Now THIS is what I'd like to see in the future

Man, if anyone can help stimulate this movement, it's Bill Gates.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/t...g-small-scale/

check out the video.

Homeland security will figure a way to make it illegal.

I would expect so.

Would be nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.man

Homeland security will figure a way to make it illegal.

---

+1

looks like pretty cool technology though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

Man, if anyone can help stimulate this movement, it's Bill Gates.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/t...g-small-scale/

check out the video.

---

Best way,get him to run for President. He doesn't need the money.
Always wished Lee Iacocco kept running instead of bowing out.

I don't know that I want Gates for President. I just want him to throw his money around to influence the acceptance of something that I support. Call me selfish.

This presentation was from TED, I strongly recommend watching videos from there, they have some really neat stuff.

http://ted.com

All free!

Be even cooler if it had a concealed pocket.

Cool stuff.

You could put a cabin ANYWHERE with one of these bad boys, and if you set it up with LED lights, you wouldn't have to worry about having lights for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNAFU

Best way,get him to run for President. He doesn't need the money.
Always wished Lee Iacocco kept running instead of bowing out.

---

No I don't want him a president. or Warren Buffet. no thanks.

I wish they would develop a miniature nuclear reactor for cars and trucks. something that is surrounded with the strength of a black box from an airplane that could easily survive all crashes so there isn't a chance of nuclear waste.
but on the upper hand, if a aircraft carrier can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, what is to say you couldn't have a car that would be powered for 20+ years as well. then we could truly throw up a huge middle finger to the middle east and never buy gas again. (at least for cars)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I wish they would develop a miniature nuclear reactor for cars and trucks. something that is surrounded with the strength of a black box from an airplane that could easily survive all crashes so there isn't a chance of nuclear waste.
but on the upper hand, if a aircraft carrier can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, what is to say you couldn't have a car that would be powered for 20+ years as well. then we could truly throw up a huge middle finger to the middle east and never buy gas again. (at least for cars)

---

I'd settle for someone figuring out how to make a fuel cell that uses water to generate hydrogen and oxygen and uses them to generate power. You could use one of those in lots of things, homes included.

My guess is that the oil companies will find a way to keep either from happening, if someone ever figured out how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troublco

I'd settle for someone figuring out how to make a fuel cell that uses water to generate hydrogen and oxygen and uses them to generate power. You could use one of those in lots of things, homes included.

My guess is that the oil companies will find a way to keep either from happening, if someone ever figured out how.

---

I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.

you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.

I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.

you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.

I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.

---

Remember that Honda CRx's that got 50 mpg? Those lasted about 2 years, and they disappeared.

I've heard a couple stories (not too many, oddly enough...) over the years about one or two individuals who came up with super-efficient carburetors and that sort of thing. Don't really know how much truth there is to them. At some point you get to where the energy required to operate the engine and put out the required power is dependent on the engine's efficiency. You can do things to increase that efficiency, like the power recovery turbines used on the R-3350 engines used on certain large WWII aircraft like the B-29 that used the otherwise wasted energy going out the tailpipe to physically put more power to the crankshaft. And of course turbochargers. But I have run across interesting technologies that were used at certain times that have almost completely disappeared, even most of the info on them.

For example, about 12 +/- years ago I found a reference to a "wood-gas generator" to enable a tractor to be able to run on the combustible gas from wood. I actually found the plans for it online after some digging. I printed them out, and have them somewhere. It was sort of a clunky looking device, but from what I found it worked. They used them to run tractors during WWII.

Don't hear about that sort of stuff, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.

you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.

I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.

---

You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now. Keep mind that the standard for power output of a 4dr sedan about 5yrs ago became higher than that of the Corvette of only a couple generations ago. American's wanted bigger and faster and didn't care about price or fuel economy. So, now that we've grown accustomed to a certain level of performance lots of people have a hard time 'down grading' to save on fuel. Some don't. So, while the numbers have only increased ever so slightly they are doing so with much larger vehicles that make a lot more power so just looking at mpg isn't a fair assessment. My in-laws tout how their 4cyl Accord gets almost as good of fuel economy as our Hybrid Camry and saved them a couple grand but I don't have the heart to point out that that car doesn't have enough power to get out of it's own way. The Camry Hybrid gets 40mpg and runs circles around their Accord in acceleration too. That's the key here is to create vehicles that are still drivable AND increase fuel economy.

I know this doesn't lend to a conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it's supply v demand at it's root in action here. Manufacturer's designed and built what people bought... why would you waste money developing vehicles that the buying public isn't asking for with their buying dollar? Makes no sense if your objective is to profit. Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles. As more and more consumers downsize to smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles the drive for manufacturer's to compete in this arena will grow and cars will get better at what consumers demand. In the end the old adage 'follow the money' holds true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troublco

I'd settle for someone figuring out how to make a fuel cell that uses water to generate hydrogen and oxygen and uses them to generate power. You could use one of those in lots of things, homes included.

---

Hydrolysis (splitting H2O into 2H + O) requires energy. A hydrogen fuel cell is the opposite of this process, it takes 2H as fuel and O from atmosphere and produces H2O + voltage.

So you aren't going to get a fuel cell that does both, it'd violate the laws of thermodynamics -- a perpetual motion machine, over-unity, whatever you want to call it.

What you can do is use a fuel cell as a power source that takes H as fuel, and use a mixture of Solar/Wind to produce hydrogen from tap water, and then feed it through the fuel cell on demand. The tricky bit is storing hydrogen, it's very small and will escape from many pressure vessels that hold larger molecules, like propane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troublco

Remember that Honda CRx's that got 50 mpg? Those lasted about 2 years, and they disappeared.

I've heard a couple stories (not too many, oddly enough...) over the years about one or two individuals who came up with super-efficient carburetors and that sort of thing. Don't really know how much truth there is to them. At some point you get to where the energy required to operate the engine and put out the required power is dependent on the engine's efficiency. But I have run across interesting technologies that were used at certain times that have almost completely disappeared, even most of the info on them.

For example, about 12 +/- years ago I found a reference to a "wood-gas generator" to enable a tractor to be able to run on the combustible gas from wood. I actually found the plans for it online after some digging. I printed them out, and have them somewhere. It was sort of a clunky looking device, but from what I found it worked. They used them to run tractors during WWII.

Don't hear about that sort of stuff, do you?

---

Even if that worked the problems that would arise from all internal combustion engines burning trees to gain power would be substantially worse than what we face now.

The CRX stopped production because they weren't selling enough to be profitable anymore. Car manufactures don't just stop building cars that sell to quell some sort of better technology. Their primary objective is to build vehicles that sell at a profit... the more the better. Supply and demand determines this and each and every one of us has a say based on what we buy. If you think there should be more fuel efficient vehicles then stop buying 4x4 trucks and SUVs for driving around cities. Cracks me up when people think they need huge trucks and don't own a trailer to pull, haul nothing and live in a paved jungle. I know people who NEED trucks and actually use them for what they were designed for and to the it's a must... not a fashion statement.

One reason MPG hasn't gotten much better is Emissions Control (power sucking) and Safety Regulations (more weight).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles.

---

You, of all people, know that vehicles aren't very likely to get much lighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

You, of all people, know that vehicles aren't very likely to get much lighter.

---

They can, will and are getting lighter as the consumers demand a more fuel efficient car since it's hard to sell vehicles to Americans with less power now that they've grown to be accustomed to the current levels of power. The technology to make vehicles substantially lighter are available, just not made at an affordable price. Look at exotic vehicles to see where exotic materials are made to lighten vehicles significantly. Vehicles can, and are, getting lighter either through use if different materials or manufacturers are making smaller vehicles using the same materials. Like most things, innovation is expensive at first.

Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Even if that worked the problems that would arise from all internal combustion engines burning trees to gain power would be substantially worse than what we face now.

The CRX stopped production because they weren't selling enough to be profitable anymore. Car manufactures don't just stop building cars that sell to quell some sort of better technology. Their primary objective is to build vehicles that sell at a profit... the more the better. Supply and demand determines this and each and every one of us has a say based on what we buy. If you think there should be more fuel efficient vehicles then stop buying 4x4 trucks and SUVs for driving around cities. Cracks me up when people think they need huge trucks and don't own a trailer to pull, haul nothing and live in a paved jungle. I know people who NEED trucks and actually use them for what they were designed for and to the it's a must... not a fashion statement.

---

Actually, if I remember correctly to make the car that fuel efficient they had to make it very light, so it wasn't meeting safety standards at some point. Otherwise, car manufacturers make what sells. Period.

And I wasn't trying to say that everyone should rush out and make their vehicles run on wood. Those that are really concerned about it buy a Toyota Yaris, or something similar. Everyone else buys what they want, or what they can afford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.

---

I don't agree that safety regulations are a bit strict at times but the idea that eliminating seat belts, air bags and ABS modules for the idea of shaving weight to get better MPG is a good move is debatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

I don't agree that safety regulations are a bit strict at times but the idea that eliminating seat belts, air bags and ABS modules for the idea of shaving weight to get better MPG is a good move is debatable.

---

Side impact, crash regulations, they're good but makes it hard to have both good MPG and total safety

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now. Keep mind that the standard for power output of a 4dr sedan about 5yrs ago became higher than that of the Corvette of only a couple generations ago. American's wanted bigger and faster and didn't care about price or fuel economy. So, now that we've grown accustomed to a certain level of performance lots of people have a hard time 'down grading' to save on fuel. Some don't. So, while the numbers have only increased ever so slightly they are doing so with much larger vehicles that make a lot more power so just looking at mpg isn't a fair assessment. My in-laws tout how their 4cyl Accord gets almost as good of fuel economy as our Hybrid Camry and saved them a couple grand but I don't have the heart to point out that that car doesn't have enough power to get out of it's own way. The Camry Hybrid gets 40mpg and runs circles around their Accord in acceleration too. That's the key here is to create vehicles that are still drivable AND increase fuel economy.

I know this doesn't lend to a conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it's supply v demand at it's root in action here. Manufacturer's designed and built what people bought... why would you waste money developing vehicles that the buying public isn't asking for with their buying dollar? Makes no sense if your objective is to profit. Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles. As more and more consumers downsize to smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles the drive for manufacturer's to compete in this arena will grow and cars will get better at what consumers demand. In the end the old adage 'follow the money' holds true.

---

please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.

---

not sure i can agree with this one as there are already enough injuries and death related to car accidents...I know you can't save everyone or fix anything but reducing the safety regulations isn't the answer IMO.

But, I say that a law requiring a driver to wear a seatbelt is bullshit. if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt that is their own choice and they are not hurting anyone else if they don't wear it.
One of my good friends dad has been saved both ways. He would have died in one accident had he been wearing his seatbelt (in a semi), and he rolled his truck last year and probably would have died or had severe brain damage if he had not been wearing his seatbelt. he just got lucky he picked the right times.

It was a comment to address why the CRX HF got such good gas mileage and Civics now can't match it. The CRX HF weighed like 1,800lbs. Civics now weigh nearly twice as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.

---

Your statement was absolute and devoid of the facts I mentioned. I'm only operated based on the things you say here.

If I get a car much smaller, lighter, etc... I won't fit in it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBear

If I get a car much smaller, lighter, etc... I won't fit in it!

---

I downsized and while at first it seemed like a tight fit I found that it's not as bad as I first thought. I'm a decent size fella and I don't 'need' an SUV as transportation to get from place to place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

No I don't want him a president. or Warren Buffet. no thanks.

---

Amen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I wish they would develop a miniature nuclear reactor for cars and trucks. something that is surrounded with the strength of a black box from an airplane that could easily survive all crashes so there isn't a chance of nuclear waste.
but on the upper hand, if a aircraft carrier can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, what is to say you couldn't have a car that would be powered for 20+ years as well. then we could truly throw up a huge middle finger to the middle east and never buy gas again. (at least for cars)

---

And amen again...[Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Your statement was absolute and devoid of the facts I mentioned. I'm only operated based on the things you say here.

---

I also own a new truck so I KNOW the amount of extra power they produce. I did mention that other factors were in there such as weight, emissions and safety etc.
to say I fail to grasp a concept is a very bold statement.

either way, no need to be condescending to someone on here. I expect a little respect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

either way, no need to be condescending...

---

I wasn't condescending at all. If that's how you read it then that's how you read it but no reason to lash out at me for a factual and non emotional reply.

I don't like that he's pushing "cap and tax" or that he's refering to Al Gore than someone other than a fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

I wasn't condescending at all. If that's how you read it then that's how you read it but no reason to lash out at me for a factual and non emotional reply.

---

When you say something like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now.

---

that is condescending.

either way, no feelings hurt, just no need to talk down to someone, even if it is on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

I don't like that he's pushing "cap and tax" or that he's refering to Al Gore than someone other than a fraud.

---

Al Gore should be kicked out of the country for spouting soo much bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I also own a new truck so I KNOW the amount of extra power they produce. I did mention that other factors were in there such as weight, emissions and safety etc.
to say I fail to grasp a concept is a very bold statement.

either way, no need to be condescending to someone on here. I expect a little respect

---

Now you've edited your post to include some new information since I've posted to your unedited post so I will address the new items you have added.

For starters, it's not me but YOU who is trying to stir a pot that isn't even there. I was pretty sure we were having an adult conversation so I spoke factually and directly w/o any emotion. I wasn't aware we were in some sort of Internet battle when I made the post that you are referring to. You CHOSE to take offense to what I said and read into words that weren't even there. Several times now you have said that I stated you didn't grasp something... at what point did I say you 'failed to grasp a concept' aside from this post? Please don't put words into my mouth to spur some sort of childish Internet battle because you have low self esteem and chose to find offense to anything that I have stated. I don't think anyone else read what I typed as malicious or directed towards you in a negative matter the required some sort of retaliation to save face.

You are taking this thread WAY off topic for no reason what-so-ever.