PDA

View Full Version : The next big thing in motors



grannygear
11-01-2007, 02:22 AM
Just read an on-line article in Fast Company magazine about a guy named Johnathan Goodwin, self-taught uber-mechanic from Kansas with the biodiesel engine of the future. Maybe you folks already know about him?

He was on MTVs "Pimp my Ride" program. Converted a 1965 Chevy Impala to biodiesel, increasing the horsepower to over 800, doubling the fuel mileage, and reducing emissions by 80%. Oh, and he smoked a Lamborghini in a drag race with it.

He's got a Hummer H3 with a hybrid electric motor. A jet turbine provides near-instantaneous recharge of the supercapacitor storage cells for the electric motor. 60 miles to the gallon, 2000 pounds-feet of torque (no, that is not a mistake), 600 horsepower and 0-60 in 5 seconds. In a 5000 pound Hummer. Burning chicken fat.

Is this for real? The electric car fraternity say he's the Messiah. Detroit doesn't seem to know what to make of him. What do you think, is this IT?

dp
11-01-2007, 02:37 AM
This site, well known for objectivity, thinks it may be a fraud:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/30/153528/46

Probably W's fault.

rantbot
11-01-2007, 03:54 AM
I'll bet it runs great on that pure snake oil.

barts
11-01-2007, 04:18 AM
This site, well known for objectivity, thinks it may be a fraud:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/30/153528/46

Probably W's fault.

Well, it's well known that reality has a liberal bias.

- Bart

grannygear
11-01-2007, 04:50 AM
The DailyKos article does not by any means prove in any way that this man is a fraud - even the author of the diary entry doesn't claim this. All he does is imply, rather broadly, that the man is a fraud because the author couldn't find any relevant patent applications under his name. Evidence? Maybe. Proof? No.

At least DailyKos, which is just some guys' blog that has gained traction over the years, invites its readers to fact-check for themselves, cross reference, share knowledge and try to get to the bottom of things. They have a liberal bias, you bet. But I'd like to see Town Hall or Free Republic or The Weekly Standard be equally open-minded and careful with the facts - which they are almost contemptuous of, and oblivious to self-criticism.

I remain open-minded on this. That the technology exists is beyond dispute. That it does all that is claimed for it - this is what I want to know.

SGW
11-01-2007, 08:05 AM
The 60 miles to the gallon part doesn't sound plausible to me. If that's not including the energy used to charge the battery, maybe, but the fuel for that jet turbine ought to be included in any calculation.

J Tiers
11-01-2007, 08:16 AM
It's pretty well known that the "jet turbine" in general isn't as efficient as other prime movers such as a diesel, without a lot of "extras". I happen to have a connection to a cogeneration company that is using a turbine, and they have to go to extremes to get the efficiency up (they make the turbines).

The turbine has other advantages, which tend to offset the problems.

When one says "jet turbine" one implies a converted aircraft unit. That would be likely to be sub-optimal unless used as designed, in an aircraft at aircraft speed.....

If it is a different type, then it is more possible.

However, the self-taught mechanic types tend to be very good at what they know, but often are quite weak on the physics end. Hence all may not be as it seems.

A.K. Boomer
11-01-2007, 08:24 AM
He's got a Hummer H3 with a hybrid electric motor. A jet turbine provides near-instantaneous recharge of the supercapacitor storage cells for the electric motor. 60 miles to the gallon, 2000 pounds-feet of torque (no, that is not a mistake), 600 horsepower and 0-60 in 5 seconds. In a 5000 pound Hummer. Burning chicken fat.

Is this for real? The electric car fraternity say he's the Messiah. Detroit doesn't seem to know what to make of him. What do you think, is this IT?



All I can say is theres no free lunch, And the more systems you add and the more you have to go through there is a price that you have to pay in all the conversions,
Off the top of my head the hummer sounds like a nightmare, first off he's starting out with a very poor choice for efficiency, the jet turbine, then he's not going direct with it, He has to run a massive generator --- more losses and I might add weight as well, supercapacitor storage cells, more losses and weight, to finally the electric motor, more loses and weight...

just my two cents.

Lew Hartswick
11-01-2007, 08:51 AM
Isn't it amazing how many prople can ignore the realities of physics?
The "news" reporters are among the most notorious and the ones
that post things like this on news groups are almost as bad. :-(
...lew...

tony ennis
11-01-2007, 08:53 AM
Not the full story at best, a hoax at worst.

Consider if he has made something new and patentable, he's sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars. When someone verifies his claims, I'll be interested. Until then, no way.

2ManyHobbies
11-01-2007, 09:44 AM
Here is a page with the Hummer rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1230

The H2 requires ~550 N just to overcome rolling resistance. Force required to overcome aerodynamic drag would be 1.58 * velocity (in m/s) or 3.53 N per mph or speed. At 60 mph, an H2 requires 761.8 N of force just to maintain speed, which would require ~73.6 MJ to go an hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel
Biodiesel has an energy density of up to 35.7 MJ/L or 135.1 MJ/gallon...

73.6 MJ/135.1 MJ * 100% ~ 54.5% efficient on turbine combustion? That is a stretch for me to accept...

jrl
11-01-2007, 07:44 PM
The way the patent system works these days, it makes little sense for an individual inventor to file one: It costs a couple kilobucks to obtain the patent, then the MINIMUM retainer most intellectual property lawyers demand to prosecute an infringement action is about $10,000 cash upfront, and you can easily run into the megabucks defending a patent.

Back when I was in highschool, I read a biography of Lee deForest, who invented the triode, amplifier and the optical movie soundtrack amongst other things. Basically all his money for decades went into patent suits.

The situation is even worse today: Back in deForest's day there were very few companies which could string out the process the way AT&T did with him. Today there are hundreds, if not thousands.

I do have to admit 60mpg sounds improbable for a two and a half ton Hummer. Maybe on highway 56 from Wichita to Liberal, but. . . I've seen alternate fuel advocates only count the fossil fuel consumption in their mileage, thus claiming 100+mpg on a diesel golf that gets 48mpg anyway.

J Tiers
11-01-2007, 08:56 PM
We were given a price of about 2 million to attack a worthless patent. AND we were told that it would do no good, as the applicable court NEVER overturns patents without the exact same words in a textbook......

That said, a patent is often the door-opener to investment. The magic words "intellectual property" are the key to the money room. A patent is one of the most demonstrable forms of intellectual property.

Therefore a patent is still worth getting IF you expect to need/get investors.

grannygear
11-01-2007, 09:22 PM
I admit my understanding of the thermodynamics might be a little weak here, but I thought that one of the essential advantages in this biodiesel system that he has is that it is not, strictly speaking, a fuel/air mixture. It's fuel/hydrogen/air, or fuel/methane/air, or fuel/ethane/air. A number of different volatile gases can be used to boost the combustion efficiency substantially, with a corresponding decrease in particulate emissions.

Of course what are the true efficiencies, when you factor in the processing and transportation costs for the different fuels? It's not yet viable commercially - but I was surprised by how much more power can still be wrung out of this raw material.

wierdscience
11-01-2007, 09:41 PM
"Sustainable resource" is a poor term being applied to all sorts of things and not just "Fringe Fry oil".They are not a replacement for FF derived fuels and cannot be produced in large enough quanities to supply the masses.At best they are just a novel use for a product that was previously considered waste.At the worst they are just another source of a new type of polution.

Bio-diesel made from reclaimed vegetable oil may or may not be at an energy density close to that of traditional diesel.The manufacture of said fuel requires a fair amount of energy,some chemicals and does produce waste by-products of it's own.

A local near here has a diesel pickup and several diesel tractors so he decided to buy a kit sold in The Mother Earth Foilhat magazine for about $1150.It showed up as a few fairly good sized poly tanks,a few pumps and brackets,some process heaters and of course instructions.This unit when assembled would produce actual bio-diesel from waste vegtable oil that could be burnt straight with no dilution in any diesel engine(more on this later).

He got the thing put together and off to town he went to find some fry oil which he found plenty.Back to the farm,filter it off and into the first vat,add some caustic soda aggitate and heat for several hours and then transfer to the settling tank,a few hours later watch as the bio-diesel seperates from the glyceride fats and drains into a collection tank.........wait,what was that about glyceride fat?Oh,turns out that's the white gooey stuff in the bottom of the settling vat that looks a lot like candle wax,but burns the skin when touched because of all the caustic.Oh well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it,but WOW! look at all the diesel we got off 150gallons of fry oil!Okay,a fair amount of work and expense to yield 60 gallons of diesel.

But wait,60 gallons of fuel from 150 gallons of oil?Yep we have 90 gallons there about of waste(waxy fat,soap,caustic).At this point I see a problem,but he doesn't.Not to be discouraged he figures up his cost of production for his 60 gallons and it works out to about $.65/gallon(this was when diesel at the pump was $1.80/gallon)Never mind about the waste issues that was a pretty good deal for some diesel.

Good deal until.....people with burnt veggie oil started charging for it.See word got out that he and others were home brewing and like the good business people resturant owners are they responded to the demand and began charging for the oil.$.75/gallon was the last price I heard back when I cared.So much for cheap diesel,now it was just"cheaper diesel".Until......he found out the pittfalls of running straight bio in modern highspeed diesel engines,seems the old CAV,Stanadyne and Roosamaster injection pumps depended on the sulphur in the diesel to lubricate the pump plungers.Slowly over a period of months one pump on one tractor after another started laying down.$600,$900 and $1600 later this "cheaper diesel" wasn't so cheap afterall.

Remember back when I mentioned diluting bio?Well most people who have learned the hard way have come to realise that mixing 20% bio with regular diesel is the way to go.You only have to heat the oil to wring the water out and filter it before adding.This way your pumps last and there is no annoying 3,000lb blob of shortening left over.Is it cost effective?No.Is it saving the enviroment?No.Will it produce more HP from the same volume of fuel?Asolutely not.

What it will do is sell books,kits and chemicals and get some air time for people wanting to be famous.The local guy is still pondering what to do with 1500 gallons of vegatable grease,most times while he is on his way to town to buy diesel for his tractors.

If he could find a use for his by-product(it's how chemical companies make a profit) he would probably still do okay cost wise,but not so long as the goo remains.

Will bio-diesel be the answer?No,there is no way to produce enough of it.It sounds good and sells books,but it will always be a Fringe Fuel.

There are a ton of links to be found on Google refering to the work of Johnathan Goodwin.Several of them elude to his methods,thou none produce any real numbers or offer a look at his operating principals.

There was one link to the PMR(Pimp My Ride)episode in question where the Lambroghini was supposedly "smoked"by the bio-powered Caddy.The 12 second 1/4 they refered to must have been refering to the exhuast from the diesel "smoking" up the track because a Lambroghini on the back of a drop deck wrecker would STILL make a 12 second 1/4.:D

Tony mentioned the billions of dollarsthat could be made if his invention were brought to market.That is the best devining rod for which technologies are at least pluasible enough to survive,it is an absolute of capitalism that if it could make billions it would be making billions.

slipup
11-01-2007, 11:00 PM
I'm so glad we haven't forgotten that the world is flat.

bob ward
11-02-2007, 12:28 AM
He's got a Hummer H3 with a hybrid electric motor. A jet turbine provides near-instantaneous recharge of the supercapacitor storage cells for the electric motor. 60 miles to the gallon, 2000 pounds-feet of torque (no, that is not a mistake), 600 horsepower and 0-60 in 5 seconds. In a 5000 pound Hummer. Burning chicken fat.


Those tens of thousands of clever young engineers, researchers and scientists employed by GM, Toyota, Renault, various governments etc must obviously be just gazing at the ceiling.;)

grannygear
11-02-2007, 09:07 PM
Hey, I haven't completely lost my mind. I think it unlikely in the extreme that this one guy has come up with something that hadn't already been thought up by hundreds of others before. I didn't buy into it hook, line and sinker.

But I wonder, are there any comparable inventions / innovations that 1) Went against the prevailing wisdom of the time 2) Were thought up by one person working outside of the mainstream 3) They said it couldn't be done, and 4) Is now a viable and workable technology that we all take for granted? I'm going to have to scratch my head over that one...

bob ward
11-02-2007, 11:17 PM
But I wonder, are there any comparable inventions / innovations that 1) Went against the prevailing wisdom of the time 2) Were thought up by one person working outside of the mainstream 3) They said it couldn't be done, and 4) Is now a viable and workable technology that we all take for granted? I'm going to have to scratch my head over that one...

Do a google search on Sister Kenny, a Queensland nurse whose successful treatments for polio victims were the exact opposite of what the medical profession prescribed at the time.

She was shunned in Australia but welcomed with open arms in America.

This an inspiring 'going against the mainstream' story.

tony ennis
11-02-2007, 11:52 PM
But I wonder, are there any comparable inventions / innovations that 1) Went against the prevailing wisdom of the time 2) Were thought up by one person working outside of the mainstream 3) They said it couldn't be done, and 4) Is now a viable and workable technology that we all take for granted?

Before we knew all the basics, absolutely. But within the realm of technology, the day of Bob working in his garage and inventing an anti-matter generator, a one-poled magnet, 200 MPG carburettor, or superconductivity, are over. Knowledge is built up in layers and in things like motors and fuel technology, we're fairly well booked-up.

To peer deeper generally requires a laboratory and funding.

Choose a relatively immature technology (like the internet, or web programming) and Joe Sixpack can do some worthwhile and innovative things.

A.K. Boomer
11-03-2007, 01:26 AM
Before we knew all the basics, absolutely. But within the realm of technology, the day of Bob working in his garage and inventing an anti-matter generator, a one-poled magnet, 200 MPG carburettor, or superconductivity, are over. Knowledge is built up in layers and in things like motors and fuel technology, we're fairly well booked-up.

To peer deeper generally requires a laboratory and funding.

Choose a relatively immature technology (like the internet, or web programming) and Joe Sixpack can do some worthwhile and innovative things.



Very well put Tony, I believe there are so many minds on it that it is very difficult to find loopholes anymore, but thats where you have to dig deeper, But deeper with common sense, not buck all the laws of thermodynamics and say "im going to take this peice of crap that is about as aerodynamic as garage door and propell it with something even worse than that of what the factory uses and then instead of running that system through the most direct aproach -- Im going to convert stuff three fold to try and confuse other people and then maybe the'll by my crap" and oh yeah -- it gets three times the gas milage.

And maybe your right about peering deeper "generally" requirering a labratory and funding, but ------- if an individual is determined, he'll/she'll find a way, And i will add this much, Who better to come up with a nice little practical breakthrough than someone who has either been removed from the injection molded structure and schooling or has gotten out early enough to conserve thier original thinking, After all -- the only thing you will ever really learn in school is something that somebody else already knows, Not a great start for "breaking through" --- not slaming it, just saying that it can actually be an advantage not to have gone -- if youve kept your mind active in the area's that could matter,

and also once again, I get the feeling when Albert E. made the statement that imagination is more important than knowledge that perhaps maybe he was trying to tell us something? Dream huge --- but try to keep it adaptive into a reality, preferably ours.

NickH
11-07-2007, 07:28 AM
it is not, strictly speaking, a fuel/air mixture. It's fuel/hydrogen/air, or fuel/methane/air, or fuel/ethane/air.

What's the difference between Fuel/air and Fuel/Fuel/air?

Apart from the charge cooling effect of vapourising gas and then you have to include the energy used to compress the gas in the first place in your calculations - No Free Lunch yet I'm afraid.

I think you are obfuscating the issue, not clarifying it there,
Nick

Mcgyver
11-07-2007, 07:37 AM
even if every claim were true, so what? Agriculture consumes many times the energy it produces, I forget the exact ratio but if it takes 18 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of his high test chicken fat nothing has been solved.

not since the horse drawn plough has agriculture produced more joules than it consumes

NickH
11-07-2007, 07:46 AM
but ------- if an individual is determined, he'll/she'll find a way.

History is full of determined people who didn't find a way, just a nice quiet little room with lots of obsolete trash connected together in a non-productive way, and a funny smell.

For every bright spark who gets somewhere there's thousands who don't but there's also those bright enough to make money through the ignorance of others.

Air car anyone?

Rotary valved engines?

Make a one-off, shout about a lot of unproven claims, wait for the money.
I bet the guy offers some fantastic investment opportunities and has a big house :D
Nick

A.K. Boomer
11-07-2007, 10:05 AM
History is full of determined people who didn't find a way, just a nice quiet little room with lots of obsolete trash connected together in a non-productive way, and a funny smell.




History is also full of people who never try anything, People who have defeatists attitudes from day one and never attempt anything either due to being too afraid of failure or just plain low intelligence and/or no curiousity or drive, In fact they greatly outnumber the ones who venture out and try and get stuff done, sad thing is - is thier usually to stupid and or lack the drive to use birth control and we just end up with more of them... And that "funny smell" -------- there full of it.

There is a member on here with a great signature post and it goes something like this; "Good judgement comes from Experience, and much experience comes from bad judgement" --------- Put me out there, I wanna be the guy making the mistakes cuz that means its just a matter of time before i get it dialed...





Rotary valved engines?



So long ago, What an undertaking to build a four stroke with ports (esp. for a guy with no machinery)--- but im glad I did, I learned so much about so many things, I have to say that after I heard it run I realized that I can pretty much do whatever I want too, and have a blast doing it:D
If you havnt figured out that "The trip is in the journey getting there" then there's nobody who can help with that, It is the defeatists attitudes that are a dime a dozen, thing is - is its a pretty grim place to hang out and you actually have a gaurantee of not going anywhere, on the flip side the very least that I get to say is I did not go out without a fight



Make a one-off, shout about a lot of unproven claims, wait for the money.
I bet the guy offers some fantastic investment opportunities and has a big house :D
Nick

Im in agreement here, its also sad that there's so many, but it makes the real McKoys stand out all the more,
Dont let these jackasses ruin your day, and also dont be so quick to judge, --- the guy with the Jet turbine driven generator capacitor discharged electric motor powered hummer may not be a sleeze, he might just be ignorant instead --- in which case it sounds as if he may be on a journey to enlightenment ;)

tony ennis
11-07-2007, 11:08 AM
"I get the feeling when Albert E. made the statement that imagination is more important than knowledge..."

When a guy who knows everything that is known about a topic (and contributed the neatest parts himself) makes a statement like that, I take it with a grain of salt, lol. Yes, once you're a fully booked-up supergenius, imagination helps. lolz.

And I don't believe that going to the University and learning somehow sucks the innovation and creative thought from one's head. I rather think you have the tools at your disposal to use your time for effectively.

I'm all about people trying stuff. But when people come up with amazing things I require proof before I jump on board. (Ever notice it always seems to be self-educated tinkerers who invent perpetual motion machines...)

Rich Carlstedt
11-07-2007, 12:28 PM
Does Cold Fusion ring a bell ?
There have been hucksters and secret blue pills to run your car on water since time began.
They are the stuff of great conspiricies and false assumptions by those who wish to make a fast buck from the innocent and uneducated.
No scientific study has ever DISPROVEN this fact:
There is no free lunch

It does not take a genius to know that 'power" and "economy" are NOT the same , or coinciding priorites.
Does a Dragster worry about mileage with a Funny Car on the quarter mile?
Do Solar cars worry about acceleration when doing cross country ?
If you drive with a heavy foot, you know what happens !

Yet, when these two agendas are supposedly "Blended' together and at a SUPERLATIVE RESULT, and at a "cheap" price by some "technology".. the ignorant run to the beat of the lip service !

Beware oh friends of those with magic ... formerly titled.........Perpetual Motion...

Rich

PS
100 BTU of results for 25 BTU input is called Perpetual Motion, no matter what spin you put on it !

J Tiers
11-07-2007, 07:32 PM
"defeatists"....?

You sound like a stooge for the sleazy investment folks.........

It's all about picking your battles, and the second law of thermodynamics is not on the front lines any more.

bob_s
11-07-2007, 09:11 PM
It' like the guy who reads the statistics that 1 in every 3 subscribers to Forbes magazine is a multi-millionaire. So he goes out and gets three subscriptions.

A.K. Boomer
11-07-2007, 09:58 PM
Please dont think im taking the hummer guys side JT, go back and read post 8 at how I called him out on violating the "free lunch law" and gave most of the reasons as to why he's so delusional.

It just seems to me that people get black and white on this stuff, No offence but I dont know what I would consider being worse; some idiot who keeps trying to build a perpetual motion machine Or some poor slob that cant see anything on the horizon, second thought, if I was the latter --- just pass me the gun.


The Rules of inventing useful things are very simple, there's no limitation to the imagination, and then there's the very strict rules of the playing field where the game is held --- The guy with the hummer ignores those rules -------------- Any fuqeing idiot who invests in something of this nature and doesnt have a clue as to how things work has broken an entirely different rule,
Something about a jackass and his money will soon part:)

There's two different outcomes, the idiot with the hummer was just an idiot --- and then that in turn makes the investor an idiot for both not knowing and not finding out, OR; The guy with the hummer is a sleeze - but this doesnt change the outcome of the investor --- who of course is still just an idiot...


Back to the crisis at hand, We (as in the world) are in a showdown, there is no disputing this, we cant afford to waste our time on crap and at the same time we have to look at many posiblities, The guy with the hummer is an instant right off --- but like tonight just watching the news they had a story on switchgrass yielding twice the ethanol rewards per acre as corn with less impact, this stuff is also a guarantee grow every year and you dont even need to water it, OK --- still no solution, but its cool to see the aproaches at a problem that will effect us all on a very large scale in just a very short time, The race is on to come up with a designer enzyme that will break down the cellulose structure of switchgrass at a much faster rate, is it the answer? god no, but it and about 100 different other things could be, so I aplaud it. Its what your putting into your tank right now, solar energy --- we just took a short cut and dug up the stuff that was already made, When finding and extracting the last little bits becomes more expensive than growing and converting the switchgrass then maybe thats what i do in my backyard someday.
One thing that I believe is for real is we all better be prepared to embrace some change, cuz its coming, Peak oil is on the downcurve of the bell, All while China and india are just getting tooled up, things are about to get very serious And the prime movers in the change of direction will be the people who believe it can happen in the first place, Now we need for gas to go to about 5 bucks a gallon, and it will, and that will keep the momentum going, perhaps maybe then people will stop commuting in thier houses and who knows, maybe a light bulb will go off in thier empty heads...

tony ennis
11-07-2007, 10:34 PM
Now we need for gas to go to about 5 bucks a gallon

Why? Who would get the extra money?

What we need is an alternative. Cars in the US account for about 40% of our oil consumption. So if all drivers used 20% less fuel, which is a pie-in-the-sky-won't-happen number, our nation's oil consumption would drop by 8%. Which is a very low payback for the effort involved.

I suspect that some analysis will show which entities is using the power. Making those entities more efficient will have the biggest positive impact. For example, having malls shut off half their parking lot lights after midnight.

-=-=-=-
Florescent light bulbs? Tons of mercury in them. I've heard that each bulb contains enough mercury to pollute a cube of soil 75' on a side. And before long the landfills are going to have millions of them.

There are no easy answers.

J Tiers
11-08-2007, 12:13 AM
Are you DEAD SURE that "cars" account for 40%?

The reason I ask is that MOST "cars" drive at most an hour in morning and another at night. Most drive less than that time, average maybe a half hour.

The rest of the time, the roads are full of trucks going 8 to 12 hours or more per day, delivering to Walmart, etc.... (Walmart doesn't seem to like the railroads).

Sure, there are more cars, but there are a LOT of trucks, they drive a lot more hours/miles per day, and they don't get such great mileage, either.

I now have a relatively long commute. But I can go a couple weeks on a tank of gas (15gallons or so).

An 18 wheeler in the same time period is filling up those big tanks a whole lot more times.

And, an aircraft is surely filling up even MORE times.........

Some forms of transport are more efficient. I have seen where railroads claim to move a ton 400 miles per gallon of fuel. That's darn good, compared to ANY truck transport. But everyone hates the trains...... and loves those 18 wheelers.

The mercury content of fluorescents is a lot less than it once was...... I bet that 75' cube is now BS, and has been for some time.... depending of course on your definition of 'polluting". And on the method of reporting the PPM.

But of course they DO contain "some" mercury, which is more than "none".

gmatov
11-08-2007, 12:17 AM
Tony,

Gotta go look for the numbers, but I think I dispute that private autos consume 40% of petroleum in this country.

Military is a HUGE user. Air transport, also HUGE. Power generation, ditto.

Will try to find better numbers.

Cheers,

George

tony ennis
11-08-2007, 12:45 AM
I think the exact quote was "cars and non-commercial trucks" or some such.

The point is, however, that just driving a little slower or buying a hybrid isn't going to matter one bit.

gmatov
11-08-2007, 01:24 AM
Here is one link to dispute the private auto usage.

http://energybulletin.net/13199.html

This, too, "saving up to 100,000 gallons of fuel per aircraft, per year,"
And, that, with a 4% savings. So if you do the resonable thing, each plane burns 2 1/2 million gallons per year, and I think I have read there are over 30,000 takeoffs per day in the US.

http://www.prnewsnow.com/Public_Release/Trade/162053.html

http://www.prnewsnow.com/Public_Release/Trade/162053.html This one says that existing aircraft use about 75 BILLION gallons per year.

I am not going to go further, getting late, but the peon with a low mileage car is not the bad guy, here.

Reduction of activity in the Iraqi theater would free up a hell of a lot of oil.

Were the dollar worth a damn in the international community, oil would be cheaper, also.

My dollar is worth about a plugged nickle, today. Yours, unless you have gone to offshore currencies, is probably about the same. Damned near worthless.

Cheers,
George

dp
11-08-2007, 01:34 AM
Oil would be cheaper if we were allowed to pump it where and when we wish, and cheaper yet if we bothered to build refineries to make it into something useful. That neither is happening is not because of big oil. It is because of big government. The biggest waste of my energy dollar is the tax I pay for gasoline at the pump.

matador
11-08-2007, 01:38 AM
quote"railroads claim to move a ton 400 miles per gallon of fuel"unquote.
The thing is,JT,how does that ton get to the train?It gets delivered by truck.
And when the ton gets to it's destination,how does it get to the end user?You guessed it,by truck.I'm quite convinced that for bulk loads over long distances, the train IS the most efficient,but without the road transport industry to back it up,it's damn near useless.Not every industry works next to a railroad.
The same argument goes on in many cities all over the world,how to get people out of their cars,and onto trains,buses,what have you.But individuals like their space and freedom,which the car gave them.There's no going back.

Willy
11-08-2007, 02:04 AM
Are you DEAD SURE that "cars" account for 40%?

The rest of the time, the roads are full of trucks going 8 to 12 hours or more per day, delivering to Walmart, etc.... (Walmart doesn't seem to like the railroads).

Sure, there are more cars, but there are a LOT of trucks, they drive a lot more hours/miles per day, and they don't get such great mileage, either.



JT, a couple of interesting clarifications for those not familiar with the logistics of freight movements.

It's not that Walmart doesn't like railways. They move freight as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Remember, it is all about bottom line to them.
They are one of the worlds largest private trucking fleets and have vowed to double their fleet average fuel economy from 6.5 mpg to 13 in ten years. That's quite an accomplishment for a vehicle that weighs 80,000 lbs.

To put that in more relevant numbers let's say your pickup and camper weigh 8,000 and you are getting 65 mpg...yeah I know...not likely, but in ten years you will be moving that same load at 130 mpg. Let's see you match either one of those figures with your 4,000 lbs car.

I'm not a real big fan of Walmart, but they and just about everyone else that hopes to stay in business has relied upon the flexibility of truck freight to cut their overhead. Ford used to keep a yard in their pickup assembly plant stocked with enough frames to last a month. Now they have just enough to last an eight hour shift.

It's called...." just in time inventory ". Our nation's highways are now our nation's warehouses. I'm sure anybody that's been driving for the last twenty years has noticed the change.

J Tiers
11-08-2007, 08:29 AM
I know all about the end delivery issues. AND I have seen Walmart disty centers going up with apparently NO railroad access.......

But why limit it to Walmart?

There are 200 trucks NOT theirs for every one that IS, so LOTS of folks are willing to "pour diesel on the ground" to get their goods faster and rip the other guy off faster.....

So I put it to you....... Does it burn more fuel to send 240 18 wheelers from Philly to Denver, or to send ONE train of 120 container cars?

We BOTH know the answer.....

And it AIN'T that we are burning all the fuel in our cars.....

For ONE thing, refining CANNOT make 100% gasoline....... and 'cars" can't burn the other stuff, so there is a potential lie before the statement is even finished. I think you CAN make about 40% gasoline, depending on feedstock and process.

More people-hating enviro-fanatics at work. (I'm an enviro fanatic myself, but I don't hate people like the others).

A.K. Boomer
11-08-2007, 10:26 AM
Why? Who would get the extra money?

Its not about extra moneys, supply and demand dictates things to work differently, the demand is so huge, and its a fact we are finding less and less, we will never see the days of yesteryear, Yes there is most probably allot of crap going on with price also but the fact remains that it will get to the point where it will be very very expensive, and most of those funds will be genuine in either having to produce it or go to great lengths in finding the last pockets or extracting it from shale (using tons of energy to do so).


What we need is an alternative. Cars in the US account for about 40% of our oil consumption. So if all drivers used 20% less fuel, which is a pie-in-the-sky-won't-happen number, our nation's oil consumption would drop by 8%. Which is a very low payback for the effort involved.

Enter in the great catalyst for change, 5 bucks a gallon, maybe ten later on and it will happen and much of the price will be genuine because it will be getting harder and harder to find, The sad thing is - is this is about the only factor that will curb some people's (and companies) mind set, they just dont get it - they never will untill they get hit in the pocket book ------- so be it, they will be the hardest hit


I suspect that some analysis will show which entities is using the power. Making those entities more efficient will have the biggest positive impact. For example, having malls shut off half their parking lot lights after midnight.



I argee here, but that does not mean we drop the ball on individual behavior, we are still a huge factor, we as consumers also have a little control with what we purchase, I cant believe how much better organic milk tastes than that anti-biotic crap, you pay out the nose for it -- but if you buy horizon brand you learn that all the energies used to produce thier milk is off the grid because they use solar and wind power, Thier savings in what they DONT release in carbon every year is on the milk carton and it is amazing to see a company take things this far,,, is it going to "save the world" God no, But I'll tell you who will get by with the least amount of impact in the near future, its the people and the companies who were already "tooling up" for the change, As for me, my legs are always pedaling my bike regaurdless of the price of fuel, im pushing a half century and never owned anything bigger than a four banger, I realize its just a drop in the bucket but I do feel good about not taking things for granted too much, But I will still feel it in everything I buy because the price is already going up on many many things, This is the inevitable -- This needs to happen, and people as individuals need to realize that they do have impact ----- I have a brother that commutes 45 miles each way to work and back, Unlike many others he does it up right, gas could actually hit 10 bucks a gallon and he would laugh at it, He drives a box stock 1990 honda CRX HF (hi-fuel model) its rated at 56mpg highway, now that she's broken in and all loosened up (over 340,000 miles) its not unusual for him to give me a call and tell me he just had a tank that went over 60mpg ------ you dont need a hybrid, and this is actually 17 year old tech. --- The car is factory de-tuned but its not a total dawg either as he's had it up to 115mph, He's got a heater, great tunes, and even a passenger seat, what more could you ask for?
Anybody who uses this stuff (all of us) is connected to so many things - and like it or not weve all got blood on our hands because of it, unless youve got your head buried in the sand you have to draw the conclusion that we go to wars over it --- fact- in one form or another people die to get it for us, using it wisely is just plain good Karma, if your burning it just for the sake of "status" thats your gig, but the mindset is gradually changing and dont be surprised if people look at you funny for taking a larger crap than necessary in thier "fish bowl"...

This is actually an exciting time, there's going to be so many attempts at trying to solve this problem, If necessity is indeed the mother of invention then it will be very interesting to see what comes out of this particular vagina...

Rich Carlstedt
11-08-2007, 10:48 AM
Boomer
you said (referring to a 60 MPG car)
"The car is factory de-tuned " ..........EXACTLY !
Folks who do not understand internal combustion engines, continue to express "Their" desires and beliefs about economy and power and polution, and have absolutely NO idea about real world physics.
You cannot have "ALL" of the above
One of the main reasons we do not get better economy today is the
incessent demands of air polution control. I am tired of people saying we have done nothing for mileage since the oil crisis of the 70's and yet they completely ignore the progress made on air polution equipment and no more smokng cars..
BUT it comes at a cost !
A IC engine has to be 'detuned" for better "noxious gases control"..PERIOD

Rich

A.K. Boomer
11-08-2007, 11:18 AM
More people-hating enviro-fanatics at work. (I'm an enviro fanatic myself, but I don't hate people like the others).


Hey --- whats not to hate?:)

Just for the hell of it ask yourself this, ask what if? (this is just an example) what if you discovered a pure magnetic shielding material that did not get attracted or repelled to the magnetism itself -- in a weeks time we would all have an apparatus build that could produce power and be a free lunch, (esp. us HSM guys) :p No such thing I know --- but whats more important is the question of what if?

What whould you do with it? do you think it would solve all the words problems? No energy crisis, no fuel worries, no typical carbon pollution --- no wars over fuel, cheaper prices on everything, no heating bills or electrical bills, sounds great right?

WRONG.

So you guys built this thing in your basement and are ready to turn it loose to the world --------- Stop,
Think about this for a second, What would slow us down then? --- mankinds finally ran up against the great limiter, With over 6.5 billion dont you think this is a good thing --- take a look around you and see what cheap energy has created, We are a bacteria on the face of a rotting orange --- but there may actually be good news for the orange, the bacteria is running out of fuel ------------ We cant control ourselfs NOW, what would it be like if things were even easier? I'll tell you,
There would be a real nice calm --- for a little while, as the billions created tens of billions and people got even lazier, Hey - life is easy, pump out a few more ungrateful kids right? We dont have to worry about heat so build a 9,000 sq. ft home everybody, and while your at it take a house to work with you and on and on and consume everything in sight, and then when the surface of the earth was entirly stripped of everything we would hit an even worse limiter, we would have totally destroyed the planet, and there would be 50 billion ungrateful mouths to feed with totally depleted soil and contaminated grounds...

WE CANT HANDLE IT - WEVE ALREADY PROVED THAT,

News flash, The "orange" is just as important as "us" We are just now coming to grips with this, The last thing that humanoids need (and every other creature on the planet) is for there to be even more "free lunch" And when it comes to energy thats exactly what fossil fuel has been, Not any more pilgrim, not any more, time for the great reality check, and after the initial bombs go off maybe mankind will make somewhat of a comback, hopefully with a little more foresight and common sense...:rolleyes:

Have a nice day:)

Willy
11-08-2007, 11:24 AM
A IC engine has to be 'detuned" for better "noxious gases control"..PERIOD



Rich, I have to disagree.
Look at the cars of the 70's when emission regulations first came into effect. Not only were they inefficient from a performance and mileage perspective, they were also gross polluters.
Todays cars have had the benefit of nearly forty years of R&D. They now display horsepower to cubic inch ratios only dreamed about at that time. That and emission levels are at an all time low.

No, not detuning, but engineering is what makes a more efficient automobile.

The fact that there are almost a couple of billion more of us now doesn't help though.

A.K. Boomer
11-08-2007, 11:40 AM
The CRX HF im talking about has a SOHC roller rocker 1500 cc engine -- its been the standard for many of the CRX/civic models except for a few things, the roller rockers and the camshaft --- and the computer programming to match the "de-tuned" camshaft, When I state "de-tuned" I mean this, honda pulls more ponies out of thier normal 1500 cc, the HF takes a hit because its redline is far lower than thier standard engine, but in doing so they have created an engine that does not have to compromise over such a wide RPM range --- this means that they can keep it in its "sweet spot" for efficiency, the engine is designed to run much lower rpm's and the gearing matches this , The roller rockers help in decreasing friction...

This is before the days of Honda's V-tech,

Now Honda can have an engine do this and change its cam profiles at higher RPM's so you dont have to take a hit in performance --- anotherwords -- you can have both.

J Tiers
11-08-2007, 09:54 PM
AK..... Whaddaya REALLY think, eh?

I see the other side of that....... Instead of seeing more of those &^%$@#@ infesting people to hate....... I see what it would do to be able to have the same power levels as now, but WITHOUT the smoke and CO2 etc.....

THAT would be better than having 1/4 as many power plants as now, along with worldwide poverty and famines......etc, etc.

I guess your glass is a bit over half empty.... and you like it like that?

tony ennis
11-08-2007, 10:24 PM
They now display horsepower to cubic inch ratios only dreamed about at that time.

And at the same time engines with 100,000 miles aren't considered worn. Back in the day (late 70s/early 80s) an engine with 100,000 miles was due for replacement.

Remember when a car's value would plummet at 100,000 miles?

J Tiers
11-08-2007, 10:37 PM
And at the same time engines with 100,000 miles aren't considered worn. Back in the day (late 70s/early 80s) an engine with 100,000 miles was due for replacement.

Remember when a car's value would plummet at 100,000 miles?

Not so fast..... that would be US made cars. Daimler, and Volvo, etc, made cars with engines that would go 200k no problem. I've driven Volvo wagons from then that had 190k on them , burned no significant oil, got good mileage, etc. Drove them on cross-continent trips. Volvos from then with 100K were just "broken in".... they would go 250k+ on the engine, diesel Daimlers might go more. And those weren't the only ones.

Naturally you DID have to do maintenance. And change oil.

Now, in the 1950s, and engine with 100k on it WAS due for replacement. That's back when "breaking in" the engine really meant something. Nowadays, it is still an honored tradition, but makes much less difference due to improved machining.

But a car now with that sort of miles on it will have the plastic insides (dash , etc) about ready to dissolve into dust.........

wierdscience
11-08-2007, 10:41 PM
Guys,you know this isn't the only planet in this solar system,nor is it the only solar system in our galaxy.The only question is when will we seriously begin the branch out into the universe and get of this rock.

tony ennis
11-08-2007, 11:06 PM
The only question is when will we seriously begin the branch out into the universe and get of this rock.

Oh, I'd give it 250 years before we could establish a meaningful colony on Mars. Assuming there's any reason to do so. And 1,000 years or more before we look at the closest star with habitable planet potential. I'd say in 10 years we'll be able to detect Earth-sized planets orbiting distant stars. Then we could pick a target.

We simply have nothing that can get us to any star in any timescale that's meaningful. This problem is similar to the following. Assume 100 couples for a minimal colony. Assume a trip of 500 years (that's 1% of the speed of light, very spritely.) Now, entomb the couples within a building that's large enough to give them space for themselves, allow them to grow enough food to eat, and support livestock. And water for all that. Add complex machinery and engines (and fuel!) to and the requisite backup systems. Add eveything that will allow them to handle emergencies and repairs. For example, they will need 500 years of ball bearings or the capability to make their own. They will need to be a totally self-sufficient closed system for 500 years.

Take this building, which is the size of an office building, and plunge it into near-absolute-zero temperatures. And a near-perfect vacuum. The building must be able to protect the occupants from these extremes.

The difficulty is ... astronomical.

Willy
11-08-2007, 11:32 PM
And in no time at all, it'll look like the same mess they left!:D

A.K. Boomer
11-09-2007, 01:31 AM
Guys,you know this isn't the only planet in this solar system,nor is it the only solar system in our galaxy.The only question is when will we seriously begin the branch out into the universe and get of this rock.


Willy pegged it, geesus, listen to yourselfs --- I mean what the hell is going on inside there? --- Welp - guess we fuqed this one up, lets finda nuther:confused:
Is that what we should do --- and then maybe make it a pattern? Im just trying to figure out the mindset --- so then we just kill off all the creatures on the next planet of doom -- creatures that took millions of years to evolve, step in and say "welp" yer gonna have to go cuz hillbillies we may be but these particular hillbillies know how to fly a space ship, so off ya go, go-on naw git off the planet er were gona kill ya... welp ya donknow howta git off so i giss were goanna kill ya anyways...

"get off this rock" ??? cant relate, rocks home, take care of your home or you wont have a nice place to live.

Just pray to whatever god you may believe in that there isnt some alien force out there that has a technological jump start on us by millions of years, and pray that they dont subscribe to the same kind of doctrine or we'll all be toast no matter what ------------- look what we could do with 50 more years (if we dont destroy ourselfs first) ----------- now imagine a million or two or three or four......... or many many more.... Gotta admit it - we would be sitting ducks, So now what shoes on what foot?

A.K. Boomer
11-09-2007, 02:06 AM
AK..... Whaddaya REALLY think, eh?

You know --- thats not the first time you asked me that:)



I see the other side of that....... Instead of seeing more of those &^%$@#@ infesting people to hate....... I see what it would do to be able to have the same power levels as now, but WITHOUT the smoke and CO2 etc.....

And I say to myself --- what a wonderful world --- and I say to myself -- what a wonderful world,,,,,

for the imediate - like i said - thier would be an obese kinda calm ------ then my friend - all hell would break loose.


THAT would be better than having 1/4 as many power plants as now, along with worldwide poverty and famines......etc, etc.

A bandaid is ok, if its not housing a bunch of flesh eating bacteria inside the gauze -------- thats exactly what this would be, unless people -- all people realized it for the gift that it was ------- but thats a pipe dream --- they wont -- most dont even ponder how to tie thier shoelaces correctly, many have gone with velcro flaps to avoid the entire issue...
Whats Bono gonna do when he helps to feed all the people in a land that wont support itself -- then they get thier bellies full for a decade get frisky and pump out two to three times the population, then need more and more till it cant go on --- oooopppps, ten times the misery


I guess your glass is a bit over half empty.... and you like it like that?


Thanks for noticing, -------- its irrelevent weather i like it like that or not -- its the way it is, but I do like to look at your statement as a "bit over half empty" as being above the half line, and not below, thats just my own way of trying to put a good on things.

J Tiers
11-09-2007, 08:29 AM
Since I suspect there would be an economic cost, i.e. the power might be "free" but the plant structure would not, I think economics would prevent a huge instant increase...

You DO have a point. When there is a lot of lemming food, and very few hawks and foxes, there are a lot of lemmings...... a situation which corrects itself eventually, not necessarily easily nor pleasantly for the lemmings.

The best way to prevent excess is to ensure it isn't free..... and has an immediate "entry cost"

tony ennis
11-09-2007, 08:44 AM
It's a law of biology that organism expand to stress their environment. It doesn't matter what the technology is. The American Indians, being stone-age, still managed to stress their systems. That's why they fought over territory and the best hunting grounds. The Europeans did the same thing in, say, 1700, but because of agriculture they were above to support many times more people per acre of land. But the same sort of stress was still there.

It's a hard fact of nature, but the world will always be population-stressed. There will never be enough food or water to support the next generation stress-free. Can't happen until people say, "I'm doing great and I am going to limit my kid production to replacement levels, even if there's extra food on the table." Now that's possible but takes a conscious decision that's probably foreign to anyone who isn't sure if their kids will live to adulthood.

A.K. Boomer
11-09-2007, 09:37 AM
Tony, thats just plain Sad, Sad because its true, Im done, I didnt mean to depress everyone (including myself)

JT -- its my first thought also - but,,, How you going to police that one? You cant, Companies would sell little units, people would build thier own --- you buy/build one and it works for decades -- therefore energy is no longer the limiter, something else will be after awhile but im afraid it would be resources/food, with free energies not being a factor we could tear holy hell out of every last nook --- I believe the next limiter would be when the population is ten fold and the planets surface is entirely stripped of all goodies including good soil.

Isnt it ironic that the few of the people in my area who i consider to be pretty deep thinkers and who I might add would make some of the best parents have chosen not to have kids because of many of the issues that they see, And yet I see so many (not all mind you -- but the majority)
people who cant even function enough to keep thier own life together sqweeking out pups like there's no tomorrow, At least on an intellectual level - We have the exact opposite of "survival of the fittest" going on here, and if you think many of these people are a work in progress --- wait till thier kids "grow up":(

wierdscience
11-10-2007, 08:57 PM
Oh, I'd give it 250 years before we could establish a meaningful colony on Mars. Assuming there's any reason to do so. And 1,000 years or more before we look at the closest star with habitable planet potential. I'd say in 10 years we'll be able to detect Earth-sized planets orbiting distant stars. Then we could pick a target.

We simply have nothing that can get us to any star in any timescale that's meaningful. This problem is similar to the following. Assume 100 couples for a minimal colony. Assume a trip of 500 years (that's 1% of the speed of light, very spritely.) Now, entomb the couples within a building that's large enough to give them space for themselves, allow them to grow enough food to eat, and support livestock. And water for all that. Add complex machinery and engines (and fuel!) to and the requisite backup systems. Add eveything that will allow them to handle emergencies and repairs. For example, they will need 500 years of ball bearings or the capability to make their own. They will need to be a totally self-sufficient closed system for 500 years.

Take this building, which is the size of an office building, and plunge it into near-absolute-zero temperatures. And a near-perfect vacuum. The building must be able to protect the occupants from these extremes.

The difficulty is ... astronomical.

I'm glad Chris Columbus didn't have that attitude:D

tony ennis
11-10-2007, 09:24 PM
I have an excellent optimistic attitude. I also can do math and know a little of science.

/shrug

J Tiers
11-10-2007, 10:58 PM
Columbus used well-known technology in the same way it had been used for hundreds of years. There was NO real difference in WHAT he was doing, nor the MEANS he used, from that which had been done for a very long time.

The only REAL difference old CC had going for him is where he pointed the ship.

The 500 year travel deal uses technology not yet developed, in a new way, under totally new conditions.

Aside from that, it is EXACTLY the same thing as what Columbus did........ :rolleyes:

wierdscience
11-10-2007, 11:12 PM
Oh, I'd give it 250 years before we could establish a meaningful colony on Mars. Assuming there's any reason to do so. And 1,000 years or more before we look at the closest star with habitable planet potential. I'd say in 10 years we'll be able to detect Earth-sized planets orbiting distant stars. Then we could pick a target.

We simply have nothing that can get us to any star in any timescale that's meaningful. This problem is similar to the following. Assume 100 couples for a minimal colony. Assume a trip of 500 years (that's 1% of the speed of light, very spritely.) Now, entomb the couples within a building that's large enough to give them space for themselves, allow them to grow enough food to eat, and support livestock. And water for all that. Add complex machinery and engines (and fuel!) to and the requisite backup systems. Add eveything that will allow them to handle emergencies and repairs. For example, they will need 500 years of ball bearings or the capability to make their own. They will need to be a totally self-sufficient closed system for 500 years.

Take this building, which is the size of an office building, and plunge it into near-absolute-zero temperatures. And a near-perfect vacuum. The building must be able to protect the occupants from these extremes.

The difficulty is ... astronomical.

250?Not a chance,less than 30 if we start now.Mars has an atmosphere and availible resources,we don't need to haul everythingwith us.Much of the work can be done remotely with little or no human interaction.Spirit and Opertunity have proven that we can send an un-manned craft to land and operate on another planet.There is no reason the next series of robots can't be designed to build things.

Sure it will cost a lot of money,but rather than spending trillions of dollars to combat global warming,which is looking more and more like the con-job of the millenium everday,the money would be better spent actually achieving something worth while instead of wasting resources hocking books and recipes for burning cooking oil.

wierdscience
11-10-2007, 11:21 PM
Columbus used well-known technology in the same way it had been used for hundreds of years. There was NO real difference in WHAT he was doing, nor the MEANS he used, from that which had been done for a very long time.

The only REAL difference old CC had going for him is where he pointed the ship.

The 500 year travel deal uses technology not yet developed, in a new way, under totally new conditions.

Aside from that, it is EXACTLY the same thing as what Columbus did........ :rolleyes:

Chris used existing technology only in the fact that he went in a boat.The boats he used however were state of the art for thier time.Had he picked the run of the mill sailing ship of the day he probibly would not have made it due soley to the difference in speed.

Just because we will have to take baby steps at first doesn't mean we shouldn't take them.You must remember how far we have come in a very short time.From fabric,wood and a few feet to titainium,incolnel and orbit in less than 100 years.

I'm betting that do or die the next 10,000 years moves a lot faster than the last.

tony ennis
11-10-2007, 11:26 PM
Aside from that, it is EXACTLY the same thing as what Columbus did

You seem to be saying, "Journey A was difficult and succeeded, therefore totally unrelated journey B will succeed even though it is difficult."

tony ennis
11-10-2007, 11:31 PM
Spirit and Opertunity have proven that we can send an un-manned craft to land and operate on another planet.

Indeed. Keep in mind, these robots don't actually do a lot but take pictures. That's enough for step 1. We require a whole new breed of robots, those that can build and maintain a shelter on a hostile planet with minimal instruction. That's going to keep engineers busy for quite a while. Mars is more hostile than Antarctica.

I think the future of space travel is robotic. Robotic explorers and miners.

Oh, and if we're not going to terraform Mars (I believe this is currently against international agreements) we shouldn't bother putting people there.

J Tiers
11-10-2007, 11:32 PM
Chris used existing technology only in the fact that he went in a boat.The boats he used however were state of the art for thier time.Had he picked the run of the mill sailing ship of the day he probibly would not have made it due soley to the difference in speed.



Eh, a difference with NO distinction. Same-same with every other boat, really.

Still sail-powered, still a wood boat that floats, with a rudder, generally similar sails to ships from 200 years before.

A Phoenician sailor would have "learned the ropes" and been a good sailor on any of them in a very short time.

What the other deal is, would be more similar to giving old CC a nuclear sub to travel in.....

Nope, not buying the simplistic explanation here,,,,,,,,,

If we take baby steps, we'll probably get the technology to wipe each other off the planet in the process, and we are NOT smart enough to avoid trying it.

Still think the power deal would be OK, though.... We haven't exactly gone nutty with nuclear power... And it is nearly free in much the same way.

It is the surrounding stuff that is expensive, and you can bet big money that some similar issues would surround the other power source.

Note that in THAT case, we went from the initial weapons application TO the power plants. Good chance that would happen with the other power source also. How, I don't know or see, but them we don't really have the other source either, nor has it been mathematically defined, so we can't really know what it would do.

And don't bother telling me what the physicists really wanted nuclear power to be for, it doesn't matter at all. The facts are that the first practical application of nuclear power was as a weapon.

tony ennis
11-10-2007, 11:37 PM
Just because we will have to take baby steps at first doesn't mean we shouldn't take them.

I agree completely. Don't bet that we'll be able to wave a technological magic wand that would make such a trip easy. It will be the most complex and expensive endeavor of all of mankind. And the riskiest journey also.

tony ennis
11-10-2007, 11:46 PM
...we'll probably get the technology to wipe each other off the planet in the process, and we are NOT smart enough to avoid trying it.

That's known as the "Toolmaker Koan" I believe.


The facts are that the first practical application of nuclear power was as a weapon.

Easiest way to get a government to pay for it! :D



250?Not a chance,less than 30 if we start now.Mars has an atmosphere...

Within 30 years we'll land on Mars an astronaut with the biggest brass balls you've ever seen. My definition of a meaningful colony, however, means more-or-less self-sustaining in terms of resource usage and reproduction rate.

wierdscience
11-11-2007, 12:05 AM
Eh, a difference with NO distinction. Same-same with every other boat, really.

Still sail-powered, still a wood boat that floats, with a rudder, generally similar sails to ships from 200 years before.

A Phoenician sailor would have "learned the ropes" and been a good sailor on any of them in a very short time.

What the other deal is, would be more similar to giving old CC a nuclear sub to travel in.....

Nope, not buying the simplistic explanation here,,,,,,,,,

If we take baby steps, we'll probably get the technology to wipe each other off the planet in the process, and we are NOT smart enough to avoid trying it.

Still think the power deal would be OK, though.... We haven't exactly gone nutty with nuclear power... And it is nearly free in much the same way.

It is the surrounding stuff that is expensive, and you can bet big money that some similar issues would surround the other power source.

Note that in THAT case, we went from the initial weapons application TO the power plants. Good chance that would happen with the other power source also. How, I don't know or see, but them we don't really have the other source either, nor has it been mathematically defined, so we can't really know what it would do.

And don't bother telling me what the physicists really wanted nuclear power to be for, it doesn't matter at all. The facts are that the first practical application of nuclear power was as a weapon.

J,read up on the Nina,she was a quantum leap in technology.To use your example of a CC and a nuke ,it would be more like comparing the Hunley to a nuke.Lighter construction,shallow draft(less than 9ft IIRC) and greater manueverability meant she got her crew there faster(2xs) and when they did get there they could actually use her to explore.

When we go to Mars,it will be in a space craft,not a Mercury,or Appllo or even a Shuttle,but it will be a space craft unless a transporter ala Startrek suddenly appears.Air launched from high altitude ala Rutan or shot from a steam cannon ala Gerald Bull or who knows.

Ditto on a new power source,but I don't think we will see one anytime soon.The most likey canidate for powering our world is atomic.Anyand everytechnology can and has been used for both good and evil.The first tool was also the first weapon.

wierdscience
11-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Indeed. Keep in mind, these robots don't actually do a lot but take pictures. That's enough for step 1. We require a whole new breed of robots, those that can build and maintain a shelter on a hostile planet with minimal instruction. That's going to keep engineers busy for quite a while. Mars is more hostile than Antarctica.

I think the future of space travel is robotic. Robotic explorers and miners.

Oh, and if we're not going to terraform Mars (I believe this is currently against international agreements) we shouldn't bother putting people there.

They do alot more than a construction robot would need do thou.The Rovers devote a lot of space and battery power to performing sampling and communication,two things a construction robot wouldn't need do.The rovers are far too complex for a construction task.The ideal setup would be a craft with 60 or so small robots and a master power supply probibly atomic.After it lands the robots go to work and home when it's time to recharge.Let Nasa do the development and then turn the prototype over to industry for mass production.Think designed in USA,maufactured in China,assemblied in Mexico and Launched by Russians:D One craft of 60 sent to Mars wouldn't accomplish much,but a hundred craft of 60 would especially if the newer runs carried with them upgrades.

As to international agreements,well since when have they mattered.To my knowledge the US and UK are the only ones who have ever complied with any of them(foolishly).Those agreements are most likey rooted in the same delusional "man is the fault of all evil attitude" as is the religion of climate change.

wierdscience
11-11-2007, 12:41 AM
Within 30 years we'll land on Mars an astronaut with the biggest brass balls you've ever seen. My definition of a meaningful colony, however, means more-or-less self-sustaining in terms of resource usage and reproduction rate.

The single biggest obstacle is liquid water,once we can produce that there the rest of the obstacles fall like dominos.Finding a source of water is key.If there is ice at the poles then it's easy,if it's trapped in frozen soil,then it's not so easy,but still doable.

Our next step should be to fan out over the surface of Mars with 10's if not 100's of small robot probes.Don't worry about muddling around in a crater looking for life that never was or isn't now there.Just send them out to look for things like water in the form of ice or locked up chemicals we can use later.

tony ennis
11-11-2007, 08:45 AM
The single biggest obstacle is liquid water,once we can produce that there the rest of the obstacles fall like dominos.

I don't know about dominoes. But without accessible Martian water, I don't think a permanent base is possible. From water and electricity you can produce oxygen. When you don't have to worry too much about running out of air and water everything becomes easier.

Getting an Mars-base nuclear reactor launched off our planet will be politically challenging.

Another technological leap would be the creation of a nuclear reactor that doesn't require operators while being very safe. This thing would have to be able to produce some amps yet be close to the base (like, within 100 yards) and be care-free.

2ManyHobbies
11-11-2007, 09:17 AM
We're all Earthbound until there is an economic pressure that encourages us to do otherwise. If you want to be rich, be the person that goes up there and comes back with a profit. Until that happens, manned space missions will continue to be the exclusive domain of governments.

As far as technology? We are playing with canoes and talking about crossing that big ocean over yonder. Right now, there are a handful of people living 5 miles off the coast in a raft with a big anchor. We've even sent a couple of people to the rock you can just see over the horizon when you climb a really tall hill at sunset.

Antarctic habitation and the ISS prove we are capable of long periods of travel, but there is no working model for: "here are 30 days worth of supplies, see you in a year or three..." I don't see any self sufficient habitat having less than a few dozen people, some sort of renewable food source, and a replaceable or repairable power source (solar, fission/fusion material obtained on site, or perhaps wind/thermal in a planetary situation).

Colonization of space will happen the minute a self sufficient habitat exists and exports some product at a profit (transport costs included). Our generation's version of Columbus was split between the first guy off this rock and the first guy on another one. Decades (maybe centuries or millennia) from now, we will have another Christopher Columbus. That will be the first person to set an appendage on an extra-solar object of interest.

For my two cents anyway, if I were to devote my life to human expansion beyond Earth, I'd focus all of my energy on reducing the cost of putting a pound of material in orbit (~$10k for manned missions). For every order of magnitude that cost falls, there is an order of magnitude more people that could afford to take a shot at it.

J Tiers
11-11-2007, 10:06 AM
J,read up on the Nina,she was a quantum leap in technology.To use your example of a CC and a nuke ,it would be more like comparing the Hunley to a nuke.Lighter construction,shallow draft(less than 9ft IIRC) and greater manueverability meant she got her crew there faster(2xs) and when they did get there they could actually use her to explore.

Nothing "on point" in that statement.

All the "new technology" was incremental improvements resulting in a ship that looked and worked just like most other ships for the last several hundred years. Same materials, same power source, same crew skills, same provisioning, same basic steering means, same everything.

Nope, those ships were not "significantly different" from others in basic technologies.

I'm standing by my nuclear sub example.

The "space station" is NOT a good example.... It has more in common with the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria than it does with what is needed for self-sustaining travel to a far distant planet.

One basic point is that it requires constant support and re-provisioning from earth, and has no capability for any sort of self-sustaining existence. There is not ONE BIT of "technology" involved in it that helps with a self-sustaining "traveling planet".

While many have WRITTEN about such things, there has never been any successful long term experiment to assess the needs and practicalities of a "traveling planet". I am not even sure that there has been any slightly credible ATTEMPT to APPROACH the experiment.

In fact, the closest approach may in fact BE nuclear subs. But even they have no capability to self-sustain, they just have a provisions-limited cruise time that isn't quite as long as the space station, mostly due to reducing the fuel problem.

The fuel problem for a "traveling planet" is very significant, and what one might lump under the term "entropy effects" will be a real killer.

Don't forget, even the earth is fuel-limited. The sun won't last forever, although it may last long enough to make it effectively so for us. Same with other suns...

It would indeed be embarrassing to arrive at the "next planet" just after its sun has gone to the red giant stage....

Evan
11-11-2007, 10:25 AM
On the subject of intellectual property and patents, here is something I stumbled on a couple of days ago. This is a recent patent too.



Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 20020079440



http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20020079440.html


Abstract:
A method and means to produce an antigravitational force for propulsion and/or levitation comprise a source of fundamental particles including electrons and a means to give the fundamental particles negative curvature; whereas, the gravitating body is comprised of matter of positive curvature where opposite curvatures provide a mutually repulsive antigravitational force. Electrons are given negative curvature by elastically scattering electrons of an electron beam from atoms such that negatively curved electrons (pseudoelectrons) emerge. The emerging beam of negatively curved electrons experience an antigravitational force, and (on the Earth) the beam moves upward (away from the Earth). To use this invention for propulsion or levitation, the antigravitational force of the electron beam is transferred to a negatively charged plate. The Coulombic repulsion between the beam of electrons and the negatively charged plate causes the plate (and anything connected to the plate) to lift. The craft is made to have angular momentum Which is tilted relative to the axis defined by the gravitational force such that acceleration tangential to the surface of a gravitating body is achieved via conservation of the angular momentum.






Representative Image:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20020079440-0-display.jpg (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20020079440-0-large.jpg)




:rolleyes:

dicks42000
11-11-2007, 10:59 AM
A. K.
I've noticed the same thing amongst friends & aquaintances, the thinkers aren't the breeders......
Sad to say, human kind doesn't seem to select for brains, beauty or physical perfection. (Including the ability to support their offspring.) Isn't that called eugenics....and isn't planned selection bad ???
Wear a condom, save the world.
Rick

Evan
11-11-2007, 04:54 PM
Looks to me that the breeders have taken over the patent office.

Evolution hasn't applied to humans for a long time. Once the animal starts to make choices that are contrary to adaptation evolution stops working.

grannygear
11-12-2007, 02:44 AM
And here I thought I was posting a question about bio-diesel engines. Now we've got antigravity generators (which is oh-so-very damn cool, by the way).

I just want to dispute that Mr. Goodwin was making any claim at all about a "free lunch" or perpetual motion or snake oil or anything like that. Quite simply an engine, burning fuel, to achieve impressive performance and economy (at least, "economical" in the sense of miles-per-gallon). Actually, in China they rate fuel consumption a little more logically (one of the few things they do more logically here ): liters per 100KM. This way I can know how much gas it will take to go a fixed distance, more helpful information.

Anyway, the economy represented by this approach is simply that the used-up waste oil, already representing a substantial investment in production and distribution, would otherwise be thrown away and wasted, once the food portion had been consumed. So, burning it in an engine gives it a second life it would not have had. It is "free" in the sense that all of the economic calculations involved in making it and distributing it were already accounted for in the cost of the foodstuff that it went into (stir-fried veggies or whatever). The consumer of the food paid their share of the raw material. If the consumer now throws away what is unwanted it is now free (having already been paid for). Why not burn it?

But of course there are plenty of examples of the lone inventor doing what they said couldn't be done - most of Tesla's work, and Edison's, and of course the Wright Brothers. But maybe you're right - the time of the lone pioneer has passed, since the easily known is already known.

On the environmental front, I like the concept: the more you know, the less you need. Trouble is, how do stop those who have enough, from taking more?

Evan
11-12-2007, 03:57 AM
Now we've got antigravity generators (which is oh-so-very damn cool, by the way).

That faint whirring sound you hear is Einstein revolving in his grave. Antigravity indeed. He used to be a patent examiner.

DickDastardly40
11-12-2007, 04:36 AM
That faint whirring sound you hear is Einstein revolving in his grave. Antigravity indeed.

All we need to do is clutch him in to a generator and we'll have free power that is environmentally sustainable.:D

If it is considered that the technology will one day exist to terraform other planets, do you think it would be worth considering terraforming earth first to fix it?

Al

wierdscience
11-12-2007, 01:04 PM
If it is considered that the technology will one day exist to terraform other planets, do you think it would be worth considering terraforming earth first to fix it?

Al

We have the technology to do that now,but some need to make trillons of dollars selling carbon credits and movie tickets first,then they will come up with a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist.

Apparently the 11%ers believe that the weather should be 68* and sunny year round and if not something is obviuosly wrong and it's our fault.

john hobdeclipe
11-12-2007, 02:09 PM
"...the gravitating body is comprised of matter of positive curvature where opposite curvatures provide a mutually repulsive antigravitational force. Electrons are given negative curvature by elastically scattering electrons of an electron beam from atoms such that negatively curved electrons (pseudoelectrons) emerge. The emerging beam of negatively curved electrons experience an antigravitational force, and (on the Earth) the beam moves upward (away from the Earth). To use this invention for propulsion or levitation, the antigravitational force of the electron beam is transferred to a negatively charged plate. The Coulombic repulsion between the beam of electrons and the negatively charged plate causes the plate (and anything connected to the plate) to lift. The craft is made to have angular momentum Which is tilted relative to the axis defined by the gravitational force such that acceleration tangential to the surface of a gravitating body is achieved via conservation of the angular momentum...."

Fascinating stuff. One of my earlier wives displayed many of those same symptoms.