It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are we still using gas for our vehicles?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Man i love threads, i get so much information from the replies. Boy am i glad i found Above Top Secret




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silicrikk
You can produce your own hydrogen and store it yourself. You can actually run a solar panel and the leftover electricity can produce hydrogen from water. Crude oil,Gasoline have hydrocarbons hmmmmmmm.


The problem with electrolysis methods is that the catalyst rods used are often corroded. Fuel cells that work bi-directionally do exist, and are pretty neat, but run into similar problems of corrosion of the catalyst.

The other problem is that none of these offer compression of hydrogen - which, in itself, requires energy (and in no short demand).

Further - hydrogen is -extremely- combustible in any concentration while having nearly twice the energy density of gasoline (depending upon what you set as the baseline - molar calculations versus mass versus liquid densities).... you've got a damned fine bomb if you decide to drive around with a large tank of compressed hydrogen. This is further exacerbated by the fact that hydrogen is a gas well into cryogenic temperatures - unlike gasoline - a ruptured tank equals explosive decompression combined with rapid diffusion within our oxygen-rich atmosphere.

Hydrogen cars? You call can drive them after I build my space ship and leave ... then you all can drive around in inadvertent weapons of mass destruction.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Hydrogen cars? You call can drive them after I build my space ship and leave ... then you all can drive around in inadvertent weapons of mass destruction.


this has to be the best quote ever.

I can see the news clip on traffic backed up for morning commute already;

"traffic backed up for 20 miles before delaware water gap on route 80 due to a four car accident involving a hydrogen explosion taking out the right two lanes of the bridge. Please find an alternate route, as delays are expected up to three weeks while they rebuild the bridge"



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AxlJones
Efficiency is the key.

You can run a car on a water but it's not really that efficient.

Also, the oil industry is very well implemented and people are just used to it.
edit on 9-5-2011 by AxlJones because: (no reason given)


Silly question...but if a car runs on water, would efficiency really matter? Are we speaking of efficiency in terms if miles per gallon, speed, or torque? Not trying to be a smarty pants. This is a sincere question. As I am not certain of the energy conversion in such terms. Thanks.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Gas is great stuff. It holds great power in a small space and is cheap, even at 5$ a gallon. It takes huge amounts of energy to produce alternative fuels. Just to get the lithium for our batteries costs hundreds of thousands of lives. Any other substance would require a very costly infrastructure to market.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Interesting little blog on over unity solar with lots of refrences
worth a peek:
blog



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Just a silly off the wall thought but.....what if we could somehow reduce friction by using magnets in our road construction method, and car manufacturing. No more tires. Cars would simply hover inches above the ground. The car engines would then be used to pull and push air. It may be a simpler motor that controls the fan, which could lead to a viable new energy source. Just thinking long term here.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


They are actually working on that. High speed rail.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


I realize that the technology is in the works, but why not make mass availability to the general public. People demand convience and individuality. Everyone wants to go where they want when they want too. This is why public transportation in America is a mass fail. Why not incorporate the technology for individual use. It would be easier to adapt infrastructure, than to change the layout and mentality of an entire nation, or globe.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


Again - this isn't exactly going to work so well for the general consumer.

"Permanent" magnets aren't so permanent when you start putting them under dynamic load like that. You really need an electromagnet system. The problem with trying to create a whole highway lined with enough electromagnets to produce field densities great enough to levitate cars should be instantly apparent. Further - with everyone all up in arms about the effects of ELF and LF on the human body... making entire highway systems out of it would simply lead to more conspiracy threads on ATS about how the highways are now programmed to hack into our brain or something.

Now - how a lot of high-speed rail systems solve this is they put a power line above the rail and the cars for the train jack into it. The pulse current through electromagnets on their chassis which induce an arrangement of attracting and repelling fields along specially made coils along the rail system.

We could do something similar with private vehicles... but then we're back to square one, as the vehicle has to produce its own power for this, or it has to jack into some power line/grid system on the highways.... which just seems a bit silly.

Further - mag-lev trains are specially designed with interlocking geometry so that they 'hover' only a few centimeters away from the magnets. This makes the magnets more efficient and keeps the train stable - rather than flipping around all over creation. Without this carefully engineered arrangement, you'll have cars flying up in the air and flipping upside down to come crashing back down on the highway as the like-poles repel and the dissimilar poles attract.

The main advantage of trains is that you have a lot of vehicles going in the same direction and in-line with each other at the same velocities with few moving interruptions. This means that aerodynamic losses are minimized and friction losses are lower for the mass being transported, and losses from having to decelerate/accelerate due to changing traffic flow are also minimized.

Also, the reason high-speed rail uses magnets is because of the reduced friction. Magnet trains traveling at normal rail speeds would not be all that efficient. It is simply that the bearings used in conventional rail systems encounter non-linear increases in friction as the speed climbs above certain ranges. The bearings heat faster than they can dissipate the heat, which causes them to swell and encounter greater friction and heat further - which eventually begins to break-down the lubricants.

High-speed rail is, therefor, only beneficial in applications that require speed - or where speed is preferable. Conventional rail will, on the average, be more efficient and cheaper than the high-speed varieties.

On that note - about the best way to combine the benefits of rail and the freedom of independently operated vehicles would be to create a 'shuttle rail' system that departs at regular intervals from various hubs near/around major commuter locations. Similar to a ferry system that crosses water, one would simply drive onto specially designed train cars and the train would travel to the next hub, where one would disembark and drive a shorter distance to their town or place of residence - and vice-versa for work.

There are considerable obstacles with such an idea - and it would only work in certain regions and applications. It would also require a much more fluid transfer of cars from one train to another - a car full of people traveling an additional 60 miles down-rail should be able to be quickly added to a train going that direction without interrupting the service to the immediate location.

I suppose the other method would be to allow cars to link together like voltrons and create a sort of impromptu train going down the highway. It would just require people to drop the "me first" attitude they seem to have about driving. God Forbid someone get to the red light before I do!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Has a question for you: If you know the oil industry is a bunch of war-mongering, scam artists...why do you support their cause? Why do YOU keep buying their product? Make no mistake about it...they are invading these countries, for oil/gas and everything else....for those that DRIVE. So, if you drive, you might as well be the one pulling the trigger and dropping the bombs! Or do you think YOU'RE NOT the problem? You are the parasites...and the oil companies are just providing for your demand. Stop driving and they'll be forced to either cut back or stop invading other countries to keep your S.U.V.'s full! And please, stop bashing the oil industry....you're just as much a part of the problem...and to think otherwise...makes you completely IGNORANT!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Why do we have problems in the world ?
MONEY and POLITICS.

Find a way to remove both and we will finally be able to progress past this society to an actual real intelligent species.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


sure enough you would drive into a problems if you were to store hydrogen in a tank in your car, But thats why you build a HHO generator that can supply water from your gas tank and process hydrogen on a needed basis and also what about fueless engines,compressed air engine.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Your best bet would be to go back to steam powered cars. Instead of using wood or coal to heat the water, you use a small nuclear reactor. It is the only feasible system with our current technology.

As far as the moron who ranted about people who drive being responsible for all of the trouble in the world, I'd like to remind him of one small thing that he overlooked. Most of the plastic in the world comes from oil. Most computers are made of plastic. So how about he throws his computer away and leaves the rest of us alone.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Its all part of the plan. Greed is the name of the game. look how much they are profiting right now...who would want to get rid of gas.....exactly.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Cars are not the problem look at this article it's probobly been on here but check it out anyways HOW 16 SHIPS CREATE AS MUCH POLLUTION AS ALL THE CARS IN THE WORLD.www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Thank you for your in depth explanation. There has got to be another way. Hopefully someone like yourself, who understands the complicities will, I know, figure this out. I guess I just like thinking way outside the box...maybe that is where the answers will be...or then again it may be right under our noses!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


Again - this isn't exactly going to work so well for the general consumer.

"Permanent" magnets aren't so permanent when you start putting them under dynamic load like that. You really need an electromagnet system. The problem with trying to create a whole highway lined with enough electromagnets to produce field densities great enough to levitate cars should be instantly apparent. Further - with everyone all up in arms about the effects of ELF and LF on the human body... making entire highway systems out of it would simply lead to more conspiracy threads on ATS about how the highways are now programmed to hack into our brain or something.

Now - how a lot of high-speed rail systems solve this is they put a power line above the rail and the cars for the train jack into it. The pulse current through electromagnets on their chassis which induce an arrangement of attracting and repelling fields along specially made coils along the rail system.

We could do something similar with private vehicles... but then we're back to square one, as the vehicle has to produce its own power for this, or it has to jack into some power line/grid system on the highways.... which just seems a bit silly.

Further - mag-lev trains are specially designed with interlocking geometry so that they 'hover' only a few centimeters away from the magnets. This makes the magnets more efficient and keeps the train stable - rather than flipping around all over creation. Without this carefully engineered arrangement, you'll have cars flying up in the air and flipping upside down to come crashing back down on the highway as the like-poles repel and the dissimilar poles attract.

The main advantage of trains is that you have a lot of vehicles going in the same direction and in-line with each other at the same velocities with few moving interruptions. This means that aerodynamic losses are minimized and friction losses are lower for the mass being transported, and losses from having to decelerate/accelerate due to changing traffic flow are also minimized.

Also, the reason high-speed rail uses magnets is because of the reduced friction. Magnet trains traveling at normal rail speeds would not be all that efficient. It is simply that the bearings used in conventional rail systems encounter non-linear increases in friction as the speed climbs above certain ranges. The bearings heat faster than they can dissipate the heat, which causes them to swell and encounter greater friction and heat further - which eventually begins to break-down the lubricants.

High-speed rail is, therefor, only beneficial in applications that require speed - or where speed is preferable. Conventional rail will, on the average, be more efficient and cheaper than the high-speed varieties.

On that note - about the best way to combine the benefits of rail and the freedom of independently operated vehicles would be to create a 'shuttle rail' system that departs at regular intervals from various hubs near/around major commuter locations. Similar to a ferry system that crosses water, one would simply drive onto specially designed train cars and the train would travel to the next hub, where one would disembark and drive a shorter distance to their town or place of residence - and vice-versa for work.

There are considerable obstacles with such an idea - and it would only work in certain regions and applications. It would also require a much more fluid transfer of cars from one train to another - a car full of people traveling an additional 60 miles down-rail should be able to be quickly added to a train going that direction without interrupting the service to the immediate location.

I suppose the other method would be to allow cars to link together like voltrons and create a sort of impromptu train going down the highway. It would just require people to drop the "me first" attitude they seem to have about driving. God Forbid someone get to the red light before I do!


I had envisioned the last saniro with cars linked together. It could be very efficient people moving system like at Disney.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Why are we still using gas for our vehicles?

Because 19th century engineers figured out it was the best way, using math and physics that do not change if stated in logically valid format.

Liquid hydrocarbon fuels are cheap, abundant, have high energy density, last long in storage, can be safely distributed, and are relatively non-toxic when burned efficiently and exhausted in the open atmosphere.

The combustion byproducts are recycled by land and sea plants into hydrocarbons, water and oxygen.

If you can out-engineer that, I'll buy it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silicrikk
reply to post by Aim64C
 


sure enough you would drive into a problems if you were to store hydrogen in a tank in your car, But thats why you build a HHO generator that can supply water from your gas tank and process hydrogen on a needed basis and also what about fueless engines,compressed air engine.


An "HHO" generator?

That's called electrolysis.

Stop and think about it a minute. You are splitting up hydrogen and oxygen, correct? This takes an amount of energy (equal to the amount necessary to separate they hydrogen and oxygen atoms). Then, when you 'burn' that hydrogen (in a fuel cell or anything else that, effectively, oxidizes hydrogen) you are releasing as much energy as is held in the valence electron of hydrogen (oxygen is second only to chlorine in electronegativity).

You see where that is going? You get as much energy out of 'burning' hydrogen as you use separating it from water (actually, less, as electrolysis isn't exactly the most efficient process out there, and no method of harnessing energy, as of yet, is 100% efficient). So - while hydrogen fuel cells make for cute little remote control cars and some interesting science projects and future-home concepts... they don't really ring all that true for practical transportation.


Originally posted by Wetpaint72
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Thank you for your in depth explanation. There has got to be another way. Hopefully someone like yourself, who understands the complicities will, I know, figure this out. I guess I just like thinking way outside the box...maybe that is where the answers will be...or then again it may be right under our noses!


Well - right now the key will be in efficiency. Current automobile engines just feather the 30% mark in efficiency (and that's some of the better ones). Power trains can be even more problematic.

The car I envision (and would like to build one day) is rather simple in principle. To get maximum efficiency - you start at the ground and work your way toward the engine. The most efficient drive systems we have today are wheels that are actually motors: en.wikipedia.org... .

Vehicles could come in several varieties with this design depending upon application - but I imagine a four-wheel application of this technology would become rather standard at the relative 18-22K USD mark (today) were this type of wheel to become the standard (think of it like power windows - now so standard it costs more to get a model with a hand-crank).

In either case - both come inherently with magnetic-recovery breaking and many advanced features on today's vehicles (such as Track-lock, compensation for road conditions, etc).

Anyway - these all feed from a short-term power-supply (a large capacitor or bank of capacitors). This pretty much supplies surge-current capabilities for acceleration and acts to smooth noise (electrical) generated by motors. This, in turn, feeds from a moderate-term power source - a supply of batteries or advanced capacitor bank (yet to see development). All of the vehicle's systems function from this source - from the power-train to the stereo.

Here's where things get interesting. Since this is all electrical - anything capable of generating electricity can 'plug in' to the car. Coating the car in photovoltaic paint and running it through a DC-DC converter would provide -some- power while not negatively impacting the performance or application of the vehicle. news.nationalgeographic.com... (spay-on solar panels!).

This would be sufficient to charge the car while it's sitting outside and get you to the store (where you do some shopping and it sits out in the blazing hot sun recharging) and back, and to help supplement other forms of power generation while on longer trips or doing more power-intensive tasks (like stop-and-go city traffic).

For this - a conventional gasoline engine tuned to be efficient at certain settings can be tied to a similarly tuned electric generator. This can boost efficiency from 30% to efficiencies of 60% and higher.

However - if we come up with some kind of fusion or magical over-unity power system, that could also be swapped into the vehicle, only needing to mount correctly (rather than needing to match up to several dozen different mechanical drive systems).

Incorporating LaDAR into vehicles as well as improving object recognition technologies in computers would eventually allow for the 'impromptu trains' I referred to earlier as being an issue of pushing the button and cars automatically establishing their own following distances and steering down the road.

Other problems could be fixed by taking the 500 semi trucks going the same direction down 50 miles of highway and putting them on trains.... and letting the railway companies make effective railway systems so we can drive to the city without having to get stuck behind a semi trying to pass another semi for 5 miles.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join