• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Gasprices

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
SchutzeSepp said:
explain nuclear energy to someone from the 1920's, and he will give you the exact same answer as you just did.
it took humans thousands of years to discover that petrol could actually be used for something.
Click to expand...

Scientists of the 1920's knew about the theoretical possibility of nuclear energy, as the Special Theory of Relativity was published in 1905. But that's not the point. Before we understood the properties of atoms, we had no way of predicting the possibility of nuclear power because we didn't have the underlying principles to build upon. However, we DO now have a good understanding of the properties of atoms and the conditions in which they will form and break bonds, etc. Under these rules, it simply isn't possible to extract energy from water without expending more energy in the process. There's an oxygen atom, and two hydrogen atoms, with two covalent bonds and no free electrons. It is in a low energy state; there simply isn't any appreciable energy to be had from it.

SchutzeSepp said:
how many people know that gasoline crs can perfectly run on wood, the germans had converted plenty of cars during the war to run on wood, its not verry practical, but its simple and effective.
Click to expand...

The important phrase in that sentence being "not very practical" Also. most of Germany's synthetic petroleum was made from coal (from the ground), and not trees.

SchutzeSepp said:
and as a replie to bobdog, the internal combustion engine was initially designed to run on vegetable oil.
Click to expand...

Not true, at least as far as I can find on wikipedia.

SchutzeSepp said:
the conversion to fossile fuels was an economic and practical move, as in fact vegetable oil behaves better inside combustion engines, while fossile fuels require chemical additives to limit their negative effects on the engine mechanics and increase their energetic efficiency.
Click to expand...

Very early engines ran on gases like hydrogen and natural gas, then various petroleum products, and eventually gasoline.
 
Upvote 0
#42
My personal french favourite: http://www.news.com/2300-11389_3-6225395-1.html

Of course it's not a final solution, but it sure will help to diminish polution a lot in the meantime.
This car will go into production in the beginning of 2009 and I will buy one.

They have some other models too (a sportswagon among them).
Some background information: http://www.theaircar.com/acf/air-cars/air-cars.html
Funny thing is the technology itself is very old, so all kinds of conspiracy theories can be applied why this kind of technology is not into mass production yet :D

Monk.
 
Upvote 0
#43
On February 27, 1892, Diesel filed for a patent at the Imperial Patent Office in Germany. Within a year, he was granted Patent No. 67207 for a "Working Method and Design for Combustion Engines . . .a new efficient, thermal engine." With contracts from Frederick Krupp and other machine manufacturers, Diesel began experimenting and building working models of his engine. In 1893, the first model ran under its own power with 26% efficiency, remarkably more than double the efficiency of the steam engines of his day. Finally, in February of 1897, he ran the "first diesel engine suitable for practical use, which operated at an unbelievable efficiency of 75%.​
Click to expand...
Diesel demonstrated his engine at the Exhibition Fair in Paris, France in 1898. This engine stood as an example of Diesel's vision because it was fueled by peanut oil - the "original" biodiesel[continued]​
Click to expand...

The important phrase in that sentence being "not very practical" Also. most of Germany's synthetic petroleum was made from coal (from the ground), and not trees.
Click to expand...
i was not talking about the synthetic petroleum they made, i was talking about cars equipped with a wood-gas generator.​
you put wood or coal in a tank, heat it for a while and a self-substaining gasification process starts, and you can drive off.​
now are you again going to tell me it's impossible to make such technology practical? i know alot of people who wouldn't mind using a less practical technology when the oil barril will be at 200 dollars.

there is this french guy who made a system called "pantone" , its a system that injects water vapor into engines mixed with the fuel, it allows all kinds of engines to run up to 75% of water and 25% fuel.
the system is patented and it's not a hoax, by example many farmers are using it and i have seen it being demonstrated myself. only for some weird reason not a single car constructor is interested in this system that allows more than 50% fuel economy... this system exists a long time already and you can buy it.http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/pmcjlnen.htm

the problem of oil has never been that its getting scarse, but the problem is the price! if today we don't have those new complicated technologies yet you would like to see, it's mainly because oil is still cheaper than those techs. honestly people are only getting upset now because of the price, and you won't get a sollution from the big industries. their only sollution like hybrid cars or hydrogen cells are actually even more expensive than our oil, means replacing a problem by a bigger problem. open your eyes people, there are solutions out there. and lets stop behaving like cattle.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#46
BobdogG5 said:
There is no such thing as "free energy". That violates the laws of physics. All of these "amazing car runs on water" stories always turn out to be internet rumors or hoaxes. Any minor reading about the joe cell you mentioned will quickly show that is is just like all the other internet hoaxes like perpetual motion machines, etc.
Click to expand...

Actually there is such thing as "free energy".

Because of Quantum Mechanics and Heisenbergs uncertiny principle small quantas of energy spontaniously appears everywhere (even in vaccum) and of course also disappears spontaniously. There is also nothing that says there will be a balance in the universe between this spontaniously appeard and disappeard energy which means that you theoretically can increase the universes energy level constantly (or decrease). But statistically it should even out in the end. The only thing I don't remember is the name of this phenomenon >.< (I will check this when I get out of work).

The problem with this is that we don't know how to harvest this energy (yet) and also that the amounts (quantas) are extreamly small (within a limited space).
 
Upvote 0
#47
The existence of vacuum energy is also sometimes used, outside of mainstream physics, to controversially as theoretical justification for the possibility of free energy machines. It has been argued that due to the broken symmetry (in QED), free energy does not violate conservation of energy, since the laws of thermodynamics only apply to equilibrium systems. However, consensus among particle physicists is that this is incorrect and that vacuum energy cannot be harnessed to do usable work. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics is unaffected by the existence of vacuum energy.
Click to expand...



From wikipedia cause I am too lazy to retype :p
 
Upvote 0
#49
My only comment is from the morning local news:

"Gas prices are at record highs and oil companies are reporting record-breaking profits"

There's no reason for the price of oil to be going up. We're not going to run out that quickly. Plus there's plenty left in other places, and we've got 16 trillion barrels of oil shale sitting under our feet out in Utah and Colorado and places... maybe we should take care of the oil companies first, then freak out. Of course us Americans could definitely be more conservative in our vehicle choices...
 
Upvote 0
#50
I've heard there is plenty of oil; I've even heard there will be plenty of oil for at least another hundred years, if not longer.

Once the oil is removed from the ground, it has to be refined, into gasoline.


The process of refinement has takes place in Oil Refineries.



There is plenty of oil to go around and in the ground (actually, the U.S. imports the majority of its oil from Canada [ever heard of the National Hockey Leaugue teams the Edmonton Oilers and the Calgary Flames?]).

There is just a limited number of Oil Refineries in the U.S.; this affects the supply or amount of gasoline available.




You hear often on the U.S. TV News that the world demand for oil in nations like China and India is going up, and that is the cause for the prices increases.

Well, if more Oil Refineries were built in the U.S., you could refine more oil, and there would be a larger supply of gasoline, and the prices would decrease.

But it is not going to happen.





I think the major reason gasoline prices are more expensive in Europe, at least in Western Europe, is that it is heavily taxed and the revenue from the taxes is used to fund Social programs or social safety net programs and government services.



I heard in France, the government either pays for or heavily subsidizes
daycare for children so Mom can work and she doesn't have to worry about the kids.


There is nothing like that here in the U.S. You pay as you go along.

Unemployment benefits were once for a year but Reagan cut that to six months (I think the Federal government did extend a little for the Katrina Hurricane victims).

And they don't give out that much.



Britain has a free public healthcare system; I think France does too.

You might be able to get some sort of Medicaid program if you're a single mother with children or is pregnant, or if you're mentally retarded or disabled.



Plus, unless you live in the Eastern United States or major U.S. cities, a lot of cities don't have a subway or an above ground commuter city rail system, or if they do, it doesn't exactly get you close to where you live.

Also, there is no developed commuter rail system between cities (except in New York City and to some extent in Washington D.C.), so for instance, if you want to get to Detroit to Ann Arbor, about 35 miles away, or to Toldeo, Ohio, you have to get in your car, fill it up with gas, and drive to and back on a jam packed road each day. As does everyone else.

It's really just an inefficient allocation of resources.





In the U.K. you have that Chunnel thing that goes across the Channel to Paris and the French have the "Bullet train" that I believe travels from Paris to Marseilles in a matter of hours.

And the air is dirty, at least in Detroit it is. And the roads in Michigan look like they're from Iraq with all the potholes, even though the politician pay their Contractor friends to fix them up ever three years. :D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#51
Capt.Marion said:
There's no reason for the price of oil to be going up. We're not going to run out that quickly. Plus there's plenty left in other places, and we've got 16 trillion barrels of oil shale sitting under our feet out in Utah and Colorado and places... maybe we should take care of the oil companies first, then freak out. Of course us Americans could definitely be more conservative in our vehicle choices...
Click to expand...

There's one problem with this though, it will take at the very least, about 5 years or more to get any new fields up and running. Oil shales will take longer and are MUCH harder to recover. We can also refine more, but again, building a refinery is a huge and expensive prospect. It will, once more, take years to get on up and running.

There is no quick solutions. And honestly, in my opinion, we should use this situation to start shifting to other sources. Oil had a good run of about 100 years, it's time to move on. Because while we might ramp up production, it's only going to be temporary. If we're not hitting Peak Oil now, we will be hitting it within the next 20 years. It's time to start prepping for the transition.

I'm talking about increasingly efficient cars, shifting power production towards large solar plants, etc. Moving onto electric vehicles. Start redesigning towns to allow for easy foot and bike travel, not that these will be the main form of transportation, but to give people the OPTION. Revive the rail transport systems for cross country freight travel, etc.
 
Upvote 0
#52
oil companies are just like any major company these days, they are lead by shareholders and their one and only goal is profit profit and profit.
what would you do if the less you work, the more you earn? thats exactly what oil companies do, they agree with each other about production levels and make sure never to meet the demand. this way the less they produce, the more they earn.
the fact that today we are starting to go deeper into the earth for oil reserves, and extract oil mixed in the ground from canada doesn't mean we don't have to worry and that there will be enough for hundreds of years. it means that the much higher costs of extacting those oil reserves are affordable by the oil companies now because oil has become so expensive.
i even believe there will be oil for many thousands of years, simply because in a few years no one will be able to afford oil anymore. you can't seriously expect things to go on like this untill the last drop. when production will start declining prices will explode, and it's up to us to become independant from oil before that will happen. otherwise the countries that still depend alot on oil will collapse into chaos.
 
Upvote 0
#53
SchutzeSepp said:
oil companies are just like any major company these days, they are lead by shareholders and their one and only goal is profit profit and profit.
Click to expand...

For some perspective, here's a nice quote from John D. Rockefeller, father of the oil revolution:
"Let the good work go on. We must ever remember we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good"

That was in 1885. Now part of his goal to make it cheap was to make it more accessible, so he could sell more of it. But still, it's an interesting perspective. While Rockefeller was a grotesquely rich man, he did do a great deal with his philanthropy. In his place, we now have boards of trustees and corporate beuracratic structures that are faceless, and operate on machine-like principles rather than human ethics.
 
Upvote 0
#54
There is a group of retired French engineers that have developed a system that allows ZERO Co2 emission and economizes 30% of fuel consumption.
Impossible to "sell" this innovation even for a symbolic €.

Last week I converted a promotional video that will be available in the near future for public viewing, its already up on DailyMotion but for private use only, I will try and get permission to link it here but I have my doubts.

They have a web site which I think you will find somewhat naive and at the moment is only in French (WIP)...

I believe that they have come to the conclusion that the only way to get things moving is to do a freeware/open source marketing stratergy...
This is the contact page...

http://asso.int.humaine.free.fr/contact.html

The Money People just will not have it, manufacturers, producers will not respond, this is even more frightening than the price of a Webs Lettuce that I bought this evening :eek:...

Oh... and health care is not free in France or England nor is babysitting in fact you don't get nothing for nowt.

Thanks...51...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#55
^^^
Here's the thing about these "miracle" engines and such. They're not being adopted by industries for a reason. They all still have real practical problems, or they're crackpot schemes with no merit.

You've got to weigh the pros and cons here. Lets say you implement one of these radically new engines in a production car before its ready. Yes, the car may get massively increased efficiency, however it will likely cost a lot, and have signifigant and chronic mechanical problems. Which will lead to people not buying it, and the technology getting a bad reputation.

My opinion, the best hope for a great-efficiency engine would be a steam boosted six-stroke motor assisted by current hybrid systems.
 
Upvote 0
#57
the only fuel saving systems they sell freely in stores are those magnetisers that cost hundreds of euro's. they are supposed to reduce consumption by 30% by changing the polarity of the fuel... tests have shown these systems simply do not work.
they even go to the point of writing in the manual that for the system to work you must drive smoothly, never accelerate fast and brake with the engine... if i sell you a rock, and tell you to drive like that, then most people will reduce their consumption anyway...

as someone mentioned above, one of the promising systems would be cars that run on compressed air. compressed air doesn't come from the middle east and can be made anywhere. plus compressing air is one of the few ways to effectively store electric energy. when you have windmills making occasional electric power, you can store that power by compressing air with it. this breaks the oftenly used arguement that renewable energy production is not constant and cannot be stored when there are peaks.

i also believe that systems like the wood gas generator can be made practical and automated. just look at those pellet stoves we see now everywhere, high oil prices have forces companies to develop a practical and automated way of heating yourself with wood.

but all this is unlikely to happen, many companies have huge inyterests in keeping us dependant for energy. they would hate to see us being able to make our own energy,
 
Upvote 0
#58
SchutzeSepp said:
i also believe that systems like the wood gas generator can be made practical and automated. just look at those pellet stoves we see now everywhere, high oil prices have forces companies to develop a practical and automated way of heating yourself with wood.
Click to expand...

They used these carbon monoxide powered cars during WWII in Finland too.

Some months ago there was one guy saying in Finnish newspaper, that carbon monoxide powered cars should be brought back to use. He used the war times for example and thought that turning cars to run on wood would be good answer to the oil question.

The idea proved to be very unpractical. One engineer made calculations about how much carbon monoxide powered cars would need wood, if all the cars in Finland would be running with carbon monoxide. The amount of wood needed was unbelievable high. Beyond all rationality.

So the efficiency and practicality of using wood gas as car power source can
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#60
well i think everybody agrees that we have been living above our standards the last 40 years, last week i was shocked that on labour day wich is a holiday there were more cars on the highway than i had ever seen before. the solution will come from many directions, including changing our behaviour. things like taking an airplane is criminal these days, if kerosene was taxed than people would think twice about going to the other side of the world twice a year. but to many people depend on things that destroy our future, and it generates to many profits. so the politics will verry unlikely take decisions that harm this destructive economy
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu