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.

 

Tenn. professor cruises cross-country on 2.15 gallons of gas

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FelixFelicis
 


Well, there are many types of "yields."

For the professor it yielded information for his next project. For the University it yielded publicity and good press. For the sponsors it yielded publicity and good press. For the students it yielded education and real-world experience, and a cool cross-country trip. For all of us it yielded discussion fodder and sparks to open further conversation on things like oil vs. corn, which needs to be conserved worse, and how to best spend research money.

So, it had yields, and now that initial investment has been justified far enough to ask for even more research money for his 2013 project!




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by FelixFelicis
 


Well, there are many types of "yields."

For the professor it yielded information for his next project. For the University it yielded publicity and good press. For the sponsors it yielded publicity and good press. For the students it yielded education and real-world experience, and a cool cross-country trip. For all of us it yielded discussion fodder and sparks to open further conversation on things like oil vs. corn, which needs to be conserved worse, and how to best spend research money.

So, it had yields, and now that initial investment has been justified far enough to ask for even more research money for his 2013 project!

That's a star worthy post and a good take on the grand scheme of the project.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FelixFelicis
 


This means absolutely nothing to me.
As long as we are dependant on fossil fuels and opec is in control of the flow of said fuel, we will have no real advances in powered technology.
My Brother in law has a hybrid and he is sooooooo happy about getting 40- 50 mpg, my Mom got 57 mpg back in 1987 in her Subaru Justy.
The Justy was a 3 cyl gas engine, no electric assist.
Tell me we are moving forward with technology, I need a good laugh.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Our Fresh water resource is already being depleted as it is. At the rate we burn oil , the last thing we need to do is use water to fuel our cars.

Unless of course they could use ocean water , i dont see a big deal with that , but the fresh water? Nah. Stick with solar power.
edit on 9-3-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


It meant enough to warrant a reply.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
If he can get me the plans, designs, and easy to follow instructions I will personally mass produce them even if I can only do it in my garage. Furthermore I will sell them for only $1 more than what I paid for parts. The best way to take down the oil giants is to do it quickly. I'll take all the "accidents" and gunshots and muggings . on. I will personally look right at big oil and tell them to come get it if they want it while I stand firm with my pistol in hand.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FelixFelicis
 


Agreed, to remind us all that it is just the same carrot as they dangle every time to refocus us on the road rather than the rocks below.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Expect him to be convicted of child porn or death by a rattlesnake, or suicide with double GSW to ..


Yeah, if he has not been already (before daylight)

It is truly sad that when it comes down to something needed so badly on this rock,that PTB off them every single time in one way or another...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Oh boy, here comes the oil kings and Obama gunning for him. I give him 2 weeks till he has a "heart attack"

Don't get me started on the lie which are "heart attacks"



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dez87
 


I would actually like to hear your take on heart attacks. It bothers me too see people say Breitbart had heart problems which lead to a heart attack, end of discussion, like looking into it would be foolish


Edit: On second thought, maybe I shouldn't derail my own thread while people may want to discuss it.
edit on 9-3-2012 by FelixFelicis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FelixFelicis
 


Eh, the quality of discussion on ATS is somewhat minimal. While the catch-phrase is to deny ignorance, most people here just read into and out of things what they want to, and go on about their delusions.

Heart attacks happen to people. Sure - there are ways of inducing them. There are "shadow wars" fought in industry and between governments. But the belief that there is some kind of organized "response" to market-changing research breakthroughs is quite circular in supporting itself.

It gives frauds all the advantage in the world, (can't show you because the "MIB" will show up and eliminate them... but their web-page with schematics for $50 is fine... because $50 filters out the spooks; Labs experience 'accidents' blamed on agents of some big-brother agency; etc), and immediately martyrs anyone who makes a bold research claim before suffering any kind of accident.

My father was a fairly healthy 64 year old male. Simply didn't wake up one morning. I talked to him the night before. It could have been any number of things. I had an uncle who had three damned heart attacks and a stroke (the irony is he let himself waste away in diabetic shock a few years later).

None of them were "on to something." Between the two of them - my father was the more knowledgeable and imaginative - but his sudden (and indeterminate) death doesn't stand as evidence that he was.

It's just silly to apply that same logic to a researcher. Their work and research should stand on its own merits that is considered independently of the deposition of the researcher's health and personal affairs. If I suddenly die after publishing a theory or two - I would prefer I be remembered for the theory, not the theory remembered for me. Those who can understand it or piggy-back off of it and do something useful with it are what it is there for; not to be immortalized like some movie drama.

That said... as for this thread... my standpoint on it is that hydrocarbon fuels will remain a key source of energy for commuter and commercial automotives. 5-10 years will have us on all-electric systems with gas-driven generators (with supplements from other forms)... 15-20 will see the combustion engine replaced with a hydrocarbon fuel cell of greater efficiency for the task. We may be burning some kind of syrup derived from genetically engineered plants or algae - but it would still be a hydrocarbon.

25-30 may see a form of nuclear fusion power - but that is rather tentative and depends upon the LENR field (where there's no possible way to predict when or where a breakthrough is likely to occur). Other than that, it's really difficult to postulate on future energy sources for the automotive sector. There are many energy sources out there that are suitable for stationary facilities - but a mobile platform is considerably different and has far more staunch challenges.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Thats grate but I worried that if we use this it will be GMO ethenal witch might spread into the atmosphere.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thisbseth
reply to post by FelixFelicis
 
......



Did you see his photo? If he doesn't start taking better care of himself he IS going to have a heart attack, no joke.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
What I really want to know is - what was the total COST of obtaining those other fuels. Not just financial but also environmental.

And how does it compare to gasoline?

I ask because YES it is a step forward - but is it going in the right direction? Most people know now that you'd have to drive a Prius for about 200 years to undo the environmental damage that was done just to PRODUCE it.

We aren't really succeeding until the environmental cost is negligible and the financial cost is comparable.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FelixFelicis
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Surely I will hear about it if he does. We'll have to wait and see if he gets to make the 2013 trip. I better take my lawn mowa to him sooner than later.


“For example I smell.. freshly mowed grass, parchment and… spearmint.. toothpaste.”





posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
What are the over. costs on the vehicle? What are the maintenance specs? How often does it need maintenance and how many tens of thousands would each repair cost, considering there is probably 1 to 3 people on the globe who have the ability to repair such a vehicle?
It's all good and dandy, but i don't think the oil companies are necessary to silence this guy. Basic reality and mathematics will do the job.
edit on 10-3-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: sp



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Wow, as a girl I really didn't think I would have any interest in this thread, but I clicked on it out of curiosity and Im glad I did, very entertaining and you all did your research!!, I learned something today.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by mattdel


Because this man is showing the world that technology exists which will stop the moneyflow into oil companies pockets. He will be killed before that is allowed to happen.

 




Are you serious?

Alternative energy technologies are everywhere in the science world. Peer reviewed papers outlining exactly how they work. Many scientists who published them are still alive and well today.

This was a news article that made no mention of how it was done, no link to a paper outlining if it was even a useful modification done to the car. Or if it was commercially feasible.

The oil companies have nothing to worry about.

On a side note, you can go buy a fully electric car today from Tesla motors for around 100k, around 40k to replace the battery if you let it drain completely by accident, and you might have to be on a waiting list for a few years because of development issues.

A few years ago, people said that company was going to "destroy big oil" too.



Consumer Reports bought a Fiskar, and it broke down on the first day of testing and had to be sent back to the dealer on a flatbed.

First time they've ever had a car break during normal testing.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Is this the same thing as described in the OP? Sorry... not much on engines although I did try with a friend to repair my 06 Dodge Magnum when it got all gunked up (sucky 2.7 engine).




posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Expect him to be convicted of child porn or death by a rattlesnake, or suicide with double GSW to ..


Why would they need too? I guarantee the cars are not practical, IE: Striped down and lightweight death machines. They probably had a top speed of 30 mph and pissed off a lot of people on their trip as a standard Prius does on a daily basis.

When they have a natural gas line of cars and trucks that can do everything my gas truck can, then I will go buy one or upgrade my existing truck.

We have more Natural Gas than we know what to do with, never mind the whole peak oil thing is utter BS!!!

The Federal Reserve wont let the U.S. pump out a quarter of what we have already found because that is where they make their money to pay off what we owe them.

We will always need oil for the foreseeable future as everything plastic is made from it not to mention everything that lubes anything.

Hydrogen is a good alternative but it will never happen as the U.S. government holds the patent on the only way to store enough of it. We don't need mini Hydrogen bombs driving around either, road rage would then take on a whole new meaning.
It would be road rage with WMD.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join