Use your lunch break to fill your gas tank.

faster100

Demiurge wrote:

My older brother had a red 1980 Chevette. He bought it from a family friend for $1.

was that for tax savings or was it really a dollar

actually here anyways, ya cant do the dollar thing on cars even if a gift.. they blue book it and charge tax on that when you transfer the title if you list the price to low

assuming its a cheap car and not bought at a dealer, where of course they add it all in and stick it to ya

halo

On this forum, when discussing audio and sometimes video, I hear a lot about how, even though technology is contstantly advancing, we tend to find that the best quailty (subjective) is found when we go back to the begining (Tube gear for audio and CRT for video).

Have you ever seen Jay Leno's car collection? Plenty of antique electric cars and steam powered cars. He drives a Stanley Steamer to "work" The technology to be off of crude oil has been staring us in the face but, of course, no one is pursuing it. I wonder why :rolleyes:

Ya, I know - it's me Mr. Paranoid Conspiracy Theory again, right? If that's true why did Tucker fail? He built a better mousetrap and got squished.

There was a show on TLC or (one of) the Discovery Channel(s) called "Amped Up". It was about a couple of guys (in Canada I think) that were retro fitting cars with electric motors and batteries. They made a mail truck into a drag racer. Couldn't get it to launch because those motors put out so much torque they kept breaking the axle. One of the guys had converted a Datsun 280Z for his daily driver. It wasn't slow and it went more than 60 - 80 miles on a single charge.

Mel Gibson :eek: had a movie out recently titled "Who killed the electric car?" IIRC it dealt mainly with the electric car GM put out in the 90's. They leased the vehicles - when the leases were over they got all the cars back and destroyed them. Instead of advancing the technology they buried it.

Heck, maybe they never should've gotten away from the Model T Ford. No seatbelts cause it didn't go that fast. What do you need to go fast for if you're always stuck in traffic. Probably got good gas mileage too. I used to see people (in old films) driving them in muddy, rock littered, fields (who needs a truck or an SUV)? I know we'd have less fatalities on the roads.

Truckers in Europe got so fed up with the rising costs of fuel (in France, years ago) that they shut down the whole country by stopping on the roads and refused to move until prices went down. IIRC people supported the truckers and after a week or two prices went down.

I'm sure you got an email that suggests people stop buying gas for one day or stop buying gas at certain stations to make the oil companies feel a pinch but nobody does it. I don't know if it would work, I'm not an expert. All of these just seem like good ideas to me.

My $.02 on this crude oil dependancy thing and the rising fuel costs (if you think they're going to go back down think again).

Yours truely,

The friendly forum nutball.

mhardy6647

Of course this just an opinion
Anyone agree or disagree?

You are, IMNSHO, exactly correct, sir.

mhardy6647

If that's true why did Tucker fail?

umm, last I knew, there was a fair amount of evidence that Preston Tucker was basically a con man.

EDIT: Well, maybe yes and maybe no, I guess... I went back and checked; he was in fact tried and acquitted. My recollection was that he'd bailed to South America. Maybe he did so, but it was after his acquittal.

reeltrouble1

bobman1235 wrote:

I can't tell if RT1 is an **** or hilarious.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA:D YOU don't know do you!!!!!!!!!!

I head up our disinformation department.

Touche', how about a little virtual Rum, then a few random thoughts to start the fun.

RT1
Keep biting I'll keep reeling!!!
(lawnchairs anyone)

bobman1235

There's a movie called Tucker... how true to life it is I don' tknow, but basically it shows that he was "tried as a conman" because the big car companies took everything out from underneath him and so he couldn't fulfill his promises to his investors..

As to Halo's long post.... pretty much all of the examples you gave are of cars that run on electricity (or steam, which is just ludicrous. I'm going to go ahead and say without any evidence that a steam engine is neither practical nor ecological for a modren car... ). Electricity has to COME from somewhere. Yeah, the car has batteries, but when you plug the car in to charge the batteries, you're using energy from somewhere else, and at one point chances are it comes from burning fossil fuels, unless you live in a nuclear power plant region. All you did was push the problem out of your sight into someone else's. Out of sight out of mind? Hardly.

And all those "don't buy gas on certain days" things are garbage. It's one thing to shut down the entire trucking industry in Europe, it's a complete 'nother thing to think that by not buying gas from a certain vendor on one or two day sof the week (or even at all) is going to do a damn thing except put some private franchise gas station owner out of business, when he has no control over gas prices.

There's no SIMPLE solution, that's why it's taking so long to FIND a solution.

reeltrouble1

random thought #1, water is the essence of life.

Hint=If Market incentives are used to curtail pollution, and market forces are left to prevent the elimination of species, species and ecosystems which are perceived as having minimal or no value to humanity will be permanently eliminated.

Hint
RT1

reeltrouble1

Random thought #2

the symbiotic relationships within any natural order are in a constant state of flux yet there eventual outcome remains constant despite shifting.

Hint=Quantum System Analysis

venomclan

America should look into Methane as a power supply. There is enough methane off the east coast produced by sea vegetation, to power the entire country. Pollution free. The only upside to the high oil costs is that it does make companies look elsewhere to alternative power. They have even produced a small amount of gasoline from dog excrement.

If we were to combine solar, hydroelectric, methane, ethanol, wind turbines, cooking oils etc... we can slash the price of oil without relying on nuclear. Just got to get past the bureaucratic bs, politics, oil lobbyists etc...

We would then be able to tell Iran, Venezuela and all the other nutbags where to go. If they start crap, then bomb their ****.
Venom

Demiurge

venomclan wrote:

America should look into Methane as a power supply. There is enough methane off the east coast produced by sea vegetation, to power the entire country. Pollution free. The only upside to the high oil costs is that it does make companies look elsewhere to alternative power. They have even produced a small amount of gasoline from dog excrement.

If we were to combine solar, hydroelectric, methane, ethanol, wind turbines, cooking oils etc... we can slash the price of oil without relying on nuclear. Just got to get past the bureaucratic bs, politics, oil lobbyists etc...

We would then be able to tell Iran, Venezuela and all the other nutbags where to go. If they start crap, then bomb their ****.
Venom

Unfortunately they haven't found a way to strap a box on a cows **** yet.

mrbigbluelight

Demiurge wrote:

Unfortunately they haven't found a way to strap a box on a cows **** yet.

Are we talking for transportation here or for "entertainment" ?

In one case, no they haven't. In the other case, yes they have.


Tucker wasn't a con man, he was set up pretty darn well and had his legs kicked out from underneath him.

mhardy6647

Methane, like all hydrocarbons, will contribute carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, biosphere, and geosphere. Not so good.

The big advantage of hydrogen as an energy source is that the only product of combustion is water vapor (a la the Hindenburg). I can only imagine that hydrogen power is useful if the hydrogen can be generated as needed, in situ in a vehicle. I cannot imagine that driving around with a tank of refrigerated, compressed (liquid?) hydrogen is a good idea.

Wind, solar, and geothermal power are moderately attractive long-term 'solutions' to our thirst for energy... electric cars would be a more attractive idea if something sustainable or even "green" were used to generate the electricity.

Personally, I think that the long-term answer to humanity's energy jones is nuclear fusion... if cost-efficient, sustainable, controllable nuclear fusion can ever be developed on earth. Hydrogen bombs are great sources of energy, but they fail on cost-effectiveness and sustainability :-)

Demiurge

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Are we talking for transportation here or for "entertainment" ?

In one case, no they haven't. In the other case, yes they have.


Tucker wasn't a con man, he was set up pretty darn well and had his legs kicked out from underneath him.

That statement I made was from Ralph Nader as he was getting interviewed by Ali G. It was pretty funny, to say the least. Even he didn't think Methane was a viable alternative, and he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.

Warning: Language
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TB2qC2lXTL0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TB2qC2lXTL0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Anyhow, bring on the Nuclear Power!

PolkThug

This is the future:
http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv

halo

bobman1235 wrote:

As to Halo's long post.... pretty much all of the examples you gave are of cars that run on electricity (or steam, which is just ludicrous. I'm going to go ahead and say without any evidence that a steam engine is neither practical nor ecological for a modren car... ). Electricity has to COME from somewhere. Yeah, the car has batteries, but when you plug the car in to charge the batteries, you're using energy from somewhere else, and at one point chances are it comes from burning fossil fuels, unless you live in a nuclear power plant region. All you did was push the problem out of your sight into someone else's. Out of sight out of mind? Hardly.

Yes I see your point about generating electricity. I didn't mean to imply out of sight or out of mind - if I did I would've stopped at electricity. I didn't. I suggested something else which you dismissed as ludicrous (I don't remember calling any of your ideas names Bob). Dismissing steam engines as a viable power source is just ignoring an alternative solution. Why can't it work? Because you don't like it - ok, then, fine by me (feel free to ignore me from here on out). Leno has a one of a kind steam powered car in his collection that had solved almost all of the problems associated with steam cars. Unfortunately there is only one (he is restoring it). It never caught on because it was at the end of the steam car era (that and it was insanely expensive). Are you trying to tell me that they can put men on the moon with 1960's technology but they can't produce a steam powered vehicle with all of todays technology? Well, how about magnets? Don't they use that with some super train? I don't know how it works (I'm going off of memory here) but I know that they claimed using that technology they could launch the space shuttle.

bobman1235 wrote:

And all those "don't buy gas on certain days" things are garbage. It's one thing to shut down the entire trucking industry in Europe, it's a complete 'nother thing to think that by not buying gas from a certain vendor on one or two day sof the week (or even at all) is going to do a damn thing except put some private franchise gas station owner out of business, when he has no control over gas prices. There's no SIMPLE solution, that's why it's taking so long to FIND a solution.

I said I wasn't an expert Bob. I'll say it again: I am not an expert Shutting down the whole country with the truckers doesn't sound like a simple thing to do nor is it a solutuion - it'd be a band aid at best. I figured steam was (and still is) a viable option. I think there are other things standing in the way of a solution.

ND13

PolkThug wrote:

This is the future:
http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv

That dude will end up dead from some freak accident before the Oil/Utility/Government will allow the technology to advance or they'll sabotage him or make him look like a nut.

seo

Halo wrote:

Have you ever seen Jay Leno's car collection? Plenty of antique electric cars and steam powered cars. He drives a Stanley Steamer to "work" The technology to be off of crude oil has been staring us in the face but, of course, no one is pursuing it. I wonder why :rolleyes:

How does the water in a Stanley Steamer get converted to steam? There is a burner that is fed by gasoline or kerosene. :eek: Nothing's free when it comes to energy.

halo

seo wrote:

How does the water in a Stanley Steamer get converted to steam? There is a burner that is fed by gasoline or kerosene. :eek: Nothing's free when it comes to energy.

Did I say it was free? Besides, there's plenty of ways to make a spark. The amount of gasoline, kerosine, electricity (or whatever) would be nothing compared to what we use now. Heck, rub two sticks together.

halo

ND13 wrote:

That dude will end up dead from some freak accident before the Oil/Utility/Government will allow the technology to advance or they'll sabotage him or make him look like a nut.

I knew you had a foil hat hiding somewhere. Paranoid? No. Realistic? Yes!

seo

Halo wrote:

Did I say it was free? Besides, there's plenty of ways to make a spark. The amount of gasoline, kerosine, electricity (or whatever) would be nothing compared to what we use now. Heck, rub two sticks together.

A spark won't do it. As the steam engine produces work, the enthalpy of the steam is reduced. The only way to keep going is to continuously provide energy. This has to be done with some sort of fuel. A simple steam engine is only 5-8% efficient, whereas a internal combustion engine automobile is ~25% efficient.

The efficiency of the steam engine can be increased by the additon of a condenser, feedwater heater, etc., which the stanley steamer engines has. These additions increase the efficiency maybe to 25%, the same as an internal combustion engine. What this means is that the anount of fuel needed is not any less than an internal combustion engine for the same amount of work produced.

http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/GeneralTechnical/images/735PipingDiagram.pdf

halo

Thanks for the education seo. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

halo

PolkThug wrote:

This is the future:
http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv

Now that is awesome! What's the name of his company? I want to buy some stock

VR3

$74.00 bucks...

I told the lady at the counter that she just robbed someone for the first time in her life.

I wasnt to happy about that. Granted, I only spent 5 more bucks than normal... but ya know - its kind of like 19.99, 69.99 sounds alot better than 70.00!

Certainly killed my budget for the next week! ****!

bobman1235

The "water fuel" guy has been discussed before. He's just using something that's been around foreve,r it's called electrolosys. Like every other effing thing, it takes ELECTRICITY to work. It takes more energy to produce the "gas" created from the water than you GET from the gas, so it's a LOSSY process.

Maybe that guy somehow broke the laws of phsyics, but I doubt it.


And Halo, no personal attacks meant, as usual I just get a little... passionate in my arguments.

halo

bobman1235 wrote:

The "water fuel" guy has been discussed before. He's just using something that's been around foreve,r it's called electrolosys. Like every other effing thing, it takes ELECTRICITY to work. It takes more energy to produce the "gas" created from the water than you GET from the gas, so it's a LOSSY process.

Maybe that guy somehow broke the laws of phsyics, but I doubt it.


And Halo, no personal attacks meant, as usual I just get a little... passionate in my arguments.

I know Bob, we've had discussions before No harm done

Can someone please tell me where I can get 9/10 of a penny? I'd love to have actual currency that matches the price on the sign.

reeltrouble1

Random thought #3

People who call others names have feelings of inferiority about theirself.

We have no engineers who have delved into the Quantum Systems sciences efforts to resolve problems with man made system's by studying natural order systems??? I would like to hear from them if so.

Hint=There is movement around us.

RT1

cheddar

Halo,

Usually, when you follow the "total cost" of any alternative out, you find that they are just not cost effective for whatever reason. Putting all the energy and raw materials into building a model T-like car would probably be a phenomenal waste when the real transportation benefits (getting you from point a to point b for the least amount of gas in the least amount of time) were weighed against it.

And you have to remember, drivers in Europe would probably kill for OUR gasoline prices in the states. So their response to socialist constructed energy prices isn't something that would necessarily be effective here.

Also, not buying gas for a day would just mean that most Amercians would just buy more gas the next day. Most Amercians just aren't willing to give up the convenience of a car at today's fuel prices.

If a solution seems really simple and people just haven't jumped on board, it's usually because the savings in the end just don't add up if you do the math.

PolkThug

doh!

venomclan

Demiurge wrote:

Unfortunately they haven't found a way to strap a box on a cows **** yet.

We put man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and we cant do this?

Demiurge

It was a joke....

Anyhow, alternative sources of energy that take more energy to produce/transport/store/grow it aren't viable.