Here is a proposal to significantly improve your gas mileage with tap water:
http://www.runsyourcarwithwater.com/blog/index.php/save-money-on-gas/
If you get 40% improvement in your gas mileage you could pay a lot less at the pump. My car gets 22 miles per gallon. A 40% increase puts it at 30 miles to the gallon. Where I am now paying $4.39 per gallon this will stretch to an equivalent of $2.63 per gallon by a 40% reduction in gallons at the pump or mileage increase.
If the kit will do what it says it will it is well worth the few hours time and investment of less than $200.
A good friend of mine tells me of a story where he used to sleep in the garage with a shotgun to protect his uncle's car that ran on water. I never learned how it was done - it was a family secret - but I do know that it has been done. I will be getting one of these kits to test this out myself to see if this conversion is workable and viable.
Has anyone implemented this kit? I welcome comments and your feedback.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Exxon Terminators Versus Rockefeller Transformers
by Robert L. Gisel
An article came to my attention that I just had to comment on.
http://dailymail.com/comments?build=yes&ContID=200805290176
Apparently 15 or so members of the Rockefeller family are urging Exxon Oil to give consideration to the issue of global climate change. I must say I am quite dubious that this highly unlikely, to me, excursion by the Rockefeller families let alone Exxon Oil will result in any carry-through more than mere lip service. However my great belief in the goodness of mankind allows me to consider this as a serious offer to which I tender some very genuinely beneficial solutions.
This group of Rockefeller descendants cosponsored shareholder resolutions for change for Exxon Oil. This is the largest of the 34 companies formed when Standard Oil was broken up in the antitrust action by the Supreme Court in 1911. The article by the Charleston Daily Mail is very enlightening. You can see my feedback in the comments where I address the importances of the issues.
No datum is of any importance unevaluated and in particular unless against datums of comparative order. This is not meaning simply the proverbial apples to oranges but if you try to think of how do apples compare with screwdrivers it's a bit of a stretch right?
What is good for apples is not what is good for screwdrivers so viewpoint is important. The super-rich may think that what is good for them is good for everyone else as their jobs and capital feed back into society. The struggling middle class or destitute poor may have quite another opinion if inflation is so out of hand one cannot afford to keep bread on the table. Building fine palaces and homes from the lumber in the forests may seem a good thing. When a century or so later there are no more forests as in the once thickly forested Mediterranean areas this becomes manifest as a bad act.
Keeping a business going on continuous sales is good for business. A one-time sale is usually regarded as not so good unless the demand for these remains unlimited. The original horseless carriages were electric. The apparent reason for favoring combustion engines in the ensuing development was forwarded as insufficient battery technology. One suspects that repeat business by reason of the necessity to refill the gas tank was the true deciding business decision.
One suspects as well that it was also the determining factor in killing the electric cars several years ago. GM pulled all it's leased EV-1s and sent them to the crusher. Same with other EV car companies at the time. That Toyota would make the same decision but did not have the same situation as GM is a dubious coincident. Meanwhile the President of the united neocons pushes a program for the hydrogen fuel cell in a program requiring the addition of an infrastructure of added pumps around the nation replacing the expensive gasoline with expensive hydrogen fill ups.
I might even go along with hydrogen as an alternative if it were sold with the equipment to produce your own hydrogen out of water in your own garage. This would be a truly independent source similar to electric but it doesn't seem to be rolling out that way. For mobile applications, hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline.
This whole subject needs a lot of help in the right direction so the Rockefellers are certainly welcome to pitch in and, hopefully, put their money where their mouth is.
An article came to my attention that I just had to comment on.
http://dailymail.com/comments?build=yes&ContID=200805290176
Apparently 15 or so members of the Rockefeller family are urging Exxon Oil to give consideration to the issue of global climate change. I must say I am quite dubious that this highly unlikely, to me, excursion by the Rockefeller families let alone Exxon Oil will result in any carry-through more than mere lip service. However my great belief in the goodness of mankind allows me to consider this as a serious offer to which I tender some very genuinely beneficial solutions.
This group of Rockefeller descendants cosponsored shareholder resolutions for change for Exxon Oil. This is the largest of the 34 companies formed when Standard Oil was broken up in the antitrust action by the Supreme Court in 1911. The article by the Charleston Daily Mail is very enlightening. You can see my feedback in the comments where I address the importances of the issues.
No datum is of any importance unevaluated and in particular unless against datums of comparative order. This is not meaning simply the proverbial apples to oranges but if you try to think of how do apples compare with screwdrivers it's a bit of a stretch right?
What is good for apples is not what is good for screwdrivers so viewpoint is important. The super-rich may think that what is good for them is good for everyone else as their jobs and capital feed back into society. The struggling middle class or destitute poor may have quite another opinion if inflation is so out of hand one cannot afford to keep bread on the table. Building fine palaces and homes from the lumber in the forests may seem a good thing. When a century or so later there are no more forests as in the once thickly forested Mediterranean areas this becomes manifest as a bad act.
Keeping a business going on continuous sales is good for business. A one-time sale is usually regarded as not so good unless the demand for these remains unlimited. The original horseless carriages were electric. The apparent reason for favoring combustion engines in the ensuing development was forwarded as insufficient battery technology. One suspects that repeat business by reason of the necessity to refill the gas tank was the true deciding business decision.
One suspects as well that it was also the determining factor in killing the electric cars several years ago. GM pulled all it's leased EV-1s and sent them to the crusher. Same with other EV car companies at the time. That Toyota would make the same decision but did not have the same situation as GM is a dubious coincident. Meanwhile the President of the united neocons pushes a program for the hydrogen fuel cell in a program requiring the addition of an infrastructure of added pumps around the nation replacing the expensive gasoline with expensive hydrogen fill ups.
I might even go along with hydrogen as an alternative if it were sold with the equipment to produce your own hydrogen out of water in your own garage. This would be a truly independent source similar to electric but it doesn't seem to be rolling out that way. For mobile applications, hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline.
This whole subject needs a lot of help in the right direction so the Rockefellers are certainly welcome to pitch in and, hopefully, put their money where their mouth is.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Price At The Pump
by Robert L. Gisel
Now that regular gas is hitting 3.6999 at the pump (over 4.00 for supreme) with the summer not yet started in which this will soar even more (probably over 4.00 for regular) it is evident this demands some real solutions. The toll on the pocket book is actually the lesser factor in the whole problem this presents.
This writer remembers when the price of gas went up from 35 cents a gallon to 40 cents with speculation it was expected to go even higher. A friend of mine was heard to protest this loudly saying that when gas got to $1.00 a gallon he would stop driving. One can imagine he is having great difficulties in keeping a car on the road today.
Inflation has driven the price of everything up. Just look at the price of a new car and compare that to 30 or 40 years ago. It is a foregone conclusion prices will go up. Technological solutions, however, can bring prices of goods down. Just take a look at the evolutionary price of hand-held calculators or computers comparatively more expensive when they were first released. The price of oil is rather more complicated.
The cost of oil and gasoline while monitored by supply and demand these are also monitored by the world scene. Where the supply lies in the hands of other nations who might not want to do business with ours or with whom we might want to do business with due to their hostile or even criminal political inclinations and affiliations this complicates supply and demand. Where the Saudis have most of the untapped oil it could be a real problem in national security if we were not able or willing to supplement our own oil shortages from their abundance.
Who wants it though when burning oil and gas contribute such damaging effects on the ecology of the planet as to present real life threatening climate changes to spaceship Earth. It is a very dim view where one cannot be responsible for one's actions and the effects this will have on the world our grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.
The oil cartel is destined to make profits at the consumers' expense so we'll just take that as a given. Wanting to beat that game lies somewhere between and outrage and self defense. The ideal scene would be to never pump anymore gas while being able to drive anywhere. That is doable with electric cars. Wind, solar, hydroelectric plants and atomic reactors can all provide inexpensive electricity all quite out the loop of the oil cartel.
The existing scene of transportation is such that there is already a dearth of gas and diesel cars and trucks on the road, they will continue to be on the road and therein lies the greatest barrier to reducing the price of gas at the pump as well as emissions that pollute.
It is of little value to have in view an ideal scene if there is not a handling to bring the existing scene up to that higher scene. As we cannot expect all the cars on the road to stop driving the first line of attack would be to do something realistic that improves matters within the scope of what we have.
An immediate improvement can be made with sufficient gains in fuel efficiency and reduce harmful emissions with gas and oil additives. Ethos is such a product. As an oil and gas treatment Ethos boasts a minimum gain of 10% increase in gas efficiency as well as 10% improvement of emissions. There are no doubt other similar products though this is the best I've encountered to date. The gain figures could be quite substantial if this were to be in wide spread use. We'd see an immediate result, it is available now and it doesn't require approval from the car companies to take advantage of the savings and efficiency right now.
On the other end of the spectrum electric vehicles have zero emissions, are very economical and the technology has already been developed to make this available now. Short of that the current trend in hybrids reduces emissions and increases mileage. Even better would be plug-in hybrids if demands are made for the car companies to produce these. An all electric plug-in still tops the list of right-now, doable and realistic solutions.
The movement to produce hydrogen cell cars is wrought in controversy. The likelihood of setting up the infrastructure to enable hydrogen cars across the nation is slim and at best scores of years away. It is debatable if the hydrogen cell car would even be adequately efficient and economical energy production to warrant the efforts being thrown into this.
Since the best solutions, particularly all electric, take the oil mongers out of the loop these are heavily balked by the auto and oil industries into a political quagmire.
Our first cars were electric. Combustion motors were a later development. As late as 2003 GM was producing an electric car, the EV 1, when they decided to kill it. All the EV 1s were exclusively on lease so it was easy to recall these and have them all crushed. That other manufactures took their EVs off the market at the same time and crushed any remaining supplies of them indicates it was an inside circle agreement to do away with all EVs.
Attempts to revive the EV by affirmative political action led by groups like Plug In America and Greenpeace are admirable. This is nevertheless an uphill battle against the heavily entrenched vested interests. Why even go there?
A bright idea comes to mind that would bypass the powers that be and cut straight to the chase with a solution that any individual could take action on immediately. Cars on the road now, some more easily than others, could be converted to electric motors. This is actually a doable first step.
The limitation of EVs has in the past been having a workable battery arrangement. That technology has come up to speed and is no longer a drawback. This leaves us with the question of range.
This writer can think of several ways right off the bat that the mileage of an EV, before requiring a battery recharge, can be greatly extended. To date there hasn't been an EV you could hop in and drive across the country. That is an oversight. Give me a mechanic versed on working on EVs, who can swap out a combustion engine drive train with an electric motor and I will give you an EV having all the desirable features in particular a long enough range to really go somewhere. If that interests anyone I will even tell you how it can be done.
If you like this blog drop some coin in the cup for the Sacramento Area Screenwriters Group.
Now that regular gas is hitting 3.6999 at the pump (over 4.00 for supreme) with the summer not yet started in which this will soar even more (probably over 4.00 for regular) it is evident this demands some real solutions. The toll on the pocket book is actually the lesser factor in the whole problem this presents.
This writer remembers when the price of gas went up from 35 cents a gallon to 40 cents with speculation it was expected to go even higher. A friend of mine was heard to protest this loudly saying that when gas got to $1.00 a gallon he would stop driving. One can imagine he is having great difficulties in keeping a car on the road today.
Inflation has driven the price of everything up. Just look at the price of a new car and compare that to 30 or 40 years ago. It is a foregone conclusion prices will go up. Technological solutions, however, can bring prices of goods down. Just take a look at the evolutionary price of hand-held calculators or computers comparatively more expensive when they were first released. The price of oil is rather more complicated.
The cost of oil and gasoline while monitored by supply and demand these are also monitored by the world scene. Where the supply lies in the hands of other nations who might not want to do business with ours or with whom we might want to do business with due to their hostile or even criminal political inclinations and affiliations this complicates supply and demand. Where the Saudis have most of the untapped oil it could be a real problem in national security if we were not able or willing to supplement our own oil shortages from their abundance.
Who wants it though when burning oil and gas contribute such damaging effects on the ecology of the planet as to present real life threatening climate changes to spaceship Earth. It is a very dim view where one cannot be responsible for one's actions and the effects this will have on the world our grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.
The oil cartel is destined to make profits at the consumers' expense so we'll just take that as a given. Wanting to beat that game lies somewhere between and outrage and self defense. The ideal scene would be to never pump anymore gas while being able to drive anywhere. That is doable with electric cars. Wind, solar, hydroelectric plants and atomic reactors can all provide inexpensive electricity all quite out the loop of the oil cartel.
The existing scene of transportation is such that there is already a dearth of gas and diesel cars and trucks on the road, they will continue to be on the road and therein lies the greatest barrier to reducing the price of gas at the pump as well as emissions that pollute.
It is of little value to have in view an ideal scene if there is not a handling to bring the existing scene up to that higher scene. As we cannot expect all the cars on the road to stop driving the first line of attack would be to do something realistic that improves matters within the scope of what we have.
An immediate improvement can be made with sufficient gains in fuel efficiency and reduce harmful emissions with gas and oil additives. Ethos is such a product. As an oil and gas treatment Ethos boasts a minimum gain of 10% increase in gas efficiency as well as 10% improvement of emissions. There are no doubt other similar products though this is the best I've encountered to date. The gain figures could be quite substantial if this were to be in wide spread use. We'd see an immediate result, it is available now and it doesn't require approval from the car companies to take advantage of the savings and efficiency right now.
On the other end of the spectrum electric vehicles have zero emissions, are very economical and the technology has already been developed to make this available now. Short of that the current trend in hybrids reduces emissions and increases mileage. Even better would be plug-in hybrids if demands are made for the car companies to produce these. An all electric plug-in still tops the list of right-now, doable and realistic solutions.
The movement to produce hydrogen cell cars is wrought in controversy. The likelihood of setting up the infrastructure to enable hydrogen cars across the nation is slim and at best scores of years away. It is debatable if the hydrogen cell car would even be adequately efficient and economical energy production to warrant the efforts being thrown into this.
Since the best solutions, particularly all electric, take the oil mongers out of the loop these are heavily balked by the auto and oil industries into a political quagmire.
Our first cars were electric. Combustion motors were a later development. As late as 2003 GM was producing an electric car, the EV 1, when they decided to kill it. All the EV 1s were exclusively on lease so it was easy to recall these and have them all crushed. That other manufactures took their EVs off the market at the same time and crushed any remaining supplies of them indicates it was an inside circle agreement to do away with all EVs.
Attempts to revive the EV by affirmative political action led by groups like Plug In America and Greenpeace are admirable. This is nevertheless an uphill battle against the heavily entrenched vested interests. Why even go there?
A bright idea comes to mind that would bypass the powers that be and cut straight to the chase with a solution that any individual could take action on immediately. Cars on the road now, some more easily than others, could be converted to electric motors. This is actually a doable first step.
The limitation of EVs has in the past been having a workable battery arrangement. That technology has come up to speed and is no longer a drawback. This leaves us with the question of range.
This writer can think of several ways right off the bat that the mileage of an EV, before requiring a battery recharge, can be greatly extended. To date there hasn't been an EV you could hop in and drive across the country. That is an oversight. Give me a mechanic versed on working on EVs, who can swap out a combustion engine drive train with an electric motor and I will give you an EV having all the desirable features in particular a long enough range to really go somewhere. If that interests anyone I will even tell you how it can be done.
If you like this blog drop some coin in the cup for the Sacramento Area Screenwriters Group.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
