I've been told that acetylene or oxygen welding bottles can be used horizontal. They look like they might fit in the place of the fiero gas tank. If that is so, I'm thinking natural gas until electric works out. It's cleaner and available. You would need a compressor at least. Not sure how much energy the compressor would consume, but honda sells a home use system. You would have to figure out how to pay your road tax since it's not added on like gasoline. Lots of buses are using clean compressed gas. Shouldn't be any harder than propane should it?

Epitome of advanced propulsion:



hehe

------------------
Journal of a concept: http://southeastfieros.com >>> Build Thread >>> Parts thread (for project funding)

Nasty emissions.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I've been told that acetylene or oxygen welding bottles can be used horizontal.

Oxygen? Yes (although perhaps not legally). Acetylene? Definitely not. For safety reasons, acetylene cylinders actually contain pressurized acetylene gas dissolved in liquid acetone. Mounting an acetylene cylinder horizontally might lend a whole new meaning to "advanced propulsion."

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-09-2009).]

Fellas,
Fellas,

I say drill, drill, drill!!! There is enough oil to be found to last us over 500+ years. My personal figures? No, check out the API (american pretrolum institute) who calculate known reserves. Yes they want to promte oil, that is there business. However, no other alternate source is found, invented or distributed that can match the BTU's of oil. Will we find an alternate? We, and the rest of the western world has been looking for this source for 60+ years! All the Periodic table chemical combinations have been studied. No luck. Whatever his most merciful (BO-- Barry Hussain Obama) thinks, all the presidents since before Einsenhour, and since, have put the minds together without results. You can't overcome gravity because you want too. Certain things are tangible. I am not trying to sound dour, but nothing is more dense and successful as oil. Keep drilling to lower the costs. That will generate new angel financing.

Cordially,
Kevin

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Mounting an acetylene cylinder horizontally might lend a whole new meaning to "advanced propulsion."

Reminds me of a mythbusters episode where they chopped the end off a gas tank

I love alternate methods of propulsion, I think they're fascinating There's one problem with them, though, that so far only the ICE that we know and love/hate has successfully addressed: the driver mentality. People want to get in their car, turn the key, and go. They also want power on tap when they want it. Finally, they want to be able to go most places and back again without having to fill up in between, and if they must stop and recharge, it should take as little time as possible. These all conflict with each other, as something good in one area will suffer in others. The ICE is basically the compromise of all three that most people are willing to live with.

Back when cars were new, we had steam and electric power before internal combustion engines. Why did ICEs take off, and why didn't steam or electric keep up? Was it just lack of technology at the time, or were there other reasons? Can these be addressed today? I think actually some forms of transportation aside from the car can benefit from other propulsion methods. Look at trains, with their diesel-electric engines. If the only drawback of an engine/generator is long warmup time, use it in something that will be active for a lot longer relative to start up time, for example a public transit bus.

[This message has been edited by kwagner (edited 01-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by kevin: Fellas, Fellas, I say drill, drill, drill!!! There is enough oil to be found to last us over 500+ years. My personal figures? No, check out the API (american pretrolum institute) who calculate known reserves. Yes they want to promte oil, that is there business.

Exactly, why would you believe anything they say? Because it's what you want to hear? I'd like to see a credible link that says anything like that.

quote However, no other alternate source is found, invented or distributed that can match the BTU's of oil. Will we find an alternate? We, and the rest of the western world has been looking for this source for 60+ years! All the Periodic table chemical combinations have been studied. No luck.

Are you kidding? Very limited research has gone into alternatives because up until very recently oil has still been really cheap. You can drill all you want and you won't keep up with increasing world demands. Not to mention that the easy and cheap oil is gone and whatever we find from now on will be harder and more expensive to get.

quote Whatever his most merciful (BO-- Barry Hussain Obama) thinks, all the presidents since before Einsenhour, and since, have put the minds together without results.

No they didn't.

quote You can't overcome gravity because you want too.

Really? Tell that to Maglev trains, airplanes, and the shuttle. All overcome gravity.

quote Certain things are tangible. I am not trying to sound dour, but nothing is more dense and successful as oil.

Yeah it's been a great success to have our major energy supply tied to our good friends in OPEC.

quote Keep drilling to lower the costs. That will generate new angel financing.

Or stop subsidizing oil drilling and subsidize advanced battery technology WHICH ALREADY EXISTS and allows thousands of recharges, fast charging, and 200+ mile range RIGHT NOW. Or keep doing what we've been doing for decades which keeps us at the mercy of our Arab buddies.

[This message has been edited by JRP3 (edited 01-09-2009).]

Marvin, when I mentioned welding bottles I admit I know nothing about them. Just that I believe it will take that (type) of bottle to hold cng and that it might fit. When I was in school I saw bottles that look like that with metal hydrides (which looked like gravel to me) inside. They were used to store hydrogen for a car. The metal hydrides acted like a sponge in the bottle. The company was promoting a complete hydrogen energy system, and was said to be accurate in their physics by my professor who I highly respect as the smartest man I've ever known. It was pretty advanced thinking at the time but that was almost 30 years ago. I still don't see hydrogen as a near term solution but it should be studied. In the event of DIRT CHEAP solar electricity it would be very practical . Who knows, there could be a breakthrough in solar cells at any time. There are all kinds being studied, some organic and some solid state. COST is the operative word. Solar is available just about everywhere. Far more energy than we can conceive of using is delivered every day right at our doorstep. Oh, wait a minute I think I was preaching there. I better stop for now.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 01-10-2009).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: Marvin, when I mentioned welding bottles ... [it's] Just that I believe it will take that (type) of bottle to hold cng and that it might fit.

You're correct that you'd need a high-pressure steel tank. I just wanted to be sure that somebody didn't actually go out and try something with a real acetylene bottle.

Look up Motorhead Messiah. His name is Johnathon Goodwin. I am becoming sleepy, so won't quote numbers and the such. This guy can get about 60mpg in a H3 with about 600 HP. Zero to 60 in 5 seconds. Anything by this guy is well worth reading. Parouse the Fast Company post. It is the first link or so to his story. Awesome read. Good night.

------------------

I think hydro electric dams all down the Mississippi would pay for themselves and provide a **** ton of energy. Just think, if 1 river town had one, after the initial costs are paid for in x amount of years that dam could provide cheap energy to the town and possibly sell extra to surrounding places. Towns could have electric public transit running off cheap hydro electricity. Really i think Energy should be free or next to nothing in a perfect world, it should pay for itself beings there is enough of it not being utilized. So many possibilities.

The Mississippi is a navigable river, damming it would kill all transportation on it. Not to mention dams would flood all the low lying areas, including towns, all around it.

There are already lots of locks and roller dams on the river to help control flooding, those can be replaced with new technology and the river will still remain just as navigable.

quote Originally posted by Chris Hodson: I think hydro electric dams all down the Mississippi would ... provide a **** ton of energy.

Nope. The course of the Mississippi River is too flat ... a less than 800 foot drop in elevation spread over the 1200 miles from Minneapolis to New Orleans. Hydroelectric generators need a high pressure head to function efficiently. For example, Hoover Dam on the Colorado River near Las Vegas is 726 feet high and Niagara Falls is about 165 feet high. There is no comparable hydroelectric-friendly geography (deep canyons or high waterfalls) anywhere along the Mississippi.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-10-2009).]

I drive along the Columbia river a lot and see several hydroelectric dams with locks for the barges and fish ladders for the salmon. They are not as high as Hoover and make electricity. I used to think that dams were electricity forever, but now I know that dams will eventually fill up with silt. They do have a life time expectancy. Some dams are being removed for environmental reasons.

Well that sucks.

At least there is still lots of wind and some sun in the Midwest

A lot of wind along the Columbia too. Along with seeing all the huge generators when I pass through there I always meet trucks with wide loads carrying mast sections for those generators. I think that there is still a lot of wind energy out there to be tapped.

quote Originally posted by Chris Hodson: I think hydro electric dams all down the Mississippi would pay for themselves and provide a **** ton of energy. Just think, if 1 river town had one, after the initial costs are paid for in x amount of years that dam could provide cheap energy to the town and possibly sell extra to surrounding places. Towns could have electric public transit running off cheap hydro electricity. Really i think Energy should be free or next to nothing in a perfect world, it should pay for itself beings there is enough of it not being utilized. So many possibilities.

Interesting that the great Nikola Telsa had this idea 100 years ago. He actually did build the first powerplant at Niagara Falls along with George Westinghouse and ushered in the electrical era.

But his plan was to give away the electricity by beaming it into the air wirelessly. Whether or not that is even possible is still up for debate, and J.P. Morgan shut down the funding when he realized Tesla intended to give away electricity.

But where Tesla went wrong is that he seriously underestimated the demand for electricity, let alone free electricity. He thought a few waterfalls here and there would power the entire world. Well 100 years ago, maybe, but all the dams in the world wouldn't make a dent in today's demand.

[This message has been edited by jscott1 (edited 01-10-2009).]

I also drive I-90 along the Columbia River. Puts a smile on my face seeing those giant blades turning. Wind power is definately a great Idea. I also hear that there is a project off the coast of Oregon. They are using wave dynamics to power under water pistons. These in turn push water through a generator on shore. The water returns to the ocean after each cycle. I know that there is a working power field near Australia. I need to dig through recent magazines to pull the correct data for you guys. But this thread is a great way to discuss alternative energy. But don't think for a minute, that our politicians didn't make their family fortunes off of big oil. Just disgusts me. Over 30 years ago, when I was in 1st grade, I made a solar powered hot dog cooker. A little tin foil, a box, and a mirror. A first grader using the power of the sun. Why can't we, in this day of age, make nearly free alternative energy. Because a select few in the world want all of the money. Money. There is the reason that we have not achieved energy independance. A select few.

------------------

i think i saw something in popular science an article talking about how if 1/4 of Nevada was solar fields it could power most of the usa or all of it. Something like that. i think those reflector field are neat. A bunch of mirrors reflect concentrated sunlight onto some sort of boiler and it powers a steam turbine. Ha if i had time i would actually look this stuff up for you guys, im just getting the ball rolling

I have seen that in Australia a group is using the power of the sun in a simple way what they are doing is basicly making a upside down funnel has the heat rises it go's to the center and rises up through the stack in the middle that turns turbins that turn genorators

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-10-2009).]

I visited the thermal solar installation at barstow. a gazillion huge mirrors all aimed at a central receiver. If there is a failure of fluid through the receiver it will have an instant meltdown. I don't know if it's still operating or not. You can have all of the system worked out and then the environment throws a monkey wrench into the works There are some other thermal installations using parabolic troughs and receiver tubes. I think I'll google them to see how they're doing.

I found this steam engine last night it is super light but powerfull 5 LBS but makes 30 HP and very compact http://www.greensteamengine.com/index.html

I built a twelve foot satellite dish once. You can pick them up for free now just to get them off the property. It should be fairly easy to make the dish light reflective and generate steam. That looks like it would be fun to play with and just about the right size for a power plant on my island. The problem I have there is that solar cells and wind don't complement each other like they do most places. I get the most sun at the same time I get the most wind. So I'm pretty much stuck with building a system that will fill my winter requirements and leave me with a large oversized system in the summer. Sorry, getting off topic here except for the making solar electricity for charging electric cars part.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 01-11-2009).]

I just got another idea take Dri ice put it in a pressure contanier then add water run a hose off it to the steam engine when the pressure builds you have power i dont know yet if i can do this with another set of chemicals

It takes a lot of energy to create dry ice in the first place. Not an efficient system.

how about carbonanted water then drop in a few mentos i wonder how much pressuer you could build

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-11-2009).]

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: eh, don't worry about Jazzy... He'll make a reply... then change it to a period (.) at a later date. He'd probably be happy to discourse with you over PM though.

I'm pretty sure he got upset about something political in OT, decided to take his balls (replys & posts) and go home for a while. He did an en mass deletion/edit when be bowed out.
He will return I suspect.

no not the boiler but still it is light i have been looking on how to make presssure fast and easy i think it may lie in alkaline metals like potassium it reacts with water there are others that just explode

quote Originally posted by engine man: ... i have been looking on how to make presssure fast and easy i think it may lie in alkaline metals like potassium it reacts with water ...

Ignoring many other issues, where does the energy to refine and transport the potassium come from?

quote Originally posted by engine man: i just found this friction boiler it is intresting

Interesting maybe, but total BS! Where does the energy to run the electric motor (that creates the friction that heats the water that runs the steam-powered generator) come from?

Think, people ... THINK!!!

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-11-2009).]

I know that there needs to be an energy to creat but like the friction boiler would make it more compact is kinda what i am looking at to make it simpler to run a steam engine not sure if the work done by the steam would be more than the work the motor is using . by the way did you check it out or just bashing it with out looking i all ways check things out it gives me more ideas on how to do things i feel there is no bad info there is somthing to be learnd.

There is plenty of bad info out there, especially if it leads one to waste time chasing unicorns. Does his friction boiler produce enough power to continuously apply pressure to push the wood against his friction drum, pump the water that produces steam, and generate the electricity to power the motor that runs the whole thing? No it doesn't since his model does none of that and simply produces a small puff of steam. The inefficiencies involved are huge.

quote Originally posted by engine man: ... did you check it out or just bashing it with out looking ... ... i feel there is no bad info ...

I accurately described the entire "friction boiler" concept in one compact sentence and you still ask this question? No bashing involved. Just stating the truth.

Any information that contradicts well-established physical law without presenting substantial and persuasive evidence to the contrary is "bad info" ... and there's plenty of it on the Internet, as elsewhere. The laws of the Universe are strictly enforced, whether we like it or not, and wishful thinking will not make it otherwise.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-12-2009).]

well i think the best way then is just make a gasoline fired boiler of the horizontal type with a gravity feed hopper and a condesor and recovery tank on the exaust side i will need a high pressure pump to feed the recoverd water back into the hopper . next wold be to try to keep it as compact as posible

I think the rough area in this argument is always where your 'square 1' is. For some, you don't consider by what process & how much energy is needed to create the fuel you use. In order to accurately determine if your idea is energy efficient, you need to look as far back as you can and figure out what the cost of your fuel is, both from the monetary and the energy aspect.
The term "no free lunch" simply means that the potential energy in your fuel is what your energy output is. Period. Sorry, blame physics.
So what you have is your fuel's energy potential, minus the energy needed to obtain/create your fuel, minus the energy wasted in whatever machine you use it in, and that's your net output. Divide that by the original figure of the fuel's potential energy, and voila, there's your efficiency percentage.

This is why I'm still a solar & EV fan. Because no matter how you slice it, the Sun's energy is the only free energy that is the most reliable. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will rise every day (except in the extreme poles, and areas of Alaska... ), and even though it might be hidden behind clouds, you still get some solar rays from it. Photovoltaic (solar) cells don't require much maintenance at all, and aside from the initial cost, an entire solar charging system with a battery bank is pretty autonomous. Charging at your destination away from home can be a bit inefficient, depending on the power grid, but that's part of it.

Also, I think a lot of you are interested in ways of just being supplemental in your current setup and environment, and not attempting the gung-ho, all-out super energy efficient methods from start to finish that some of us look at... I understand and applaud you, and I wish everyone didn't jump on your back screaming that your idea is for naught. If you have any questions, I've done a lot of research, and can at least help you get started, so PM me if you want.

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: I think the rough area in this argument is always where your 'square 1' is. For some, you don't consider by what process & how much energy is needed to create the fuel you use. In order to accurately determine if your idea is energy efficient, you need to look as far back as you can and figure out what the cost of your fuel is, both from the monetary and the energy aspect. The term "no free lunch" simply means that the potential energy in your fuel is what your energy output is. Period. Sorry, blame physics.

I remember when I was in grade school we took a tour of the local Nuclear Plant, (can't imagine that happening today, but I digress) anyway as they were describing the whole process and how it works, I couldn't believe the whole nuclear fission business was just to heat up water. I'm thinking why don't they just start a fire and heat up the water?

It was then that I realized that energy is a scarce commodity and it has to all come from somewhere.

All these devices that use stored energy may be efficient in some manner, but Hydrogen, steam, and even electricity are not in and of themselves sources of energy. They are just a means of transporting energy from one place to another.

Same with ethanol, it's just solar energy converted to alcohol, even gasoline is just the stored solar energy from the decaying plants and animals that lived off the plants. It all boils down to solar energy.

Here's a thought... how much of the Sun's output ends up on the Earth? 1%? maybe 0.1%? Actually one part in 2 billion. If we had giant solar collectors in space to even capture a fraction of that we would have unlimited power for billions of years.