US Transit Authority II

Mini SUM-V Produced by Chevy

2007-04-04T16:34:00.000-07:00

SUM-V produced by Chevy. Thanks also for the microdiesel work.

Best in Truck Show

2007-02-13T19:05:00.000-08:00

There is a better truck/SUV combo than yours coming to the market for 08. Just wait.

The truck will feature a sliding door passenger side cabin that can seat 6 comfortably, with climate control in the back and DVD player with fold-down screen. The driver's side of the screen, visible in the monster rear view, will give camera angles from all parts of the truck, so you can watch your stuff, tailgate, and turn signal all at once.

It should have 10-16" clearance, and use 20" tires standard. It will also come with a metal-rubberized tread that you can put on or take off without rolling your vehicle. The truck will have a ladderback suspension for the rear and a sideways butterfly for the passenger area, making the smoothest ride in a pickup you've ever felt or seen, with more load stability than a sedan.

Lightweight frame technology, suspension, transmission, and an efficient engine should keep the truck's real weight below 3000 pounds, and might even go below 2700.

A small SUV requires 165hp to run well. A long heavy truck can require 300hp to haul. I'd like this truck to be able to haul big loads and also have a great 0-60 and 40-70. It must beat the F-150 in speed and hauling.

I'd give it a diesel engine with the 4-cylinder O-gear engine, potentially with the Otto2 stroke setup. This engine can produce excellent torque and high Hp very efficiently. Assuming that 450cc produces ~85Hp and a CVT keeps performance high, I would equip it with a 340hp ~1.8L engine, or an optional ~1.35L 255hp engine. The truck being superlight will provide a marvelous 0-60 which should beat most performance sedans, and the diesel torque should allow it to haul considerable tons.

The SUV will be tall as well and use large wheels to keep suspension loss low and hi-torque diesel performance translation ratios high. I would put the same ~1.8L or ~1.35L engine in the SUV and weigh it in around 3000 pounds. It would be a long SUV with seating for ~10-12, and have the monster mirror, parking assistance, anti-roll technology, advanced braking systems, multizone climate control, a world of passenger and intra/extravehicle airbags, optional memoryfoam seating, taller cabin, and serious metal and rubber bumpers with flyguards and vertical hold bars for multivehicle collision protection.

I don't expect much call for these monsters, even with a mpg well over 30. Most people don't need this much towing or seating, and the smaller vehicles can produce a fine ride with better numbers.

I could put this on the market for $40K. Either. Let's see how little I could sell it for... could they be placed for 10K? ...

Diesel Facts

2007-01-22T01:40:00.000-08:00

Industry standard diesel engines require ~54000 cc/m per Hp, and ~12500 cc/m per lb-ft of torque. 1 Hp = 2540 btu/h. Diesel produces 147kbtu/h.

The $10,000 "1000-series" Car

2007-01-21T00:03:00.000-08:00

Inspired by "A Leaner Industrial Complex" , I am planning to make 1000, $10,000 vehicles.

They will come in two series: combustion and electric. Both kinds should be produced.

The cheap combustion engine should be an X4 running on diesel with compression above 25:1. I am going to try to make it a 2.4-stroke model, because that would allow far greater power from a far smaller [read: cheaper] engine, and probably a greater level of fuel efficiency. Also if it can be revved up to 10,000 rpm in the X-fashion and last 750,000 miles or more that would reduce the car's life-maintenance. Adding a torsion-assist would further reduce engine requirement and boost fuel efficiency. It could also be optionally cranked to provide "E-light power". A vortexed supercharger and vacuum appear to be part of the 2.4-stroke system.

Diesel could be replaced with hydrogen from a water splitter in a similarly equipped engine.

A 1-ton car could be pulled here by an 80hp acceleration-tuned diesel engine with a 15hp torsion assist. At ~10krpm using the 2.4-stroke system and 25:1 or greater compression, I would expect the diesel engine to be perhaps 0.4-0.5L. That is *tiny*. It'd get upwards of 90-100mpg. It'd have a 0-60 of probably 4-seconds. [1-ton, 95-hp, accel-tuned CVT & pistons, 10krpm]

The engine would probably account for $7000 of the vehicle. A CVT costs under $800. A tubelike exhaust and sound muffler, possibly coated with Italcement and LEDs,

If there is a water splitting furnace system available, the body could be made from spent coal bound into carbon fiber. Large and partially internalized bumpers attached to a metal and CF frame, around a CF or mesh rubber body should keep the weight low and the strength high, while minimizing cost around the water splitting furnace. This could be the one-ton car.

A small compressor and tank would allow instant-on heat and cool, too. This could be for the $40K model, but the above engine design could be either the $40K or $10K. I cannot decide. I reduce expense $0 by using a 4-stroke over a 2.4-stroke, or by using a gearbox over a CVT, or by using V# over X# engine type. Crappier is not cheaper here. I am planning to new-tool all of the 1000-model's systems. The costs are writing the software for and buying the machine and the material to machine, and assembling it. That means the fewer and more efficient parts, the cheaper and quicker. Designing a more complex or efficient part costs me $0 more, minus time.

Leather?

A registered and licensed automobile has basic standard inspection requirements. These vehicles can pass any emissions test, and having seat belts and 5mph bumpers should not be a concern. Safety inspection and crash testing are optional. Considering the special bumpers and frame and CF body, videotaping the crash and playing it for prospective buyers or investors should do the trick more than a few green stars.

Major costs for this would be the 3D printer, of which a single unit should cost about $30K, and the electric furnace powered by a water splitter for producing the car bodies, which combined should cost perhaps $30K. From there, costs would be in software programs, materials, and labor. Beyond that is testing, licensing, incorporation, and registration. I am sure Bermuda would not bug you. Using this method and producing 1000 cars annually with a 10% profit per car at a sale level of $40K should produce $4000 profit per car and have materials and repayment taken from the price.

That makes $4 million expected revenue on a regular line of production. That should be enough to employ 80 skilled workers. Can 80 skilled workers produce 1000 cars over [80X2000] 160,000 manhours? Each car should require no more than 160 manhours of work to produce, excluding machine tooling times. How many printers would be required to print all the parts for 1000 cars?

Next: mapping man and machine hours, closer blues of all parts, 1000-model electric vehicle.

Torsion Assist to Vehicles

2006-12-11T09:46:00.000-08:00

Hybrid batteries are both expensive and filthy. A similar system can help you build higher peak Hp and recoup energy while traveling downhill and braking. It will actually increase your car's braking ability as well.

The wind up car. Obviously not the primary form of propulsion, but to replace Liion batteries. An adequate winding mechanism can provide numerous additional Hp of power to a car during peak use and could potentially provide the difference in force between idle and peak RPM when traveling at slow speeds.

Having a crank-charging vehicle would also be an interesting concept. If you could turn a nut on your car using a crank to fuel it up instead of having to put gasoline in it, we would have far stronger and healthier Americans.

The SUM-V Sport Utility MiniVan

2006-11-28T14:34:00.000-08:00

There are several major drawbacks to using an SUV. They are enormously large, heavy, and suffer from very poor fuel efficiency ratings. However, they have a lot of room and can travel on uneven terrains.

To bypass the drawbacks of the SUV, I propose the SUM-V. It would be a minivan designed vehicle with suicide doors instead of sliders and a suitably sized engine.

The SUM-V would have a butterfly suspension like passenger cars instead of the ladderback as on trucks and SUVs. This would improve the vehicle's handling and comfort, allowing lighter shocks, reducing weight, and not requiring such a burden on the engine. The minivan style can also enjoy lower suspension than a standard SUV, giving it yet better handling and turning capabilities and ignoring the infrequently used offroading status.

I would give the vehicle a pair of rollbars and a double-hulled style roof and exterior, but otherwise make the center of gravity very low. It would be equipped with a CVT to provide more torque and power per engine cc.

Depending on technology and options, I could equip the SUM-V with an X-firing hydrogen engine producing around 200BHp to provide 150-180Hp on the road. At an estimated 7.1BHp/cc, this would require an almost 30cc engine.

It could also be equipped with a supercharged X-firing petroleum injection engine providing a similar amount of power. Since the engine would redline at such high levels and reach model compression rates, it could likely be only a 1-2 liter contraption when coupled with the CVT.

I could also fit it with a standard clean diesel V6 at probably a 3 liter level. Or an uncharged petroleum engine at 4 liters and they would all produce about 200BHp within their spin ranges.

The SUM-V should not look like a minivan. Miniven are for mothers and teenagers. The hood should advance like a car's hood, and be wide and flattish. The wheels could be slightly accented or sheer, as could the full trunk. The exhaust should be suitable for the engine to breathe without bottleneck and be treated with the Italian cement coating catalytic converter to reduce pollution [in the case of petroleum/carbon fuel].

[Hmm. Do the carbon stems from post-exhaust fill the atmosphere and in their low-energy state seek to bond with otherwise high-energy particles, reducing the energy level of those otherwise stable bits? This could be the chemical representation of a depression of energy, where it has been turned into motion.]

This vehicle would have all of the advantages of the SUV, but be far superior in efficiency and it's equal in comfort and usability.

GOAL!

Tires And Exhausts

2006-11-18T03:26:00.000-08:00

"I'd like to see non-compressed air tires. Tires are always in danger of going flat, when that is not a good reason to stop driving. We should build tires filled with a biodegradeable elastic substance that will function partially as a shock, and improve shocks for a finer ride. They can be retreaded if necessary around a centerpieced sufficient tire. No one wants a flat tire.

I would also like to see wider exhausts for petrocarbon fuelled vehicles. It seems that a 'custom' exhaust can improve horsepower by a considerable level. These things are just shaped in the factory. Install larger exhausts standard to provide more powerful cars."

[All further articles pertaining to vehicles and transit before pure science will be shifted to this website from Billy Bunkie The Science Junkie.]

A workup of the single-stroke gear engine

2006-11-16T08:11:00.000-08:00

What would a single stroke engine do? The 2-stroke seems very perpindicular in its efficiency. But could I make a meaningful 1-stroke engine from a circular cylinder? It’d have fuel combusted in an empty cylinder and use the force to turn a pair of flywheels or somesuch. That would probably not get very good compression. It’d be more like rocketry than combustion. Well, maybe it could. It might have a good seal which would dissipate more gradually from the cylinder through the flywheel. But the momentum would not appear. It might have poor torque, but it could possibly spin up quite well. Would it turn a wheel? Yes. The gasses must escape and one end is sealed. The other has this flywheel blocking it. Maybe if the cylinder is C-shaped. Well, that would put more wear on the arch, and would probably produce more heat. That might require interesting gears. If one gear could be acted upon by 2-clinders which it would intersect, that might work. It could be a long thick gear acted upon by any number of clinders, which it would intersect.

However, this would reduce the inefficiencies of a crankshaft system and would be ideal for attaching to a multitronic transmission with a belt, or even dircectly to this gear if the cone can be variably engaged or disengaged from the cylinder-gear. This could produce excellent torque and power.

Microcombustion Hydrogen Engines

2006-11-15T17:40:00.000-08:00

Note also that hydrogen fuel is more powerful combustant than gasoline fuel. A gallon of ~91 octane gasoline, atomized into a piston, will produce 125,000 BTU/h, and diesel produces 147,000 BTU/h, and a pound of hydrogen burns 61,000 btu/h. Hydrogen burns at 325 btu/h per cubic foot [30cc^3 = 2700cc = 2.7 liters]. However, there are 10 H2 molecules per cc at sea level kPa. Hydrogen will burn at 4% oxygenation.

1 horsepower is 2540 btu/h.

Inside a 49cc engine [4-stroke] running at 2000rpm, this becomes 49,000 cc of hydrogen/m, x 4% = 1960 cc of hydrogen. x 60 minutes = 46hp, uncompressed 4% hydrogen. This concentration level could potentially be increased dramatically. Also, the rpm level could increase to perhaps 4000rpm. At 4000 rpm the same equation would produce up to 161 hp from a 49cc engine space. Double the concentration of hydrogen to 8% [4% is the lowest] and this will double the figure to 322hp, with losses from less perfect combustion and higher volume. But a 49cc engine is no slouch when run with hydrogen. That will run a serious car quite well.

The trick is the percentage ratio between gasoline combustion strength and hydrogen combustion strength. I might estimate freehand that hydrogen is 5X as powerful as gasoline. They are, however, liquid vs gas, so the method becomes a critical ratio fulcrum.

Unfortunately, two-stroke engines are far more polluting than any automobile. It is important to reject the two-stroke engine.

I would like to see a 4-stroke 4-piston microcombustion engine running a moped. Many mopeds only generate something around 3 bhp. Plane engines have X-designed piston setups to minimize vibration and wear that a non-V16 engine could only dream of. This engine would be tiny. It could have pistons each ~10cc in size, and because of the safer redline, could likely operate up to 5000RPM or higher. Many motorcycle engines redline at 14,000RPM. Using hydrogen gas as fuel, and producing 2500R X40CC /M, we would find ourselves running through 100,000cc of hydrogen a minute and 6,000,000 CC of hydrogen per hour.

Hydrogen burns at 325 btu/h per 2700cc. 60,000CC / 27CC = 2222 X 325 btu. 722,222 btu/h would come from this engine. /2540 btu/h per Hp. That would show up as 284BHp, from a 40CC engine@5000RPM. Application: 40cc is 0.04 liters. How many ounces is this? 3.63- liters = 1 gallon. 1 gallon = 128 ounces. 3.63 liters / 128 ounces = 0.028 liters per ounce. This engine, which would be about one and a half ounces, would produce 284Hp. I could put that on roller skates.

I would attach it to a multitronic transmission and that to the wheel[s]. If I only needed 28.4Hp, I could reduce the engine size to 4CC, smaller than your average immunological injection. Hydrogen will produce 7.1Hp per CC at 5000RPM. It produces 1.42Hp per CC at 1000RPM.

The X-Banger Engine

2006-11-14T20:12:00.000-08:00

Pick Jesus. The myelin sheath on the neuron of life. All intention is within this sheath. Do not affect things outside this sheath, but strengthen the vine within. Have faith in this train, and through your faith do not allow quantum uncertainties to form inside it.

And now, the X-banger.

It’s a 4X piston setup, mounted on a circular frame, all firing at once to form circular vibration. This pushes pistons, which each turn one gear mounted at the frame. They each work on this circular chain or belt style crankshaft. The chain or belt then goes around a multitronic transmission, which is on the wheel.

How to get the gears to mesh on the belt and the belt on the cone though? The gears could have a smoother portion, the belt could have holes in it, but to put pegs on the cone is ridiculous. How would it not slip? It could be grippy with lots of small bumps and the belt would be wide and thin and grippy, with gearspots. No, the differing length of the loop based on the cone would affect hole placement. Plus that is ass to arrange. I’ll put a tensor smooth roller on it to keep it taut on the gears and crt.

This would provide excellent durability and performance up to high RPMs, providing inapprorpiate horsepower per engine. A diesel-style injection method using normal fuel is also expected to increase octane performance and improve combustion.

===

The piston would be fed from the center of the X, which could be vacant, strangely. I don’t know if that would affect performance or longevity. So those wires would be fed from the fuel tank/source, whatever kind that may be, with a pedal wire valve/op on it. That would allow the fuel to flow into the place.

HM. Gravity-fed fuel will become less pressurized as the tank wears on. The fuel should be injected into the thing by powered mechanics. I suppose it should run like a diesel regardless of the fuel type. The pistons will compress air to very high temperature, then the fuel will be forced in and go. How will they compress it, though? Probably go forward to open while disengaged from the wheels, then down without fuel to a low level, then inject fuel, explodes in fire, forces open.

When it opens, it should release this spent fuel through a valve to the cat and tailpipe. I’d like to get a fire from every compress, not every other. I want that. But cleanly. Somehow the chamber would need to be emptied of air after it fires, and also have air put into it at the same time. So while it is open, the air would rush out to the cat and also into the chamber. It would be important to get all the air out to the cat and none of it out the in-valve. This can be done. Maybe with longer chambers or cycle… you know, I bet this thing could just be done. It shouldn’t be a big difficulty. If we’ve got to put vacuum force onto the thing go ahead, put a tiny compressor in there to suck the air out faster, which will suck air in as well.

I suppose that is a supercharger. Well, it’s a post-combustate supercharger. Include filter, it seems. Well, would I want those fumes to go through another machine and leave residue? It could be supercharged from the front and put the end-valve right to the cat. I might also use that Italcement pollutant destroying method with an intramuffler light source. That does sound very dodgy. If we can get LED’s to produce reactive-level rays, the thing could save a lot of money and space and power on cats and perhaps improve cleansing performance.

Okay. Piston begins open. The soup pushes air through it. Hmm… the in-air valve could be at the bottom near the fuel valve, and the exit valve could be near the top and be exposed and opened when the piston is open. So, the piston is open. No fuel is in it and the cat gets nothing. The soup pushes air through it and the piston begins to drop. The soup will operate pushing until it is no longer economical to push air into the piston, and then it will close. The piston will continue falling and compress the supercharged air. Then the fuel will be injected into the chamber by the [powered?] atomizer, and explode quite violently and completely, forcing the piston upwards, turning the gear, turning the crank, turning the crt, turning the wheel.

The soup will then push the air out to the cat and refresh the piston with new air until it is again uneconomical for the pump to work. This should be measured at normal atmospheric pressure and reflected by how far down the cylinder’s intake valve is in the cycle of the piston. I know diesel engines can get 25:1 compression, and that petrol engines get 12-15:1. I expect this method, especially considering the deep-end stroke and dynamic air injection that the vehicle could produce an even higher compression ratio. This would allow more fuel to be put into the piston per stroke, and could probably produce a 2-stroke cycle instead of a 4-stroke, doubling performance without knowingly reducing exhaust quality. The ability to place more fuel into the cylinder would also increase performance per stroke, and the x-setup would allow a higher RPM. This produces a trifecta of power over a normal petrol engine. I would use it for my HHO engines.

The original momentum will need to come from somewhere. Normally cars just have spark plugs, but this supercharged fuel injection engine will have none, and instead have powered atomizers. The pistons may need to be forced down by the gear, via the chain crankshaft, via the crt, which could mean an e-aux-powered transmission. Eaux? Waters? Maybe some kind of hydraulic starting device. A supercap, maybe, to bust it through for the first firing. Or it could rely on some kind of water pressure buildup, or it could be from the water splitter’s fuel cell component, which would have a housed source of water separate from water fuel. This would be reserved for a low-power electric operation, while the majority of the power would come from HHO, or the normal fuel. Outside of water splitting, this would be a small brushless electric motor attached to the crt, useful for the torque of starting the engine, and for other assists. This would also be an alternator for the car, and could potentially charge a supercap for its own power later.

[PS 16 Nov 2006: Examine the Panhard/Boxer Flat Twin engine. The X-banger would be similar to a flat 4, with 90*'d x-axis cylinders. This is allegedly used in planes to make them last longer.]

Duesenburg 2007

2006-10-28T16:25:00.000-07:00

"Currently, there is another attempt to revive the Duesenberg name with the "Duesenberg Torpedo Coupe" slated for introduction in January 2007 at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance. This vehicle will have a Mercedes CL 500 as a chassis-donor, and offer an air-cooled, self-lubricating, supercharged, 12 cylinder rotating engine with a calculated 70 MPG and 300 horsepower (see link below). "

Seriously. 70mpg for 300hp.

Call, response on Topic of Audi R-Zero

2006-10-28T15:46:00.000-07:00

Blaze on. I hope it is legal where you are.

I would believe new batteries can acquire 180kwh. I agree the car is excessive, but so is an F1 racer. I appreciate that it exists [if it does] for research and medialyte purposes or/and public popularization and attention getting.

I am not interested in electric cars. I perused and engineered some battery cars, and found them somewhat unacceptable. By simply modifying the 1996 EV-1 car, which used lead/acid batteries getting 25kwh, to the new 150kwh liions, you could give it outstanding stats and/or a very long range, or reduce its weight. Weight is a major factor in e- cars. However, it still uses electricity generated from a filthy power plant, and battery technology is rather expensive. I would recommend all cars having their battery augmented by even a modest supercapacitor. I saw how to make a supercap 9v battery, I will test making a supercapacitor 12v battery for auto. Cold start and all that.

Hydrogen gas uncompressed in a 27cc engine produced 76.77hp in-piston at 1000rpm. This is freakish power. I could hold an engine of that size in my hands. To get an engine with midsize car level power, it would only need to be about 2 or 3 times that large, or spin faster depending on the strength of the metal, and a supercar would be cake.

We can get this hydrogen from the technology of water splitting, which i have researched and analyzed extensively. It has many industrio-fiscal side effects, though.

When you discuss hydrogen vs gas here, you are still analyzing force compared to charge. Gas and hydrogen both produce expansion, while battery produces charge. Turning this into torque is the single element that is important in the comparison you raise. Batteries have good torque and a meaningful vehicle can have enough e- motors to produce excellent force. I have noticed the multi-wheel e- vehicles, probably because of the limits on size of an electric motor. This is acceptable. More wheels are more stable and provide better grip [accel] and have few downsizes, except being ugly, but that can be fixed.

Electric transmissions I have read of can be 95.3% efficient, functioning as the wheel of the car. I have also read of multitronic transmissions eliminating the majority of the difficulty of chemical force translation, coming to perhaps 90-95% efficiency. A multitronic has fewer mving parts and is lighter and more efficient than a conventional crankshaft. Making this switch alone, which has no true downside, could save America $billions in fuel of any sort, and equal amounts in auto expense. I believe our consumption is being tailored to meet the needs of a cornering effort, though, accounting for current procedures and levels of marketing approval of alternative energy, organic foods, electric cars, etc. Well, you can read it at my sites. That is a theory I am ironing out in the medium-term.

I know of no way to recharge a chemical battery quickly. You could include compressed air in the vehicle's design to allow it to recharge continually while in operation. With an included compressor, this would allow electrical power to come from battery or turbine, and one could recharge the other, or the secondary could recharge the main if it grows dim. It could have a modest solar array to trickle charge all the time. These elements could all aid in charge level and performance.

Until we develop supercapacitors that can hold meaningful kwh, likely requiring introduction of warm-temperature superconductors and advanced atomic engineering [~spurred on by development of nanorobotics and 3D-printing, which will ~have to wait until after 2012, and new atomic and electromagnetic science popularized via water splitting] battery vehicles will be more limited.

If I were to tell you one thing, it would be Jesus Christ is the son of God. The second thing would be water splitting/fracturing.

X this by transportation reform, energy and power generation restructuring and decentralization.

Mans wrote:

> Hydrogen is less efficient well to wheels than pure battery electric. Well to wheels, hydrogen fuel cell car is about as efficient as internal combustion engine car, ~12%. Battery electric car is ~30% eff well to wheels. Forgive me in case I happen to be incoherent as I am drunk/stoned as I type this, but as an engineer, I have examined the possibilities for renewable energy. Excellent video, but hydrogen does not meet the hype. R-Zero is a silly, stupid vehicle. Its battery pack would be enough to give five midsize electric cars with no special attention to aerodynamic or rolling drag eff 200 miles range per charge. Anything over 2,500 pounds is extraneous weight for motorsport or canyon driving according to the folks at mulhollandraceway.org. The Audi R-zero has as much in common with a 'sports car' as a battle tank has in common with a farm tractor. Judging by the computer rendered images, Audi never built the R-Zero, even if the technology may be there to build it. Judging by the car's top speed of 286 mph, it has a Cd*A of ~5.5 ft^2, which given that Li Ion batteries are 150 Wh/kg, would have a battery pack ~180 kWh capacity. This would be 540 miles range or so at 65 mph for the R-Zero. But I don't think Audi ever built a working example of the car, even if technology may be there. If you have questions, please PM me. You would be wise to research the Eliica from Keio University in Japan. I'm going to go smoke another bowl. :-)

Electric Bus Goes 155 mph

2006-10-12T21:28:00.000-07:00

BRING ME THE BUS.

I am pleased that this electric vehicle technology has been unleashed! However, the hydrogen car will still beat this machine's top speed. But a 155mph electric bus is very good. This vehicle apparently will be at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. I demand to see the schematics of this bus before the end of 2006. If a bus can do this any vehicle can.

This is the location of this image.

I think the bus' style is strange, but I'd get in. Especially if it slid up at 155mph and came when i texted it. However, the text should be sendable from the stop. 'Push button for bus'. Etc.

Show me the water splitter/fuel cell bus that powers itself and the city and I will join you and the aliens in utopia.

Bike and 1/2

2006-10-05T17:29:00.000-07:00

While driving today I saw a musician and girlfriend riding on a bike and half. It was really fantastic because I had considered the topic previously by about a year and a half and would very much like to design one that runs on hydrogen and a little fuel cell. I recently finished designing the hydrogen powered motorcar, particularly getting 525Hp from a tiny 2-liter uncompressed engine running at 1000RPM. I think I could do very well with a 250ML engine [about the size of a soft drink] two-banger or similar style fuel cell engine, and race all over the place. The hydrogen vehicle probably wouldn't even need the pedals, but I would still incorporate them.

Honda has an interesting 4-stroke cylinder 49cc[ml] engine. I wonder how fast it will get to, and how many mpg it gets. It still burns gasoline so it is bad for the environment and economy.

Hydrogen burns at 325btu/cu'. 1 hp = 2540btu/h. Hydrogen is uncompressed at 10 molecules per cc. 30cm X 30cm X 30cm = 1 square foot. That is 2700cc and 270,000 atoms of hydrogen burning [in one hour] to make 1hp.

If we have a 250ml engine and it is filled with hydrogen running at X [1000] rpm, at 1:1 compression, how many Hp will it produce? 270,000 atoms of hydrogen in one hour is 1hp.

1 RPM is one engineload of hydrogen in one minute. There are 60 minutes in an hour.

If we burn 1 cubic foot of hydrogen [2700cc] 2.7 liters of engine worth of hydrogen per full engine rotation, that will produce 325btu of power uncompressed per cycle. If the engine spins at 1000rpm, it will burn 325,000btu of hydrogen in one minute, and 19,500,000btu/h. 19,500,000btu/h divided by 2540btu/h = 7677.165 hp. This is substantial Hp, and a 2.7 liter engine should not be allowed to run or it would destroy itself.

I need perhaps 100hp. Not 7677Hp. What could I do to reduce the power of this engine? I suppose reducing it to a 270CC engine would be suitable, and would produce 'only' 767.7Hp @ 1000RPM. I could even do a 27CC engine that made 76.77Hp. That is enough for one man on a horse.

According to net speculation, the Kawasaki ZX6 has around 98BHp, X transmission inefficiency. It's a 500 pound bike. The hydrogen one should be substantially lighter, but that is for another engineering project.

I am not sure if regular metal will be able to absorb and use this kind of power intensity repeatedly. It can probably be done, but it will need to be solid product or it'll just warp the iron right off. Maybe a kind of carbon fiber with metal support through it, and a governor of sorts. We could also dilute the hydrogen by increasing the piston size but not the flow. That would reduce psi.

Hmm. 76.77hp might not be enough for a quick bike. We will need to devote 1/3 of the power generated to special electrolysis. Furthermore, the multitronic transmission is estimated 90% efficient for the remaining force. It will require about 25.6Hp of force to produce the energy needed for electrolysis.

...since electrolysis is required for this operation, it would be wiser to run the hydrogen through a fuel cell than convert it back through a large alternator. That project will be acquired once the combustion method and fuel cell stats have been completed.

I recommend a 54CC engine running at 1000RPM producing ~153.54 Hp from uncompressed hydrogen gas. ~50hp of it used for electrolysis, leaving ~100Hp for the drivetrain. A multitronic transmission estimated 90% efficient putting 90Hp on the road.

Since the engine is so tiny and the amount of fuel is at the level of drops not liters, I estimate this bike will weigh not more than 300 pounds. I don't care about the mpg for this feature. It is probably numerous times more efficient than the 525hp engine [which must be corrected far upwards for HP-BTU translation.]

Now, the fuel cell. I am not totally sure how to go about doing this. I could probably figure how many jourles of energy a fuel cell produced per reaction. I water splitter attached to a fuel cell would be a FANTASTIC journey. I could attach the fuel cell to a series of brushless dynamos and take any vehicle spinning for about a billion hours. I mean, quintillion.

1 Hp of power equals 0.746 KW of power. 1 watt = 1 joule per second.

2008 Iceman/Tesla Motorcycle

2006-09-18T12:02:00.000-07:00

The concept of a small simple excellent motorcycle was inspired by a dream. It would be chrome and pipelike and run on numerous possible power sources, as custom.

The most common form currently around is gasoline. The bike could run on a V-2 of very large cylinders accumulating perhaps 250cc. A larger cylinder is more efficient, as force is lost around the edges of the circle. A V-2 would be easy to fit in the bike even at that size and provide a large amount of power. The carburater would be the patent of the Pogue carburater from 1936 getting some 171 mpg. Gasoline fuel could be injected into a preheated pressurized cylinder to achieve optimal compression instead of using two spark plugs.

Such a system would be attached to a infinitely variable transmission, which is more efficient and simpler [& lighter] than a gearbox. I would expect large radius tires about 3-4" wide and flat. Sound dampers, turbo-style vortex tube air cooling and liquid cooling, appropriately placed heat syncs. Electric start from supercapacitor. Twin headlights.

I would fill the covered shock forks with Rochelle salt to produce additional electricity. I would expect this bike to weigh in at under 350 pounds and get above 110 mph, and receive over 70mpg.

It could also be powered by Teslalectrics. Tesla's 1930 Pierce Arrow received 240 volts of electricity in the same way you receive radio. When radio and electricity were being discovered by Tesla and Edison and funded by JP Morgan and others, these other methods were also discovered. Unable to find out how to make universal human service profitable, Morgan stopped with project. The secret is to work with all people collectively.

The Tesla Motorcycle would be worthy of the name if it received power in this way. That would require a receiver to pick up power at approximately 8Hz through the Schuman field broadcast from a regional tower. The range on these things is apparently a radius of over 25 miles, as shown by Tesla's early experiments. The functional range is probably as far as radio goes. Since the earth's Schuman resonance is at around 8Hz from the ground to the ionosphere, carrying electricity at this Hz produces almost no interference or cost of transport. We could also move the energy through the ground, which would *not* discharge it, as shown by the lamps on the ground experiment, where energy was carried a long distance through the ground to power lamps that were plugged into the earth's soil.

So we could just fit one of those boxes in the Tesla Motorcycle, which Tesla said fit into the glove compartment of his 1930 Pierce Arrow and easily took the full sized car to 90mph.

I speculate that the motorcycle, being considerably lighter and at a lower profile, could be fitted with this and an electric motor for each wheel and achieve 150mph. Depending on how much energy was resonated from the field and the strength of the dynamos, the vehicle could break speed records. We'd probably keep production models down to 130mph.

On the Tesla Cycle we could also install the supercapacitor and some Liion battery packs for when it left a zone with electricity, and it would also continually charge when in the vicinity, and from the Rochelle salt forks.

Those are the most interesting power sources. We could also achieve a biodiesel motorcycle, with certain heat sync techniques and sound dampers to block the noise. Biodiesel is catching on, and a motorcycle to do it would have insane acceleration from torque. Giving it the IVT would also reduce necessary engine size. If it had a 0-60 of maybe 4 seconds and a top speed of only 90 or 100 we could forgive it.

We could use the sound box power source, which is a bit of trapped sound resonating endlessly in a box. That was one day supposed to power refrigerators and was invented in the late 1990's or early 2000's. I believe it is now in the hands of the military.

We could use any of the numerous patents for water splitting or water burning. It was said that a 1994 Ford Escort can get 25 miles per ounce on water alone. 128 ounces in a gallon makes that vehicle run at around 3200 mpg on water. Stanley Meyer would love to see that. His buggy, also cheched out by the military, ran on love. And water. Someone is making humvees that run on gas or water currently for the military, according to the news.

I'd like to see a vehicle running on the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator [MEG], which was granted a US patent in 2002 and produces 100x as much energy as it is fed. That could easily work in a vehicle even in space.

These possibilities are fantastic. We should switch over to them immediately. They can be made profitable by funding from the US and world governments. How do you charge for satellite television? Is the money really more valuable than free electricity? What is the ratio there? Find out at www.receiptforlabor.blogspot.com.

We can also produce hydrogen through bacterial photosynthesis. If we could chimerize bacteria or produce a suitable ecosystem of them working together, we could probably turn most waste into energy or a usable safe chemical, and abandon nuclear and coal power plants.

The US Department of Transportation and NASA should merge boots. Read about new space travel possibilities for this power at the MidAirport.

Hydrogen Cars Within Grasp, Roll Today

2006-07-16T22:59:00.000-07:00

Examine the video found at US Department of Energy ii to see a vehicle that can run exclusively on water. Hydrogen Technologies modified a 1994 Ford Escort to run about 100 miles on 4 ounces of water. Ford and GM must begin building new cars and conversion kits for vehicles to do these things. This should be regulated by the state. By 2008, 15% of all cars must run at least partially on hydrogen, ideally from water.

Vehicle conversion companies should form and provide low cost fuel conversions for vehicles, especially in California, the West Coast, and the Northeast, and certain other markets.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

2006-07-13T00:15:00.000-07:00

This is a fine question. The better question, though, is who killed Stanley Meyer's water splitter? Yes, there is $100 trillion to be made on oil in the earth's crust... or more... but that same amount of money is going up against >100% efficiency mechanics.

Examine www.byronwine.com.

It apparently is about getting people to do $100 trillion of work. I think they'd do it anyway, but I do not look forward to the consequences of the peak of oil or the technological stagnation afterwards, nor environmental effects, nor ongoing health consequnces. I also think that $100T of work could be done in 3-5 years by an economy escalating through hydrogenization with abovementioned technologies, and in a matter of months by a well equipped hydrogenized world [2006$].

Big Dig Boston

2006-07-12T00:12:00.000-07:00

I am fairly disappointed with the Big Dig project. Cement is strongest when within 1/4" of a supporting structure. Instead of putting rebar every foot or so, placing a 1/2" wire mesh would be a good way to improve construction concrete strength. It could even be a 3D 1/2" cube
mesh. This material has a strength of 550kg/cm. A one foot section of www.ferrocement.com will hold up over 35 tons.

I am surprised that the Big Dig cost $14 billion. I would have used that 14 billion to fund a fleet of hydrogen-powered mass transit lines to drive around Boston and the surrounding metropolitan region to reduce traffic. There are options other than major highways to solve the
traffic problems. A telecommuting initiative or an internet delivery foundation with regulating features would have reduced traffic. A crowded highway is a liability. A properly functioning communication transit and delivery system that makes minimal use of roadways is more
valuable than high capacity highways for reasons like this and others.

www.receiptforlabor.blogspot.com

William Bunker

Accounting for Urban Decentralization

2006-06-21T22:39:00.000-07:00

Urban areas are expected to continue growing in population, but or that population to disperse themselves radically into the surrounding countryside. Fast cheap and clean transportation, telebusiness, and energy decentralization will allow this to become the best way for cities to develop.

Transportation and urban environments are closely tied. Building greenspace in urban zones will decrease the pollution caused by conventional driving and make cities more pleasant to look at. More lightly constructed urban environments will proivide more pleasant neighborhoods and less crowded spaces with more opportunity for healthy lifestyles and economic activity. Ideally transportation will increase in speed and efficiency to make getting around these broader, less dense cities also less time consuming, bringing people closer together faster without the need to pile them on top of one another and edge out the environment.

Decentralized warehouse space will replace conventional direct outlet trucking. Maglev trains will also reduce the average trucking distance. Internet commerce will reduce the number of commutes a citizen must make in a day and provide more secure and convenient commerce, without the business expense of a store. This method can also be used to reduce commercial real estate and replace some commercial zones with residential spaces or greenspace.

Transportation will take a different role in life in the coming years. It will no longer be necessary to have a vehicle to get to many jobs or to do business with most enterprises. Society will enable more transportation efficiency through changes in commerce and shipping and increase in social and business transportation support.

Fuel oils will become less important as energy decentralizes and vehicles shift away from reliance on oil. Production of goods and business and economic growth will become less reliant per unit of work on fuel and electricity, to the benefit of business and society. International fuel arrangements will shift and decrease as technology changes to allow regional areas to become more able to produce their own energy and fuel sources. This will aid in the construction of go-anywhere public transit and business transit, and non/low-transportation business and shipping systems.

We at the Transit Authority will never be out of a job, as people will always travel and rely on assistance to do it, but our jobs may become much easier, and yours too! Amen.

New Transit Recommendations

2006-06-09T13:51:00.000-07:00

The ways we currently travel are inefficient. This is concerning because of shortage of resources and very high cost of living, and in the interest of connecting the world by ease of traveling and transporting aid in a timely manner.

Local commutes should be performed in non-petroleum vehicles. The renewable fuel and pollution rate of mpg for petroleum-fuelled vehicles is in the hundreds of mpg. Large fleets of vehicles receiving mpg's in the teens or twenties will not be sustainable economically nor environmentally and should not be used. To perform commutes people should use biodiesel, ethanol, or electric and assisted vehicles. Or electric busses, or use electric or electromagnetic trains. For longer trips people should avoid personal vehicles and instead rely on high speed trains or hydrogen scramjet flights.

These methods are the most cost effective, rapid, and environmentally sustainable forms of transportation, and due to decreasing resources, increasing populations, and measurably worsening environment, we must put greater and greater emphasis on these methods, in advance of economic indicators and apparent necessity.

In the meantime, all automotive and transit companies should work hard to increase mpg and switch their toolsets and companies to produce these new forms of vehicles.

It is recommended that all large engined vehicles including V6's, ethanol, and biodiesel engines, adopt settings to inactivate pairs of pistons based on vehicle need to conserve fuel. The industry standard vehicle weight should also decrease by about 300kg annually until passenger cars reach a weight of around one ton and other non-commercial vehicles weigh in under 1500kg.

US Transit Authority Mission

2006-06-05T12:33:00.000-07:00

Numerous methods to travel from one place to another exist. You could walk, bicycle, skateboard, drive, fly, dig, dance, plant, or create your own method of moving. Because many people choose to bicycle, drive, ride, or fly between places, we have organized and provided efficient methods of doing so. Newer and better methods of transportation and new energy sources will improve the efficiency, speed, safety, and comfort of travel.

Vision: The Space Elevator and scramjet technology will revolutionize air travel in the next 20 years, providing ultraquick cheap and safe air travel from one point to another. Maglev trains will make local and regional travel quick and cheap as well, replacing a considerable portion of distance-driving activities such as freighters and resource-heavy cross-country driving. Fuel cell busses and other power-friendly local mass transit will greatly expand the incidence and use of mass transit, reducing highway traffic and expense of transportation and increasing the range of urban environments. Better vehicles of all kinds will pollute less or not at all and provide cheaper safer commutes and personal travel.

Our goal is to revolutionize travel over the next 20 years, and especially over the next 5 years, to save the planet and society.