dollar car to save me $1500 in gas per year. So there is no incentive to get me to do it.

A 3,000 dollar tax break ain't gonna do it, that's for sure. And this is what will keep the gasoline burners on the road for many, many years to come.

Toyota is advertising on TV their hybrid that gets a whopping 35 MPG. Our 1999 Buick Century V-6 gets 33 mpg now! Our Saturn LS gets 38 mpg with a 4 banger gas burner. I don't see any real progress being made.

reply to post by Hopup Dave
Ah! I did fail to catch your idea completely. Of course, some sort of electrical connection would still be required to the ground for the electrical transmission. That was a requirement of the original transmitter in Colorado Springs, and I see no way it can be eliminated. Just as an antenna requires a ground, so does any receiver of energy using Tesla's technology.

A ground connection would be simpler to implement than a complete electrical transmission through the road however. That's in your favor.

I'm not trying to shoot this down, as I consider it an excellent possibility and a great example of thinking 'outside the box'. And your points about the viability of purely electrical cars and the lack of progress on fuel mileage are right on target. Maybe someone reading this forum has the power to get the idea to those who can implement it, or at least those who can iron out the details. Keep those neurons firing!

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Quickfix
Glad to help. I have to point out, however, that CO2 is not a pollutant. It will be produced whenever carbon is oxidized, whether that oxidation is through combustion or life processes or chemical reactions. It also is necessary for plant life, which is necessary for animal life (including ours).

Hydrogen is indeed the only fuel we know of that does not contain carbon and therefore produces no carbon dioxide. However, hydrogen is unproven. By that I mean that I cannot just go down to the car dealer and purchase a hydrogen-powered car. Nor can I take such a car to a fueling station and fill the tanks if I were able to purchase one. Nor have I been able to actually built a hydrogen-powered engine yet. The videos you see on YouTube are typically scams, which use some hidden energy source to produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis. This does not produce energy, as it requires just as much energy to produce the hydrogen as one would get from burning it or using it in a fuel cell, if we assume 100% efficiency.

Tesla's 'free energy' wasn't free, if you are talking about the wireless transmission of power he is known for. The power could have been obtained for free by someone with a receiver, but the power was generated by more mundane means. There are plenty of theories floating around about how some of his other devices could be used to produce free energy, but so far no one has been able to demonstrate it.

So while I think hydrogen may someday be a great idea, and while I admire Tesla's work and his ingenuity, reality still says we have no present fuel source that is not carbon-based. If that changes, great. But until it does, we still need fuel.

TheRedneck

I know CO2 isn't a pollutant, i think everyone should know alteast basic chemistry. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the same stuff we humans emit.

However, hydrogen is unproven. By that I mean that I cannot just go down to the car dealer and purchase a hydrogen-powered car. Nor can I take such a car to a fueling station and fill the tanks if I were able to purchase one.

Car dealers are for chumps, but if you don't want to convert your car Honda is coming out with hydrogen cars next year if you want to wait, but the technology is here now. The fueling station, are you kidding me? Go to your filtered water and just put it in the tank.

Nor have I been able to actually build a hydrogen-powered engine yet.

You don't need specfic type of engine to burn hydrogen the engine in the car should work fine.

The videos you see on YouTube are typically scams, which use some hidden energy source to produce hydrogen from water through electrolysis.

Well theres bacteria that can be used to separate hydrogen from water at a certain warm temperature besides using electrolysis. Do you have any proof that the youtube videos are a scam? Maybe the oil company starting to build hydrogen cars and their refueling stations, have an answer.

Having a refueling station is the companies residual income, why give them residuals when you can just recyle the emission?

Just so you know there are already cars that run on water.

reply to post by Quickfix
Thank you for the clarification on CO2. The untruths about this normally harmless gas are beginning to show some serious effects on the world's economy, and I have made it my main focus to dispel the myths about it wherever I find them.

As to the Honda cars, I am anxiously awaiting their debut. I do not intend to buy one yet, but I am very interested to see how they handle the refueling problems associated with a lack of infrastructure and the explosion hazards. I really hope they can get these things ironed out.

But I must disagree with you that my car could burn hydrogen right now. I could supplement the fuel mixture with a hydrogen-enhanced air flow system, but even that would no doubt require some extra tuning for efficiency of operation. All fuels are different, and we are talking about a switch from liquid to gaseous, and from highly combustible to explosive.

As to YouTube, the fact that I have been working on this very thing as well tells me these video clips are charlatan attempts at making fast cash before a dash. their explanations are usually full of scientific inaccuracies, and their prototypes always resemble standard electrolysis units. The latter point is that electrolysis of water via direct current cannot exceed a 100% energy transfer in theory, much less in application. In other words, the hydrogen produced is not new energy, but simply an energy transfer mechanism.

At least, that is true of the clips I have watched. I'm sure I have missed some, but should one actually be found to be true, do you not think everyone and their brother would be building them? Especially the oil companies, when they saw their stranglehold on oil switching to hydrogen, would surely try to switch their stranglehold to compensate.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by crawgator406
With alcohol fuel, you can become energy-independent, reverse global warming, and survive Peak Oil in style. Alcohol fuel is "liquid sunshine" and can't be controlled by transnational corporations. You can produce alcohol for less than $1 a gallon, using a wide variety of plants and waste products, from algae to stale donuts. It's a much better fuel than gasoline, and you can use it in your car, right now. You can even use alcohol to generate electricity. Alcohol fuel production is ecologically sustainable, revitalizes farms and communities, and creates huge new opportunities for small-scale businesses. Its byproducts are clean and valuable.

just the casual interest in ethanol has driven food prices up alarmingly.

producing ethanol requires the expenditure of much energy (burning fossil fuel) and also producing the corresponding waste...


hydrogen can be produced as easily and cheaply as plants do it, and zero emissions.

nuclear plants should be (and hopefully will be) constructed (they should never have stopped, thanks hippies) that will produce plentiful, cheap wattage, which will spur all-electric vehicle practicality and copious, inexpensive hydrogen production.

case closed.

reply to post by Quickfix


there are plans, that will be freely available (and are if you know where to look... "water4gas") that easily show you how to add brownian gas generators to your existing vehicle.

the easy way to get the plans, is to pay about $100 for the plans, which is rubbish.

they're kind of hit and miss, but some people, with other modifications, are claiming to get 50 to 60+ mpg from their mid-size cars.

i'm converting my jeep wrangler to use these water cells, i have a few more steps to take and then i can see for myself.

if it turns out that i get similar results, i will find a way to make the materials freely and easily available to all interested, without spending a dime for the information.

reply to post by crawgator406



Because it's a waste of crop land and deprives the starving of corn that could be directed their way and causes the cost of com
modities to skyrocket in cost. Then ethanol becomes more costly to produce than oil.

reply to post by feydrautha


Right on, yeah i've seen cars running on water, so its not an impossibility. The thing to do is just recycle the emission which is just water vapor (cool it down and its water again) then you never have to refill again.

Of course i have yet to convert my car, but i will be in a few months.

And if you wana add something to get some extra boost in your fuel go to .. he sells a product that lowers the ph level in water so it can be absorbed by the cells in the human body. The normal water you put in your body doesn't have the proper ph level to be absorbed by human cells. Basically it releases more hydrogen into the water.

Removed url.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by dbates]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yeah, the oil companies are just sucking what ever they can out of the rest of oil based economies. The oil companies just want their residuals and if they have to start using hydrogen pumps, ethonal pumps, or some kind of fuel pump they wont care. But if people figure out that hydrogen doesn't need to be pumped then there could deffinately be some problems.

Having control over fuel is important because its what controls the money, wars, the people, the food, and basically everything. Its free masonry for ya.

"But I must disagree with you that my car could burn hydrogen right now. I could supplement the fuel mixture with a hydrogen-enhanced air flow system, but even that would no doubt require some extra tuning for efficiency of operation."

Yes, you would need to change alot of things on your car, the fuel tank, the fuel flow system, the emission port and lots of parts that need to be upgraded. Though the engine you have and most of the things underthe hood would not need to be changed due to energy still being transfered.

"The latter point is that electrolysis of water via direct current cannot exceed a 100% energy transfer in theory, much less in application. In other words, the hydrogen produced is not new energy, but simply an energy transfer mechanism. "

I agree you do not get a 100% energy you get something like 65%. Still plenty enough to run a car, but incase it isn't you could always change a few things like adding solar panels to make up the other percentage. Or adding fuel cells or even more hydrogen generators. The more hydrogen created the more fuel. Theres even an addative you could put in water to add more hydrogen.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Quickfix]

reply to post by crawgator406


Well, you and other people that are for ethanol obviously don't know or either don't care that using food for fuel is messed up to begin with but that we will run out of corn so therefore more land will be needed to grow corn so therefore businesses will be destroyed peoples homes gone. If we did start running low on corn we would be in the same dang situation that we are in right now with oil, That's why I'm not excited about ethanol.

Ethanol is not really a viable alternative to petroleum,there is no benefit to developing ethanol production because it takes MORE ethanol to produce the same amount of power as gasoline,and in turn it produces MORE carbon dioxide.
Besides,global warming is a scam anyway........
Ethanol is a scam in my opinion,if the powers that be were seriously trying to solve the fuel issues,they would simply provide incentives for people to drive less,and recycle,and live within their means.
No profit to be in that those things though........
Ethanol is being used to tag the price of food to petroleum,you can see that in the drastic rises in food prices globally,which have pretty much paced the price rises in petroleum,not only because of transport expenses,because of petroleum.
There is no way of solving this supposed fuel crisis until people get off of their lazy asses and get a clue to the fact that their laziness is simply producing profits for the few who are in a position to benefit from that laziness.
If ethanol were seriously being pursued as an alternative fuel,there would be garbage trucks going out to pick up yard waste to make ethanol from,there is an endless supply of material to make ethanol from with that approach,and it simultaneously would solve other problems.
It is all BS,all of it.
Just re-learn how to manage time and ride your bicycle,half of the stuff you do doesn't need to be done anyway.
Live within your means.

reply to post by TheRedneck


The whole concept of converting potential food to fuel- smells like a ploy. Think about it wouldn't it be more profitable to sell your corn to a "distillary" than to the people. There is already a shortage of food and now fuel, if we use food to make fuel wont that fuel or even exacebate the current state of affairs?

Please I would rather not use my car for a day or two than see the price of corn higher per kg higher than nutrient deplete fast food. We are the future do not consider food based biofuels if you care for the well being of your fellow human beings. Pond scum or something related to the disposal of garbage would be a much better source of energy if we are really getting desperate.

Lukasz- Australia

reply to post by Quickfix

Yes, you would need to change alot of things on your car, the fuel tank, the fuel flow system, the emission port and lots of parts that need to be upgraded. Though the engine you have and most of the things underthe hood would not need to be changed due to energy still being transfered.

The emission ports are part of the internal engine. That's the valve train.

There is also the timing of the spark, the coolant system may need to be upgraded (I have not checked out the heat produced by such a system, so this is a maybe), and some thought would have to be given to corrosion by an excessive amount of water vapor (although I doubt this would prove to be a major problem with most engines).

I agree you do not get a 100% energy you get something like 65%. Still plenty enough to run a car, but incase it isn't you could always change a few things like adding solar panels to make up the other percentage. Or adding fuel cells or even more hydrogen generators. The more hydrogen created the more fuel. Theres even an addative you could put in water to add more hydrogen.

In order to recycle the exhaust you would need an efficiency rating of over 100%. That is zero-point/over-unity, to achieve energy without adding energy.

Also, anything you add to create additional hydrogen is adding energy, because you are inducing a chemical reaction to lower potential chemical energy. Whatever you add will also add to the cost of running the car.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

The emission ports are part of the internal engine. That's the valve train.

There is also the timing of the spark, the coolant system may need to be upgraded (I have not checked out the heat produced by such a system, so this is a maybe), and some thought would have to be given to corrosion by an excessive amount of water vapor (although I doubt this would prove to be a major problem with most engines).

What i mean about emission port is that it would just need to be recycled back into the main generator. Should be simple enough to connect one thing to another. Corrosion due to water vapor, since that is the emission you just need to change the exhaust pipe into something else that doesn't rust and wont wear down.

In order to recycle the exhaust you would need an efficiency rating of over 100%. That is zero-point/over-unity, to achieve energy without adding energy. Also, anything you add to create additional hydrogen is adding energy, because you are inducing a chemical reaction to lower potential chemical energy. Whatever you add will also add to the cost of running the car.

Energy is going to be needed to split the water, energy will not be 100%. The energy constantly produced will be enough to run the car. Needing more then 100% energy effciency to recycle emissions is not needed either. The emissions are going to be emitted even if the energy being produced is below 100%.

Actually it would not lower the energy it would raise the energy. Since adding the product to the water would create more hydrogen. After the hydrogen is used from the product what is left is just purifed water which is recycled, then setting up something to automatically put the addative in (i have no idea what it would be) so its convineint. Yeah the new fuel would be water + the addative. The cost of running a car on water would be the most cost effective in our economy. Only having to buy the addative if you wanted to.





[edit on 21-8-2008 by Quickfix]

Who says were are not excited about ethanol? I certainly am! I like mine on the rocks, preferably in single malt. And how about E85? 85% gin and 15% martini.

Seriously, I think that using corn for fuel ethanol should be prohibited, and alternative crops (on lesser quality land) used instead. Switchgrass etc.

A little something for clarification





www.physorg.com...

reply to post by Quickfix
OK, let's try this another way:

1) You fuel a car with water. the water is split (requires energy) into hydrogen/oxygen

2) You drive the car, using the hydrogen.oxygen. This uses the energy in the hydrogen.

3) You reclaim the exhaust (water) and route it back into the fuel tank.

You have successfully recycled the water, yes, but you need some form of energy to split it again and again. All of the energy in the hydrogen is used up driving the car. So where does the energy to split the water come from?

That's what I am referring to with the 100%. In order to have energy to re-split the water, you would have to get more out of the hydrogen/oxygen than you used to split it in the first place.

TheRedneck

Dear OP,

This thread may interest you. There are many reasons ethanol is a terrible idea...

Is Ethanol really a good idea?