SnowRidge
Elite Member
If any of it worked, the automobile manufacturers would already have incorporated it.
Hybrid Power Trac
- Thread starter woodlandfarms
- Start date
- Views: 8573
SnowRidge
Elite Member
With a little bit of luck, he had a so-called black iron tank, and it rusted out from bottom.
J_J
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,952
- Location
- JACKSONVILLE, FL
- Tractor
- Power-Trac 1445, KUBOTA B-9200HST
He just used a tank inside of a tank. Some of the moon shiners would use a gas truck with a small gas tank at the fill up port, and when tested, it was gas as far as they were concerned, but the other 5,000 gal was moonshine.
Marks481
Platinum Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Tractor
- Power Trac 422 (2005)
With all the money that Toyota and Honda are pouring into the hybrid and e-car side of things, I gotta believe that their engineers already checked out this fringe "green technology" and trash-canned it. If they could even improve their fuel mileage by 5%, I am sure that they would be selling this in their fuel efficient cars.
Unless you believe the conspiracy theorists, who think all the automobile manufacturers are in bed with the oil companies and are deliberately supressing the technology that would make every consumers pay $$$ to buy a really fuel efficient car from them and give them 100% market share.
SnowRidge
Elite Member
No debunking allowed Tim. Better watch out for those black helicopters hovering over Spa Creek!
Marks481
Platinum Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 978
- Tractor
- Power Trac 422 (2005)
hey, how did you know I lived there... er... you got the wrong guy, I live on the other coast....No debunking allowed Tim. Better watch out for those black helicopters hovering over Spa Creek!
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 58,064
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
YIKES!!!!
My guess is the reason automakers would not use something like this is as follows:
REASON 1: Joe Public is not intelligent.
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, it requires the operator of the vehicle to monitor the AMPS being pulled and to add water and caustic chemicals to a reaction tank. Joe public is not capable of that task without burning his eyes out with chemical splash and so, he will be suing the bajeebers out of the automaker.
REASON 2: It contains water and no anti-freeze.
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, it will freeze. Joe will have to remove it from his car anytime the temps are about to drop below freezing. That is a hassle to do, and even if you could convince Joe that it is worth it, see reason 1 as to why the car companies would not want Joe handling a small tank filled with caustic chemicals possibly several times a day.
REASON 3: Only a small percent gain in fuel economy.
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, it only provides a small increase in fuel economy. Lets say it gains you 10%. On a car that gets 30MPG, that will only be a 3MPG improvement. Not worth it for the hassle. If you had a car that got 10MGP and could boost it to 11MPG and drove many miles a year, it may be worth it.
SUMMARY:
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, the reasons are pretty clear why a car manufacturer would never install it. Joe Public is stupid, he would have to handle chemicals, the system would break the first time he let if freeze and the gains are not enough for the average person to hassle with it.
These are just my opinions, of course. No harm in tinkering with the technology.
My guess is the reason automakers would not use something like this is as follows:
REASON 1: Joe Public is not intelligent.
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, it requires the operator of the vehicle to monitor the AMPS being pulled and to add water and caustic chemicals to a reaction tank. Joe public is not capable of that task without burning his eyes out with chemical splash and so, he will be suing the bajeebers out of the automaker.
REASON 2: It contains water and no anti-freeze.
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, it will freeze. Joe will have to remove it from his car anytime the temps are about to drop below freezing. That is a hassle to do, and even if you could convince Joe that it is worth it, see reason 1 as to why the car companies would not want Joe handling a small tank filled with caustic chemicals possibly several times a day.
REASON 3: Only a small percent gain in fuel economy.
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, it only provides a small increase in fuel economy. Lets say it gains you 10%. On a car that gets 30MPG, that will only be a 3MPG improvement. Not worth it for the hassle. If you had a car that got 10MGP and could boost it to 11MPG and drove many miles a year, it may be worth it.
SUMMARY:
IF it worked, and I'm not saying it does, the reasons are pretty clear why a car manufacturer would never install it. Joe Public is stupid, he would have to handle chemicals, the system would break the first time he let if freeze and the gains are not enough for the average person to hassle with it.
These are just my opinions, of course. No harm in tinkering with the technology.
ponytug
Super Member
Dear MR,
Just to be upfront and blunt, I can tell you up front no way this technology works as advertised!!! (double underlined, and in color with triple exclamation points...)
Nevertheless, you raise an interesting point in how one might think about new technologies.
The automakers would do practically anything for an extra 3mpg. With lower diesel prices, Ford has just added shifts in its truck plant ($5k/vehicle profit), because it is selling enough small cars to meet the fuel economy standards. GM isn't. GM just notified congress that they may not make the federally mandated combined average fleet economy (CAFE) numbers, and a number of members of congress are suggesting that CAFE represents a good reason (the reason?) to allow GM to fail and just deal with the resulting mess.
improved mileage, or bankruptcy...
I think it would take a die hard conspiracy theorist to think "they" would take bankruptcy.
One item that wasn't mentioned is that emissions technologies have to work for 100,000 miles, or that they need to be cost effective. (This is where lots of aftermarket technologies do come in. If you really need that extra 100HP out of your truck for heavy hauling, then you might be willing to have the engine only last 100,000 miles, instead of 250,000 miles, deriving real benefit from a higher HP, less uniform torque, engine tune. You might also be willing to invest in a larger exhaust system, increasing noise and power. All because you have some additional needs. e.g. you are an oil prospecting company and your trucks have to haul heavy steel into the back country and it is much cheaper to have one high power truck than two smaller ones.)
For whatever reasons, the big three seem to have decided that customers want to pay $50,000 for a heavy duty diesel pickup. Freightliner has done the same math and decided that customers are willing to pay $100,000 for a diesel truck. Who is right? They are all selling trucks, but not in equal numbers, nor are there customers equally happy.
Currently, there are some technology battles going on in class 8 diesel engines to meet new EPA requirements, and one of the technologies requires injecting hydrogen (in the form of a urea solution). More than one engine company is effectively betting the company on the success of their emissions system. The forecasts are that the company that gets it right (i.e., it works at reducing emissions, it doesn't break down, and doesn't burden the driver) will add 20-40% of the market, while the losing companies will each lose 10-20%, leaving the winner with 70-80% market share. Not an insignificant shift.
Getting technologies right for commercial use can be complicated. I know of an inventor who developed a toy, but he couldn't figure out how to make it at scale. He went to a machinist and offered him half of the royalties if he could design a machine to make the toy. The machinist could, and did. Both are now quite wealthy, as koosh balls are very popular. Sometimes it pays to be generous. (Usually, I think.)
All the best,
Peter
Just to be upfront and blunt, I can tell you up front no way this technology works as advertised!!! (double underlined, and in color with triple exclamation points...)
Nevertheless, you raise an interesting point in how one might think about new technologies.
The automakers would do practically anything for an extra 3mpg. With lower diesel prices, Ford has just added shifts in its truck plant ($5k/vehicle profit), because it is selling enough small cars to meet the fuel economy standards. GM isn't. GM just notified congress that they may not make the federally mandated combined average fleet economy (CAFE) numbers, and a number of members of congress are suggesting that CAFE represents a good reason (the reason?) to allow GM to fail and just deal with the resulting mess.
improved mileage, or bankruptcy...
I think it would take a die hard conspiracy theorist to think "they" would take bankruptcy.
One item that wasn't mentioned is that emissions technologies have to work for 100,000 miles, or that they need to be cost effective. (This is where lots of aftermarket technologies do come in. If you really need that extra 100HP out of your truck for heavy hauling, then you might be willing to have the engine only last 100,000 miles, instead of 250,000 miles, deriving real benefit from a higher HP, less uniform torque, engine tune. You might also be willing to invest in a larger exhaust system, increasing noise and power. All because you have some additional needs. e.g. you are an oil prospecting company and your trucks have to haul heavy steel into the back country and it is much cheaper to have one high power truck than two smaller ones.)
For whatever reasons, the big three seem to have decided that customers want to pay $50,000 for a heavy duty diesel pickup. Freightliner has done the same math and decided that customers are willing to pay $100,000 for a diesel truck. Who is right? They are all selling trucks, but not in equal numbers, nor are there customers equally happy.
Currently, there are some technology battles going on in class 8 diesel engines to meet new EPA requirements, and one of the technologies requires injecting hydrogen (in the form of a urea solution). More than one engine company is effectively betting the company on the success of their emissions system. The forecasts are that the company that gets it right (i.e., it works at reducing emissions, it doesn't break down, and doesn't burden the driver) will add 20-40% of the market, while the losing companies will each lose 10-20%, leaving the winner with 70-80% market share. Not an insignificant shift.
Getting technologies right for commercial use can be complicated. I know of an inventor who developed a toy, but he couldn't figure out how to make it at scale. He went to a machinist and offered him half of the royalties if he could design a machine to make the toy. The machinist could, and did. Both are now quite wealthy, as koosh balls are very popular. Sometimes it pays to be generous. (Usually, I think.)
All the best,
Peter
Last edited:
cqaigy2
Super Member
Pretty cute.
cqaigy2
Super Member
I think looking at those different technologies very interesting too. Most of the stuff you find on the interweb kinda funny.
But some, like say the six cycle engine, look interesting but you wonder about the water that will need to be hauled around. I guess they had to figure that out in the previous centuries with steam engines.
But some, like say the six cycle engine, look interesting but you wonder about the water that will need to be hauled around. I guess they had to figure that out in the previous centuries with steam engines.
