GM Volt Forum banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
I guess if you call living 62mi from the nearest job in your market, and not being able to sell your home so you can move closer, a luxury. Then you're absolutely correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
It's not a scam. The car has been tested again and again. The same system has also been used in trucks and SUV's in Japan. I really hate when people call it a scam simply because they don't want to believe that the technology is possible. You are talking about a country which has literally developed some of the worlds greatest electronic innovations. I don't see why the same cannot be true for energy. This is also not a recent technology, it was developed in this nation in roughly 1998 by Stan Meyer, and was used in a buggy that he built to run on water alone. With 1 gallon of water, his buggy could travel up to 100 miles before refueling.

People like to call it a scam and a hoax simply because it hasn't been implemented today. Well there are many, many reasons behind that, namely our government and the fact that they get 15c tax for every gallon of gas that you buy at the pump. More so for Diesel. So they have absolutely no incentives to allow for a "free" fuel to hit the market, and bleed them of their millions of dollars they accrue daily.
The Japanese are a very clever and efficient people, but they won't find a way around the law of conservation of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

It's a scam, because they are suggesting the car runs only on water. That is a lie. You must have something else to act as "fuel" or you must have electricity in the first place to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. Having a closed-system loop like that is perpetual motion. It's not possible.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/genepax-water-powered-car-japan-debunking.php

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1769/68

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/951/85/

I'm not doubting their system works. I'm just saying it's taking in a little more than just water. It could be using batteries, or it could be consuming aluminum or some other catalyst. I'll bet their fuel cell doesn't last more than a few miles before it has to be replaced.

I think you were better off sticking with the inefficient ethanol modification kit rather than the impossible overunity HHO system kit.

Maybe I'm confused...but I thought you cheered ethanol in your first post.
He did:

Instead, what I am considering is buying an ethanol conversion kit for my current Honda... Please, I beg you to consider releasing your E85 cars as a mainstream solution to the fuel crisis
Then he decided to say that his conversion was for HHO:

I was referring to converting my honda to an HHO-Gas kit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Ok, now that you explained a bit more of what you meant, it makes sense to me why you are arguing this point. And the fact is that it is not a closed loop system. It is in fact, powered by electricity. It is, using the process of electrolysis (though a more advanced version than I have seen before). As I said, most of the facts are plain to see and posted on their site, though they don't go into too great of detail about the system itself because they are still in production and don't want to leak any information that hasn't yet been patented.

Denny Klein did the same thing with his welding torch's. I'm sure some of you have seen the story on that, as it's becoming more famous, and Chrysler has actually bought into his idea as well as a means of implementing it in their cars (I hope).

He replaced all of his acetylene torches with HHO gas, which is converted from water through electrolysis. The energy that's produced is not only hotter than normal acetylene, but is also free of emissions that are harmful, safer all around, and doesn't need to be regulated like an acetylene torch does.


Edit:

And yes, I mis-spoke in my initial post. I meant to say HHO conversion, as I'm honestly unaware of any E85 kits, or Ethanol-Gas kits that are available in my area. My apologies on that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
This is also not a recent technology, it was developed in this nation in roughly 1998 by Stan Meyer, and was used in a buggy that he built to run on water alone. With 1 gallon of water, his buggy could travel up to 100 miles before refueling.
Poor example. Stan's device was found to use the cord to bubble a tank through basic electrolysis as part of the show to raise investment capitol. He was tried and convicted for defrauding his investors, as his device didn't actually work as claimed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
The general idea is that using electricity to produce hydrogen to pass through a fuel cell to produce electricity is just adding extra steps that end up wasting more energy than is needed. Consider this:

For Fuel Cells:
Electricity > Water > Hydrogen > Fuel Cell > Electricity > Motor > Turn Wheels
-or-
Aluminum-gallium > Water > Hydrogen > Fuel Cell > Electricity > Motor > Turn Wheels

For hydrogen fool sells, you will need a supply of electricity and water or a supply of aluminum (and a method to extract the alumina without extracting gallium) and water. Then you would need a means to store the hydrogen. But because hydrogen has very poor energy density per volume, it can't easily be stored onboard a vehicle. And because production is very energy costly and doesn't yield a whole lot (except for aluminum-gallium, but that requires a lot of aluminum and produces a lot of alumina as waste), it needs to be done remotely (not onboard). That means we will need a hydrogen fuel infrastructure. All this makes hydrogen the least attractive solution, even compared to expensive Li-ion.

For Serial Hybrid:
Electricity > Batteries > Motor > Turn Wheels
Fuel > Genset > Electricity > Batteries > Motor > Turn Wheels

For serial hybrids and battery electric cars, it's a lot simpler. We already have grid electricity available, so the infrastructure is here. You just take the energy from your house and plug it right into your batteries, and the batteries power the motor which powers the wheels. No need to go from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 · (Edited)
So I don't understand. You're opposed to the process which is better than battery power, and better than hybrid cars? Because that's what it sounds like. Rather than have a battery powered car that you have to charge every so often, you could instead have a car that uses HHO to power the cells to power the motor, thus eliminating the need to "recharge" the car at any time.

Kinda looks like this:
Honda Clarity FCX

So as I said before, I'll simply wait until Honda releases the FCX mainstream, and buy that instead of an American car. I'm sure that'll do wonders for our economy. Sorry that I felt I could change the minds of some people to realize that there more important things out there than just the drive around town.

Some examples, so perhaps people don't assume I'm blowing smoke:
HHO kits used in school buses

Domestic Use

BTW, for most of you saying, "well that's just the small minority of people talking," please understand that this same technology can be adapted to suit the big rig trucks that deliver millions of goods and services to our country. Take into perspective that the "oil crisis" doesn't effect those of you who drive less than 40mi a day, and to say that it does makes me laugh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Poor example. Stan's device was found to use the cord to bubble a tank through basic electrolysis as part of the show to raise investment capitol. He was tried and convicted for defrauding his investors, as his device didn't actually work as claimed.
That's incorrect. He was sued on the basis that he had promised investors that his car would be able to run using perpetual motion. After being analyzed, the car was shown to run using electrolysis. That is the point I was making, is that electrolysis as a means of creating HHO for fuel, is not a new idea and has been around for a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
Future of Fuel Cells:
Solar Radiation -> Direct Solar Hydrogen -> Fuel Cell -> Vehicle Electricity -> ...

The best technology out there is that Solar Radiation -> Direct Solar Hydrogen is 45%-56% efficiency (SHELAC laboratories, Canada). Then Fuel Cell to Electricity is 60% efficient. Overall efficiency is 27%-34% from direct solar radiation to Vehicle Electricity. Too bad the US is way behind in the Direct Solar Hydrogen Efficiency. Well behind Canada and Australia.

Compare this to current solar thin film PV in your roof
Solar Radiation > PV electricity > inverter > recharger > Battery Electricity...
Solar to PV is 15%, inverter is about 80%, recharger is 90%. Overall is 11%.

But the future is bright: Solar to PV can be 70% one day if the Berkeley guys succeeded in commercializing their new findings.

Well, the cheapest method with the complete picture right now to move your butt around is this:
Solar Radiation -> Plant Materials -> Geological upheaval -> millions of years -> Coal -> Mining operations > Coal Power plants -> Grid -> Household electricity -> Recharger .-> Battery electricity -> wheels -> move your butt around the continent.

Anybody care to guess the overall efficiency of the cheapest method right now? The first step is under 1% efficient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Well, the cheapest method with the complete picture right now to move your butt around is this:
Solar Radiation -> Plant Materials -> Geological upheaval -> millions of years -> Coal -> Mining operations > Coal Power plants -> Grid -> Household electricity -> Recharger .-> Battery electricity -> wheels -> move your butt around the continent.

Anybody care to guess the overall efficiency of the cheapest method right now? The first step is under 1% efficient.
It doesn't count when you consider the first step already happened millions of years ago and it's only unlocking energy. Hell, how efficient was the conversion of energy to hydrogen post big bang and does that matter?

Also some people need to realize that all vehicles need to refuel. Just because you're having to put more HHO in it versus electricity or gas, you're still refueling it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Haven't read everything here, but for it all can be resumed by " Hey GM can you build a car just for me?" and GM answered would be "No, because we aim at the mass market, you are not".

I'm not trying to bash you, just saying the economics being your request is flawed.

It is normal for GM to first address the 85% that are doing 40 miles or less of commute per day.

In your case I would look for Tesla Motor which are providing 100 to 200 miles per charge. But I'm affraid you will have to wait for technology to improved to meet your requirements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
That's incorrect. He was sued on the basis that he had promised investors that his car would be able to run using perpetual motion. After being analyzed, the car was shown to run using electrolysis. That is the point I was making, is that electrolysis as a means of creating HHO for fuel, is not a new idea and has been around for a long time.
The car was never analyzed. He came up with some lame excuse saying the car wasn't functioning, so the judge called his torch system in as evidence, which was found to be simple electrolysis. The judge found him guilty of "Gross and egregious fraud".

Anyway, my point is this: To produce hydrogen onboard a vehicle would be adding so many more steps than is required compared to a regular BEV. You could simply skip all the costly hydrogen making processes and just use electricity stored in batteries to turn the wheels. No need to use electricity for electrolysis which produces hydrogen, which only ends up getting turned back into electricity. The process is extremely inefficient.

Direct solar hydrogen seems promising, but it will still require a hydrogen fueling infrastructure (it can't be done onboard). It makes more sense to me to use direct solar hydrogen plants (along with other power plants tied into the grid) to produce electricity remotely (either by burning the hydrogen to produce steam to produce electricity, or by passing it through a fuel cell to produce electricity), which can then be sent to our cars through a 110V outlet, and stored on batteries and/or ultracaps.

Having one fuel format (electricity) powered by a variety of options (coal, oil, natural gas, hydrogen, fission, solar, wind, hydro, etc... whatever happens to be available and is cheap) and relying on that energy through the already-established grid would be the most efficient and least costly solution, IMO. And until batteries become cheap, light, and energy dense enough, we can simply use small and inexpensive battery packs for short range trips and rely on gensets (powered by a variety of options such as gasoline/ethanol, diesel/biodiesel, CNG, or propane, etc...) for extended range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
It doesn't count when you consider the first step already happened millions of years ago and it's only unlocking energy. Hell, how efficient was the conversion of energy to hydrogen post big bang and does that matter?...
MrBogey, that is another perspective, and true. That's why its cheap, we are simply unlocking energy that was trapped from the sun several million years ago. I was attempting to point out that we can compare that most of our fuel sources, except from nuclear, geothermal and tidal, can be traced back from sun power. Even our waves, winds, and hydro are from solar power. Oil originally came from photosynthesis of plants, powered by the sun several hundred million years ago.

And that brings to your mention of hydrogen, which actually reminded me of nuclear fusion which powers our sun. The Holy Grail of energy is if we can do our own self-sustaining nuclear fusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
Yeah, I'm not the majority. You are correct. But if you did take the time to read into what was being said, you'd note that I'm asking that GM (or any American car maker) take note of the fact that the oil crisis isn't effecting those of you who drive under 40mi/day. I'm not sure what type of cars most of you drive, and in fact I'm sure for the majority it must be SUV's, which makes sense to why most think this is a solution to the problem. But even still, I'll try to put things in perspective:

Average driver - 40mi/day
Average (Midsize/Large) car - 32mpg
Average SUV - 18mpg

So lets assume that we both drive a Midsize car, something like a 4dr Honda Accord. We're both getting 32mpg. Only you drive an average of 40mi/day, and I drive an average of oh... 125mi/day.

You use 1.25gal of gas/day
I use 3.9gal of gas/day

Your weekly driving cost (at the average of $4/gal) = $25
My weekly driving cost ("") = $78

So as I'm spending 3 times the cost you are on gas, how is it that a company decides to build a car that caters to the group who spends the LEAST on fuel in the first place? It would make complete sense to me if it were the other way around, because after all, those who are spending the most on gas in a day/week/month/year, are the ones who are most effected by the price of gasoline. Those who travel under 40mi/day really have little/nothing to complain about in my honest opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
Direct solar hydrogen seems promising, but it will still require a hydrogen fueling infrastructure (it can't be done onboard). It makes more sense to me to use direct solar hydrogen plants (along with other power plants tied into the grid) to produce electricity remotely (either by burning the hydrogen to produce steam to produce electricity, or by passing it through a fuel cell to produce electricity), which can then be sent to our cars through a 110V outlet, and stored on batteries and/or ultracaps. ...
Mark of SHEC Labs called me about an hour or so ago and told me that they are very much alive, so there's hope:

http://www.shec-labs.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
OMG... I can't believe it... You got it.... STOP the machine, STOP everything.... lets address the need of those 15%, this will impact both the need for oil and reduce CO2... I just got hit by a lightning.... I'm sure you understand this is sarcasm.

By making sure to address 85% wouldn't need gas 99% of time, They address the core of the oil usage. Your point just doesn't old on.

You, your needs, need to be address, but you will be the first one to start screaming if GM rolled out a car that could do 100/150 miles on batteries + range extender that would cost 2-4 times more then the volt.

You do understand, the core of the cost is the battery and energy density?

And again, why don't you consider Tesla. If the Volt is not right for you, that's OK, there is other choice out there. What are you waiting for to get Prius?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
I'll try to put things in perspective:

Average driver - 40mi/day
Average (Midsize/Large) car - 32mpg
Average SUV - 18mpg

So lets assume that we both drive a Midsize car, something like a 4dr Honda Accord. We're both getting 32mpg. Only you drive an average of 40mi/day, and I drive an average of oh... 125mi/day.

You use 1.25gal of gas/day
I use 3.9gal of gas/day

Your weekly driving cost (at the average of $4/gal) = $25
My weekly driving cost ("") = $78
If you throw the Volt in there then they use no gas but you use only 18$ assuming you can charge it at work. If not then it's 29$. With each using about 6$ of home electricity.

They're quartering their fuel bill while you'd half yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
Sorry we don't understand your argument.

40-mile all electric range (at a cost of about 2.5 cents per mile) is beneficial for those that drive 20 miles per day and it's beneficial for those that drive 200 miles per day. It makes no difference.

Your first 40-miles will always be dirt cheap (or free if you have a solar panel on your house). Then you can go back to gasoline and still enjoy 50MPG after the first 40-miles.

The idea of the car isn't flawed. The price can be, if the packs end up costing more than GM would like. Gas over the lifetime of a typical small 4 door sedan can cost about $20,000. Electricity and gas for the Volt assuming 80% of your driving is under 40 miles would cost about $5,000. So the Volt can be no more than $15,000 more than the cost of a typical car (like a Ford Focus).

So the target price has to be around $30,000 for me to consider the car from a purely economical point. Maybe the cool factor, convenience, and early adopting would be "worth" $5,000 for some people. So that's $35,000 which is what we are expecting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
Also some people need to realize that all vehicles need to refuel. Just because you're having to put more HHO in it versus electricity or gas, you're still refueling it.
Yes, but all refueling isn't the same. Some types of refueling don't send my hard-earned $$$ to OPEC countries that don't like us. If I have to refuel, I'd like the money to remain in North America.

I want to sting Big Oil for what they are doing to us now, and I want to utterly cut out OPEC and let them sink in a sand pit. The hell with them all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Yes, but all refueling isn't the same. Some types of refueling don't send my hard-earned $$$ to OPEC countries that don't like us. If I have to refuel, I'd like the money to remain in North America.

I want to sting Big Oil for what they are doing to us now, and I want to utterly cut out OPEC and let them sink in a sand pit. The hell with them all!
I know. In a way that was my point.
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top