RLflutie7 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I knew a guy in Phoenix Arizona who leased an EV1 and he loved it. I saw him drive it and I stood right next to it and asked him if it was the EV1 that I had seen in the paper. He said it was. This guy is very rich and it should be noted that he had several different cars. He had a 50k sports car, a mini van etc. etc. That being said, GM came and got his EV1 with about three months left on the lease and he wasn't allowed to buy it. His employee told me it was almost as if they did it by gun point. However, the EV1 failed and electric cars failed because of the battery. They had poor performance and little range. I think the EV1 could go 25 miles on a charge. Some other thoughts: 1. When I moved to Arizona in 1995 Dan Grubb from Lou Grubb automotive group was on a TV talk show promoting the EV1. He took telephone calls. An old man (from World War 2) called and said "this is nothing but a snow job". The old man said the battery would never allow for an eletric car and that the same problems the Army had during the second World War was the same in 1995. No Battery capacity. Dan Grubb said the EV1 was for someone who commutes to work within the 25 mile radius. 2. I saw Roger Smith (CEO GM) on Phil Donahue way back when. People in the audience were standing up yelling at him. Telling him American cars were junk and that they drink gas. They wanted to know why American car companies wouldn't build smaller fuel efficient cars. Smith said "American's like big cars. They won't drive small cars."____ God was he right. Look at the SUV craze. 3. Two brothers made a car that would run on water. This was in the 1930's or 1940's in Texas. They invited the media. Went to a lake and got water and put it in the gas tank and drove around. Actually it was a water carburator. Somehow it created energy out of water. They sent their idea to BMW and BMW wrote back and said it would corrode the pistons. They got a patent on the carb and I think these two brothers also invented the stop light. 4. I think as far as saving energy is concerned, the saving grace is Walmart. Walmart claims they can lower their stores energy use by 20% or so. Maybe more. They have "green stores" coming online. I think if there is ever one company that will find ways to get this done, it's Walmart. Don't ask me why. I'm just convinced they'll be the ones that get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 3. Two brothers made a car that would run on water. This was in the 1930's or 1940's in Texas. They invited the media. Went to a lake and got water and put it in the gas tank and drove around. Actually it was a water carburator. Somehow it created energy out of water. They sent their idea to BMW and BMW wrote back and said it would corrode the pistons. They got a patent on the carb and I think these two brothers also invented the stop light. Denny Klein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 19, 2007 Author Share Posted March 19, 2007 Denny Klein I'm trying to decide whether or not that's a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 It says "HHO" gas on the web page. H2O gas is steam. A steam engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 3. Two brothers made a car that would run on water. This was in the 1930's or 1940's in Texas. They invited the media. Went to a lake and got water and put it in the gas tank and drove around. Actually it was a water carburator. Somehow it created energy out of water. They sent their idea to BMW and BMW wrote back and said it would corrode the pistons. They got a patent on the carb and I think these two brothers also invented the stop light. It's good to get some confirmation that the EV-1 was as good a vehicle as the movie made it out to be. As for the battery problems, I understand there was a much better battery in the works. I'd be curious if GM offered that guy you know the chance to upgrade to one of the new, significantly improved batteries. As for this bit about a car that runs on water, I don't see how it could work. There are several ways you can store energy for a car Chemical Nuclear (at least in theory) Kinetic (experimental vehicles have been built using flywheel power) Compressed air External energy source (e.g., an overhanging power line) Of the above, the only one with proven, car-relevant practical potential is chemical energy storage. Even a steam engine gets its energy from the chemical bonds in coal. You get chemical energy by taking something unstable--such as Tom--and allowing it to become more stable. The more unstable your starting material, and the more stable your end product, the more energy will be released in the process. That's why hydrogen has so much theoretical potential. Hydrogen gas is very unstable; and water is very stable. By combining oxygen with hydrogen to get water, you can obtain a high level of energy from a small amount of fuel. But therein lies the problem with the engine you've described: water is very stable. There just isn't much chemical energy to be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 It's good to get some confirmation that the EV-1 was as good a vehicle as the movie made it out to be. As for the battery problems, I understand there was a much better battery in the works. I'd be curious if GM offered that guy you know the chance to upgrade to one of the new, significantly improved batteries. As for this bit about a car that runs on water, I don't see how it could work. There are several ways you can store energy for a car Chemical Nuclear (at least in theory) Kinetic (experimental vehicles have been built using flywheel power) Compressed air External energy source (e.g., an overhanging power line) Of the above, the only one with proven, car-relevant practical potential is chemical energy storage. Even a steam engine gets its energy from the chemical bonds in coal. You get chemical energy by taking something unstable--such as Tom--and allowing it to become more stable. The more unstable your starting material, and the more stable your end product, the more energy will be released in the process. That's why hydrogen has so much theoretical potential. Hydrogen gas is very unstable; and water is very stable. By combining oxygen with hydrogen to get water, you can obtain a high level of energy from a small amount of fuel. But therein lies the problem with the engine you've described: water is very stable. There just isn't much chemical energy to be released. Holy sh--. Never in the history of anything has anyone misunderstood so many basic scientific concepts in one posts. Even newbie with his brilliant "You can see the north pole from the south pole" nonsense had more of a clue than this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Holy sh--. Never in the history of anything has anyone misunderstood so many basic scientific concepts in one posts. Even newbie with his brilliant "You can see the north pole from the south pole" nonsense had more of a clue than this... What? Tom is stable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Holy sh--. Never in the history of anything has anyone misunderstood so many basic scientific concepts in one posts. Even newbie with his brilliant "You can see the north pole from the south pole" nonsense had more of a clue than this... I'd say the vague accusation is your version of breathing, except that I'd be understating my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 It's good to get some confirmation that the EV-1 was as good a vehicle as the movie made it out to be. As for the battery problems, I understand there was a much better battery in the works. I'd be curious if GM offered that guy you know the chance to upgrade to one of the new, significantly improved batteries. As for this bit about a car that runs on water, I don't see how it could work. There are several ways you can store energy for a car Chemical Nuclear (at least in theory) Kinetic (experimental vehicles have been built using flywheel power) Compressed air External energy source (e.g., an overhanging power line) Of the above, the only one with proven, car-relevant practical potential is chemical energy storage. Even a steam engine gets its energy from the chemical bonds in coal. You get chemical energy by taking something unstable--such as Tom--and allowing it to become more stable. The more unstable your starting material, and the more stable your end product, the more energy will be released in the process. That's why hydrogen has so much theoretical potential. Hydrogen gas is very unstable; and water is very stable. By combining oxygen with hydrogen to get water, you can obtain a high level of energy from a small amount of fuel. But therein lies the problem with the engine you've described: water is very stable. There just isn't much chemical energy to be released. EV-1 They told Danny they were taking the car. They didn't want the car on the road. They wouldn't let lease owners renew. They took the car almost at gun point (attitude). GM claims parts manufactures would not make parts for the car because consumers didn't buy the car. So GM didn't want "pintos" running around killing people. Too many lawsuits. Water powered car an interesting article: September 8, 1935 Dallas Morning News Headline: Dallasite patents invention which he claims substitutes water for gasoline as fuel. C.H. Garrett, Dallas inventor, gave a private demonstration Saturday of a recently patented contrivance which he said substitued water for gasoline as fuel for internal combustion engines. He said it broke up the water by electrolysis into its component gases, oxygen and hydrogen, using the highly explosive hydrogen for fuel in the motor cylinder. The working model operated a four-cylinder engine for several minutes in the demonstration, at varying speeds and with several starts and stops. Garrett said he had operated the engine continuously for more than 48 hours. The inventor said the idea itself was not new. He explained that difficultly had been encountered heretofore in attempts to store the dangerously inflammable hydrogen. He claimed to have avoided that trouble by making and exploding the gas in the same process without a storage chamber in which flames from the motor cylinders might react. Water, he explained, is broken down into its component gases by passage of an electric current through it from electrodes immersed in the water. Hydrogen collects at the negative pole and oxygen at the positive. The hydrogen Garrett said, is mixed with air and introduced directly into the cylinders. The inventor said he had been working on the device for eight years, assisted by his father "Dad" Henry Garrett, traffic signal engineer for the city of Dallas, inventor of the traffic signal system, now in use here and holder of several patents on such contrivances. Garrett said attachment of the electrolytic carb and installation of a generator of about double normal capacity to furnish power for the breaking down of the water were the only changes needed to convert a gasoline burning auto into a water burner. He said the electrolysis chamber would have to vary in size with the size of the motor used. One of about a quart capacity being big enough for the ordinary auto. US Patent Office No: 2,006,676 Electrolytic Carburetor Charles H. Garrett Dallas Texas Application July 1, 1932 Serial No. 620,364 Renewed November 30, 1934. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 EV-1 They told Danny they were taking the car. They didn't want the car on the road. They wouldn't let lease owners renew. They took the car almost at gun point (attitude). GM claims parts manufactures would not make parts for the car because consumers didn't buy the car. So GM didn't want "pintos" running around killing people. Too many lawsuits. Water powered car an interesting article: September 8, 1935 Dallas Morning News Headline: Dallasite patents invention which he claims substitutes water for gasoline as fuel. C.H. Garrett, Dallas inventor, gave a private demonstration Saturday of a recently patented contrivance which he said substitued water for gasoline as fuel for internal combustion engines. He said it broke up the water by electrolysis into its component gases, oxygen and hydrogen, using the highly explosive hydrogen for fuel in the motor cylinder. The working model operated a four-cylinder engine for several minutes in the demonstration, at varying speeds and with several starts and stops. Garrett said he had operated the engine continuously for more than 48 hours. The inventor said the idea itself was not new. He explained that difficultly had been encountered heretofore in attempts to store the dangerously inflammable hydrogen. He claimed to have avoided that trouble by making and exploding the gas in the same process without a storage chamber in which flames from the motor cylinders might react. Water, he explained, is broken down into its component gases by passage of an electric current through it from electrodes immersed in the water. Hydrogen collects at the negative pole and oxygen at the positive. The hydrogen Garrett said, is mixed with air and introduced directly into the cylinders. The inventor said he had been working on the device for eight years, assisted by his father "Dad" Henry Garrett, traffic signal engineer for the city of Dallas, inventor of the traffic signal system, now in use here and holder of several patents on such contrivances. Garrett said attachment of the electrolytic carb and installation of a generator of about double normal capacity to furnish power for the breaking down of the water were the only changes needed to convert a gasoline burning auto into a water burner. He said the electrolysis chamber would have to vary in size with the size of the motor used. One of about a quart capacity being big enough for the ordinary auto. US Patent Office No: 2,006,676 Electrolytic Carburetor Charles H. Garrett Dallas Texas Application July 1, 1932 Serial No. 620,364 Renewed November 30, 1934. Interesting... I wonder if the Hindenberg [sP] disaster put the whole kabosh on the H thing for a long time? The word inflammable should be FLAMMABLE right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Interesting... I wonder if the Hindenberg [sP] disaster put the whole kabosh on the H thing for a long time? The word inflammable should be FLAMMABLE right? Yes. I copied the story and they had inflammable. I forgot to go back and change it. I was trying to type fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 EV-1 They told Danny they were taking the car. They didn't want the car on the road. They wouldn't let lease owners renew. They took the car almost at gun point (attitude). GM claims parts manufactures would not make parts for the car because consumers didn't buy the car. So GM didn't want "pintos" running around killing people. Too many lawsuits. Water powered car an interesting article: September 8, 1935 Dallas Morning News Headline: Dallasite patents invention which he claims substitutes water for gasoline as fuel. C.H. Garrett, Dallas inventor, gave a private demonstration Saturday of a recently patented contrivance which he said substitued water for gasoline as fuel for internal combustion engines. He said it broke up the water by electrolysis into its component gases, oxygen and hydrogen, using the highly explosive hydrogen for fuel in the motor cylinder. The working model operated a four-cylinder engine for several minutes in the demonstration, at varying speeds and with several starts and stops. Garrett said he had operated the engine continuously for more than 48 hours. The inventor said the idea itself was not new. He explained that difficultly had been encountered heretofore in attempts to store the dangerously inflammable hydrogen. He claimed to have avoided that trouble by making and exploding the gas in the same process without a storage chamber in which flames from the motor cylinders might react. Water, he explained, is broken down into its component gases by passage of an electric current through it from electrodes immersed in the water. Hydrogen collects at the negative pole and oxygen at the positive. The hydrogen Garrett said, is mixed with air and introduced directly into the cylinders. The inventor said he had been working on the device for eight years, assisted by his father "Dad" Henry Garrett, traffic signal engineer for the city of Dallas, inventor of the traffic signal system, now in use here and holder of several patents on such contrivances. Garrett said attachment of the electrolytic carb and installation of a generator of about double normal capacity to furnish power for the breaking down of the water were the only changes needed to convert a gasoline burning auto into a water burner. He said the electrolysis chamber would have to vary in size with the size of the motor used. One of about a quart capacity being big enough for the ordinary auto. US Patent Office No: 2,006,676 Electrolytic Carburetor Charles H. Garrett Dallas Texas Application July 1, 1932 Serial No. 620,364 Renewed November 30, 1934. It sounds like the car obtains its energy from an electric current. Rather than using the electricity to power an electric motor directly--which you'd think would be logical--the electric current's energy is used to break water apart into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then combined with oxygen again to give you water. By this means the electric energy of the current is converted into a series of hydrogen explosions; and those explosions power the car. Most electric cars use electricity to power the vehicle directly. The article didn't specify what benefit--if any--this vehicle receives from using hydrogen as a sort of middleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Yes. I copied the story and they had inflammable. I forgot to go back and change it. I was trying to type fast. MY BAD!!!! I am such a dummy! The word INflammable is one of those words that always throws me up... I guess I should have listened to my elementary teacher and seek a dictionary when in doubt. Inflammable means that it IS combustible or flammable... Inflame!!! Again... My bad... Sorry for throwing you up too! Major brain fart (I hear the snickers... ) on my part... For some reason... That was digging at me... Goes to show you... ALWAYS CHECK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 MY BAD!!!! I am such a dummy! The word INflammable is one of those words that always throws me up... I guess I should have listened to my elementary teacher and seek a dictionary when in doubt. Inflammable means that it IS combustible or flammable... Inflame!!! Again... My bad... Sorry for throwing you up too! Major brain fart (I hear the snickers... ) on my part... For some reason... That was digging at me... Goes to show you... ALWAYS CHECK!!! In other words, inflammable means flammable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 In other words, inflammable means flammable. Ahhh... Yes... Nobody ever accused me of NOT working for the gov't! I can still dance around an "I am stupid post", "My bad post." AND still do it in ONE or two posts/pages... Unlike a certain other here that promotes a pure bred society... Takes a BIG man to admit his shortcomings Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 It sounds like the car obtains its energy from an electric current. Rather than using the electricity to power an electric motor directly--which you'd think would be logical--the electric current's energy is used to break water apart into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then combined with oxygen again to give you water. By this means the electric energy of the current is converted into a series of hydrogen explosions; and those explosions power the car. Most electric cars use electricity to power the vehicle directly. The article didn't specify what benefit--if any--this vehicle receives from using hydrogen as a sort of middleman. The car gets its combustion from the hydrogen. The electricity converts the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The electricity is in the carburetor. The patent is for an electric carburetor. Garrett went to a lake and put the water in the gas tank. The water travels from the gas tank through the fuel line and into the carburator. The electric current makes hydrogen from the water and distributes it into the pistons. You don't store the hydrogen. It goes directly into the pistons. The problem is "embitterment" or something like that. I'll get the website that has the drawings and a copy of the patent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 The car gets its combustion from the hydrogen. The electricity converts the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The electricity is in the carburetor. The patent is for an electric carburetor. Garrett went to a lake and put the water in the gas tank. The water travels from the gas tank through the fuel line and into the carburator. The electric current makes hydrogen from the water and distributes it into the pistons. You don't store the hydrogen. It goes directly into the pistons. The problem is "embitterment" or something like that. I'll get the website that has the drawings and a copy of the patent. The website is Keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm I never did learn how to post a link. You could also do a google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts