This Eventually Could Have Major Impact Around The World!

[Brian R. VanCise]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?vi...ideoChannel=74

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Brian thank you for that.

I always thought a car that runs on garbage would be a good idea gets rid of garbage problem and fuel problem. I wonder if the size of the car was due because the roads in Japan are small.

 

[MA-Caver]

A couple of years ago there was a guy who managed to develop basically the same thing. He's since disappeared. Wonder why.

We've had this technology for a while... just there's just too damn much money to be made in OIL for this particular development to happen. The war for oil makes money and the demand for oil has tripled if not quadrupled... It would take a lot for the change-over. Almost everything we have is running on that black stuff that comes out of the ground.

Maybe our great great great great great great grandchildren will see this technology actually come to full fruition ... we sure won't.

 

[Big Don]

Doc Brown had one of those...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

A couple of years ago there was a guy who managed to develop basically the same thing. He's since disappeared. Wonder why.

We've had this technology for a while... just there's just too damn much money to be made in OIL for this particular development to happen. The war for oil makes money and the demand for oil has tripled if not quadrupled... It would take a lot for the change-over. Almost everything we have is running on that black stuff that comes out of the ground.

Maybe our great great great great great great grandchildren will see this technology actually come to full fruition ... we sure won't.

I don't know really all it takes is for one big automobile manufacturer to get it up and running, affordable with a profit for them and walla next thing you know I will just go to the tap for my cars fuel.

 

[MA-Caver]

I don't know really all it takes is for one big automobile manufacturer to get it up and running, affordable with a profit for them and walla next thing you know I will just go to the tap for my cars fuel.

IF Big Oil will LET them develop it. That's the problem. You get a car that where all you gotta do is hook up your garden hose to it and those guys go broke in a few years.
Imagine a water powered ocean liner or even naval vessel... a way to convert the seawater by simply traveling over the surface and having it flow via a conduction pipe directly to the engine... they'd be able to circumnavigate the globe forever without stopping. Those big oil tankers would just be sold for scrap or converted to food carriers because now it's a helluva lot cheaper to ship food overseas.
Where will those guys be?

 

[Rich Parsons]

A couple of years ago there was a guy who managed to develop basically the same thing. He's since disappeared. Wonder why.

We've had this technology for a while... just there's just too damn much money to be made in OIL for this particular development to happen. The war for oil makes money and the demand for oil has tripled if not quadrupled... It would take a lot for the change-over. Almost everything we have is running on that black stuff that comes out of the ground.

Maybe our great great great great great great grandchildren will see this technology actually come to full fruition ... we sure won't.

IF Big Oil will LET them develop it. That's the problem. You get a car that where all you gotta do is hook up your garden hose to it and those guys go broke in a few years.
Imagine a water powered ocean liner or even naval vessel... a way to convert the seawater by simply traveling over the surface and having it flow via a conduction pipe directly to the engine... they'd be able to circumnavigate the globe forever without stopping. Those big oil tankers would just be sold for scrap or converted to food carriers because now it's a helluva lot cheaper to ship food overseas.
Where will those guys be?

MA-Caver,

As I work for one of those evil auto companies, I guess my comments are suspect as I may be brain washed.

But I appeal to your better judgment and ask that you at least read what I write here and possible answer a question or two.

If a company right now had the 50 to 75 Mile per Gallon Carb I keep hearing about do you not think they would be out there selling them and making money? The real answer is that when there was a Carb improvement of about 50% in the mid to late 70's at the same time of fuel injection and control systems to go closed loop on fuel control to meet emission. But 50% on 6 to 8 miles per gallon got you 9 to 12 miles per gallon but did not meet emissions. Where, the fuel injectors also met emissions and got as good fuel economy.

I know of know major oil company that could convince a car company to have its stock fall to below $7 (Ford) and below $16.5 (GM) and have to close plants and pay employees not to work.

I mean if there was a benefit to making this product that could make them money would not their evil greed not lean towards making this money?

GM has had Hydrogen cars running for a couple of years now. Problems are cost of the "engine" in precious metals the strip those electrons. Also how do you make it work when the water freezes. How many people in the US would buy a vehicle if they could not use if it got too cold or too hot?

I agree the idea of using water directly is nice. It gets rid of the having to package and distribute the hydrogen in other methods.

While I agree that the days of really big gas engines with lost of power to go really fast are limited. To meet the new federal fuel economy numbers as they get rolled out between now and 2020, will mean a change to what the public sees. You will no longer have mini-vans that are competing for 0 to 60 MPH times for consumers reports. The performance of the vehicles will go down and the response will be slower to help people save fuel, or to show the government that they can make a fuel economy number.

Why did GM just close four truck plants? Because sales are down for the market of 25% and GM sells more trucks than cars. They were selling trucks because people were buying trucks and they were making money. Now the climate changes and they must sell more cars as that is what the market wants. But, with the overall market down, this will be even harder.

So is it GM's fault for selling the vehicles? No the customer demand was there. Is it their fault that the demand changed so drastically in 6 to 9 months? No again as this is an open market. So GM takes a hit while the oil companies make money. I do not see the connection here. I will say it is GM's fault that they sell more trucks then cars as they choose to build them and target that market. That was their choice so they have to live with that.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

MA-Caver,

As I work for one of those evil auto companies, I guess my comments are suspect as I may be brain washed.

But I appeal to your better judgment and ask that you at least read what I write here and possible answer a question or two.

If a company right now had the 50 to 75 Mile per Gallon Carb I keep hearing about do you not think they would be out there selling them and making money? The real answer is that when there was a Carb improvement of about 50% in the mid to late 70's at the same time of fuel injection and control systems to go closed loop on fuel control to meet emission. But 50% on 6 to 8 miles per gallon got you 9 to 12 miles per gallon but did not meet emissions. Where, the fuel injectors also met emissions and got as good fuel economy.

I know of know major oil company that could convince a car company to have its stock fall to below $7 (Ford) and below $16.5 (GM) and have to close plants and pay employees not to work.

I mean if there was a benefit to making this product that could make them money would not their evil greed not lean towards making this money?

GM has had Hydrogen cars running for a couple of years now. Problems are cost of the "engine" in precious metals the strip those electrons. Also how do you make it work when the water freezes. How many people in the US would buy a vehicle if they could not use if it got too cold or too hot?

I agree the idea of using water directly is nice. It gets rid of the having to package and distribute the hydrogen in other methods.

While I agree that the days of really big gas engines with lost of power to go really fast are limited. To meet the new federal fuel economy numbers as they get rolled out between now and 2020, will mean a change to what the public sees. You will no longer have mini-vans that are competing for 0 to 60 MPH times for consumers reports. The performance of the vehicles will go down and the response will be slower to help people save fuel, or to show the government that they can make a fuel economy number.

Why did GM just close four truck plants? Because sales are down for the market of 25% and GM sells more trucks than cars. They were selling trucks because people were buying trucks and they were making money. Now the climate changes and they must sell more cars as that is what the market wants. But, with the overall market down, this will be even harder.

So is it GM's fault for selling the vehicles? No the customer demand was there. Is it their fault that the demand changed so drastically in 6 to 9 months? No again as this is an open market. So GM takes a hit while the oil companies make money. I do not see the connection here. I will say it is GM's fault that they sell more trucks then cars as they choose to build them and target that market. That was their choice so they have to live with that.

Hey Rich, nice post. If the auto industry can make a product that could run on water and they could then reap the benefit of having that product they simply will. It is only a matter of time when one auto company does so for all the rest get into the game. Give us an alternative car/truck/van that runs on some type of reusable or renewable fuel source that gets us away from being oil dependent. Which ever company does that will own the vehicular market.

 

[Brian Johns]

I recall reading somewhere that GM is basically betting the farm on an all electric vehicle named the Volt and are cramming 10 years of R&D into 3 years. Lot of pressure on Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO. The fact that we are all discussing this indicates that this is not merely a cycle but a fundamental structural shift in the way that oil is priced.

Take care,
Brian Johns

 

[Archangel M]

Wow...that is impressive.

 

[MA-Caver]

Well Rich I guess I came across a bit too cynical but only because of hearing/reading/seeing stories about all these wonderful alternate fuel technologies over the past 20-30 years and they never get developed on a wide scale like they could/should/would have and our dependence upon oil/petroleum products would be drastically reduced down to just lubricating oils and the like instead of refining them down to a fuel that causes pollution and now-a-days causes people thinking about getting a third job just to put the gas in their tanks.

Question is... who is the more powerful entity here?
Big Oil?
Big Auto?
Or the Consumer?

Which of these three will actually assert the power that they have?
The auto companies will certainly do/make whatever the consumer demands... but only recently with the technology to do so decades old are they producing alternate fueled vehicles.
It was very expensive back then... it's more expensive now. Technology as many know only gets better after it's been used for a while. Eventually there comes along someone in their garage who looks at the present technology and says.. hmm, how about if we change this to that and remove this and replace it with that part and... hey a better mouse-trap! Technology also gets cheaper over time... remember how much a 254K computer used to cost? Remember the price of a new DVD player when they first came out?
Same idea I think.

 

[Sukerkin]

A most important point there, Caver. Kudos too to Rich for giving us the benefit of his industry-insider knowledge :tup:.

 

[Kacey]

The pros to this concept are wonderful - water for fuel, 80 kph for an hour, etc. - but I notice that no cons were listed, along with some other missing information, and I have to wonder about things like production and purchase price, pollution (either from the conversion process itself or the manufacturing process), size (is the test vehicle that size because that's the chassis that was available, or is it a power issue), capacity (internal and weight) and so on.

Don't get me wrong - if this technology can be made to work, especially in an environmentally friendly way, I'm all for it - but I did notice some glaring omissions in the video.

 

[Nolerama]

I know, I've said this before... But a really good renewable energy source is leg power and brain power.

Use the leg power to peddle the bike we're all going to have to ride; or walk to the nearest mass-transit train run on nuclear/hydroelectric/solar/wind-powered batteries.

Use the brain power to deal with that concept, plan your day, and adapt our society/infrastructure/consumer habits to the reality that one day, no one will be driving gasoline-driven automobiles.


However... A water-powered car would be cool. I was bouncing on E today and I wish I could have poured water into the tank.

The concept of water-powered seagoing vessels is interesting. With a combination of solar/wind tech to power the process of separating the hydrogen and oxygen, that could be possible... But expensive at the start.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well Rich I guess I came across a bit too cynical but only because of hearing/reading/seeing stories about all these wonderful alternate fuel technologies over the past 20-30 years and they never get developed on a wide scale like they could/should/would have and our dependence upon oil/petroleum products would be drastically reduced down to just lubricating oils and the like instead of refining them down to a fuel that causes pollution and now-a-days causes people thinking about getting a third job just to put the gas in their tanks.

Question is... who is the more powerful entity here?
Big Oil?
Big Auto?
Or the Consumer?

Which of these three will actually assert the power that they have?
The auto companies will certainly do/make whatever the consumer demands... but only recently with the technology to do so decades old are they producing alternate fueled vehicles.
It was very expensive back then... it's more expensive now. Technology as many know only gets better after it's been used for a while. Eventually there comes along someone in their garage who looks at the present technology and says.. hmm, how about if we change this to that and remove this and replace it with that part and... hey a better mouse-trap! Technology also gets cheaper over time... remember how much a 254K computer used to cost? Remember the price of a new DVD player when they first came out?
Same idea I think.

There has been Two-Cycle programs in the early 90's. But then CARB and EPA passed another round of emission requirements and they could not make it work with the technology of the time. Even today in California they do not sell two-cycle for lawn mowers for emission reasons.

There were the CNG or Compressed Natural Gas programs, and they work great for fleet vehicles that come back to the garage every day and do not go beyond the range of the vehicle. This range was at best in full size vans between 200 and 300 miles. This was deemed by the market as no one would buy them, that it was not a valid program.

As to Flex-fuel cars, and the world, where GM has vehicles that run on E10 regulations which actually includes up to E15 levels, and then the E20 that most of the rest of the world runs on with the exception of Brazil that uses E22. And yes that 2 extra percent does make a difference in durability and making the whole system work. Then there are E40 and now the E85 levels as well.

And here I will agree with you MA-Caver, that oil developers may not have wanted this to happen. But to this end there is no direct link from the Auto to Oil companies. EPA/CARB gives out emission credits based upon emission levels of the vehicles being produced or they charge credits to companies. Sometimes the credits are bought and sold. (* Even the power companies are getting into selling them now to the customer. *) And in another thread by SheSulsa she mentions the dirty little secret which is the above. They get credits for Flex-Fuel. EPA planned it this way. Why? If there were no cars on the road to use these fuels then the oil companies could argue there was no demand. See, the system might have worked here. Very slowly, but in the end the idea was to get vehicles on the road to get people to use it.

GM has even worked with companies to start to carry E85 so that there would be product the customers could buy.

But now comes the greed of the oil companies. As Ethanol is 30% less efficient by volume, we get about 25.5 with E85. So the cost of E85 needs to be 25.5 less than Gas just to break even for cost per energy.

Yet, in here I do not see the relationship of the evil auto companies to the oil companies. I do see where one could draw conclusions about the oil companies though.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I recall reading somewhere that GM is basically betting the farm on an all electric vehicle named the Volt and are cramming 10 years of R&D into 3 years. Lot of pressure on Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO. The fact that we are all discussing this indicates that this is not merely a cycle but a fundamental structural shift in the way that oil is priced.

Take care,
Brian Johns

Brian,

See my comments:

GM is not betting the farm on the Volt alone. They R&D you are talking about is around Batteries. The Lithium batteries are the key to this. Can the absorb the energy in a timely manner (* existing lithium and non lithium cannot absorb as fast as the inverter can send it. *), and also function in the extreme heat and extreme cold. While Honda owners in Phoenix may be willing to not complain to JD Power or Consumer having to have their windows on the first gen hybrids over the batteries get to hot to even start the vehicle up. The same is also true in the cold. It does not have the power to turn the engine over in the cold. BTW: We are not even into production and we are working with the suppliers on a second generation Battery cell/module that is lighter and smaller and more efficient which means one can pack more cells into a module and more modules into a pack for the space allocated already.

The Volt is an Extended Range Electric Vehicle. The IC Engine is just there to charge the system. All the propulsion is electric via motor(s) but the IC engine is still in the system for energy source.

GM is also betting on hybrids for the next few years. GM is the only manufacturer that has a design to work on Trucks and the mass of a vehicle that big. This will allow them to continue to sell trucks to the companies that need trucks and vans for their business. GM is working on the second generation system for this system now.

GM has this in production on the Truck lines and may be purchased or ordered.

GM in December should be going to production for the Saturn Vue which will have a similar design as to the trucks but will be front wheel drive versus rear wheel. It is smaller obviously and also will have electric capability only in city/sub division driving ranges of speed.

The real advantage to the system is that at high way speeds the motors may be disconnected and a gear engaged to get overdrive. The other designs used by the other companies still has the motor spinning at real high speeds on the expressway. The motors are inefficient in this range and provide little to no power to the system. They many times take more energy to spin then they provide. (* Which is way I get so frustrated with the little hybrids that pass me on the expressway when I am doing 70 to 70 MPH. They are not efficient in that range. A small car with a normal transmissions would be better. *)

GM is also working on Plug-in technology. This requires the Lithium ION cells for it to work.

So yes there are lots of R&D but most of it is around the batteries and getting new suppliers that are not used to Automotive environment for their products to work. Some work great but fail on the crash tests. Others work great is labs where the temperature is controlled.


Do a search for Bob Lutz and you should find comments in the press or on his blog(s) about these products.