What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank
full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled
around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing
for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out
my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from
the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool
motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane.

The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of
parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect
vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.

Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. As for your
complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You
don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller
vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where
we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding
viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than
most.


Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote:
What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank
full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled
around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing
for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out
my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from
the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool
motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane.

The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of
parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect
vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.

Tom Gardner wrote:


The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt!
what about a diesel Toyota Corolla: 50mpg in Europe.
The engine 1.380 liter last generation diesel.


cheers
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Philippe Vessaire wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:


The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt!
what about a diesel Toyota Corolla: 50mpg in Europe.
The engine 1.380 liter last generation diesel.

Can't get the good small diesels in the US. Only VW.
I'd love to be able to buy a Ranger with an efficient turbodiesel.
The Liberty CRD is a good move and selling well, but they don't get the
fuel economy that diesels are noted for. Lots of power though. Wish
they'd put it in the CJ.

"Justin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. As for your
complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You
don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller
vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where
we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding
viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than
most.


Well, I can't put a 1,700 lb. pallet in the Honda like I can in the Ford 4
times a week. Don't buy into the oil shortage thing, there's 250 years
worth in Canada oil sand and another 300 years off the US coasts that we
can't drill. I agree in abandoning oil as a primary energy source, but I
don't buy the bull.

With WI you can lean out the mixture without detonation and you CAN get
better mileage!

Justin replied (vaguely):
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation.

AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High
performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power
boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the
engine. Piston type aircraft engines are rated in brake effective
horsepower, METO (max. except during takeoff). Some of them use water
injection at peak power demand times to obtain max HP. Water injection acts
as a cooling agent, preventing excessive manifold temperatures and seems to
boost power by reducing pre-ignition. It not only *seems* to boost power it
also *seems* to prevent engine melt down. Sodium-filled valves also allow
more effective heat transfer in aircraft and other engines.

Bob Swinney


"Justin" wrote in message
oups.com...
As for your
complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You
don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller
vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where
we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding
viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than
most.


Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote:
What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I
remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and
tank
full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled
around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but
nothing
for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak
out
my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from
the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool
motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane.

The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of
parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect
vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any
way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore
of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich
tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.

Robert Swinney wrote:

Justin replied (vaguely):
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation.

AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High
performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power
boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the
engine.

The result of this is a cooler denser mixture. More air and fuel more
power.
Stan

Piston type aircraft engines are rated in brake effective
horsepower, METO (max. except during takeoff). Some of them use water
injection at peak power demand times to obtain max HP. Water injection acts
as a cooling agent, preventing excessive manifold temperatures and seems to
boost power by reducing pre-ignition. It not only *seems* to boost power it
also *seems* to prevent engine melt down. Sodium-filled valves also allow
more effective heat transfer in aircraft and other engines.

Bob Swinney

"Justin" wrote in message
oups.com...
As for your
complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You
don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller
vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where
we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding
viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than
most.


Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote:
What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I
remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and
tank
full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled
around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but
nothing
for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak
out
my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from
the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool
motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane.

The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of
parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect
vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any
way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore
of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich
tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.

Stan Weiss wrote:
Robert Swinney wrote:

Justin replied (vaguely):
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation.

AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High
performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power
boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the
engine.

The result of this is a cooler denser mixture. More air and fuel more
power.
Stan

Right. That's exactly what I meant. It allows you to burn more fuel,
it doesn't do anything to make the fuel you do burn output more power.
In fact if anything it probably decreases the overall efficiency,
because a higher operating temperature, in general means higher
efficiency.

Tom: as far as hauling a pallet, that's not the reason you originally
cited, what gives? And regardless of whether oil is going to run out
or not, we still need to get off petroleum because of emissions.

Well, if anyone wants to try it, I have a Holley Water Injection kit,
universal application, from the 1970s. As I recall, it uses a WW pump
and vacuum sensor/switch. We sold a boatload of these in the 1970s.

- -
Rex Burkheimer
Fort Worth TX

Justin wrote:
Stan Weiss wrote:
Robert Swinney wrote:
Justin replied (vaguely):
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation.

AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High
performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power
boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the
engine.
The result of this is a cooler denser mixture. More air and fuel more
power.
Stan

Right. That's exactly what I meant. It allows you to burn more fuel,
it doesn't do anything to make the fuel you do burn output more power.
In fact if anything it probably decreases the overall efficiency,
because a higher operating temperature, in general means higher
efficiency.

Tom: as far as hauling a pallet, that's not the reason you originally
cited, what gives? And regardless of whether oil is going to run out
or not, we still need to get off petroleum because of emissions.

In article ,
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

[...]

I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.


After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin!

I was just discussing this with a friend last weekend.
He was familiar with what your asking about.

What I had was much simpler. A vacumm line ran to the
top of a container. Another line was open at the top
of the container, went down in the water, and terminated
in piece of plastic that diffused the air to make smaller
bubbles come out. The bubbles made that air on the top
of the container moist. Then it was pulled into the engine
via the vacuum line. I had this on a '70 Impala with a 400 cu
engine. I definitely got better gas mileage with it. No
engine mods were made. I got it at Warsharky's. It is
something that could easily be made.

Wayne D.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:17:37 GMT, Tom Gardner
wrote:

What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I
remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and
tank
full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled
around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but
nothing
for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak
out
my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from
the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool
motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane.

The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of
parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect
vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any
way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore
of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich
tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.

Tom Gardner wrote:

After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin!

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is
hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the
ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in
the ground.

A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of
the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order.
Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly
debunked.

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually
all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres
of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the
hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land
to grow fuel crops, etc.

Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher
construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and
this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist
attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an
underground target.

Pete C.

Wayne wrote:
I was just discussing this with a friend last weekend.
He was familiar with what your asking about.

What I had was much simpler. A vacumm line ran to the
top of a container. Another line was open at the top
of the container, went down in the water, and terminated
in piece of plastic that diffused the air to make smaller
bubbles come out. The bubbles made that air on the top
of the container moist. Then it was pulled into the engine
via the vacuum line. I had this on a '70 Impala with a 400 cu
engine. I definitely got better gas mileage with it. No
engine mods were made. I got it at Warsharky's. It is
something that could easily be made.

Wayne
You basically added a vacuum leak, leaning out the mixture. Try
that on a new car and the computer will correct for it by richening the
mixture.




Wayne D.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:17:37 GMT, Tom Gardner
wrote:

What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I
remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and
tank
full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled
around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but
nothing
for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would
freak out
my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from
the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool
motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane.

The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98
fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of
parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect
vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway.
Any way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and
off-shore of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich
tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Tom Gardner wrote:

After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines
all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin!

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is
hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the
ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in
the ground.

A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of
the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order.
Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly
debunked.

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually
all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres
of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the
hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land
to grow fuel crops, etc.

Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher
construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and
this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist
attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an
underground target.

Pete C.


Although I agree with you, I like a good argument.

You forgot the destruction of natural habitat by the waste water that warms
the surrounding lake or river that is used to cool the plant. Many species
cannot thrive in water above their ideal temperature.

Also, don't assume that terrorist only know how to bomb things. There are
plenty of ways to attack things like water supplies and electric plants
without a bomb.

Dave Lyon wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Tom Gardner wrote:

After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines
all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin!

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is
hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the
ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in
the ground.

A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of
the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order.
Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly
debunked.

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually
all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres
of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the
hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land
to grow fuel crops, etc.

Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher
construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and
this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist
attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an
underground target.

Pete C.

Although I agree with you, I like a good argument.

You forgot the destruction of natural habitat by the waste water that warms
the surrounding lake or river that is used to cool the plant. Many species
cannot thrive in water above their ideal temperature.

The newer plant designs produce less waste heat (higher efficiency) and
the waste heat can be provided to nearby industrial plants for use in
industrial processes (canning dolphin safe tuna perhaps).


Also, don't assume that terrorist only know how to bomb things. There are
plenty of ways to attack things like water supplies and electric plants
without a bomb.

Correct, however there are thousands (or more) far more attractive soft
targets in the US. The tremendous effort to attack a well protected
underground nuke plant is simply not worth it.

Pete C.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:55:19 GMT, Pete C. wrote:

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

Yup.

The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is
hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the
ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in
the ground.

And into a controlled, planned, long-term secure and stable environment.

A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of
the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order.
Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly
debunked.

The perfect proof of that is to look at how the pro-nuke people talk
about it, vs. how the anti-nuke folks do. The pro-nuke use actual
facts, science, explainations of how no, pebble-bed reactors have
nothing at all to do with the technology that was caused to fail at
Chernobyl, and so on. The anti-nuke people go for the emotionalism and
rhetoric - they want you to "feel" about it, rather than to "think"
about it.

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually
all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres
of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the
hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land
to grow fuel crops, etc.

Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great
solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead
we're polluting the air and consuming more oil.

Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher
construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and
this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist
attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an
underground target.

Somehow I don't think a reactor vessel would be particularly impressed
by an airplane crashing into it. This isn't a soft target, after all.
The terrorists know this; they're evil, they're not _stupid_. So even
that risk is, I think, overstated.

I find it ironic as hell (as in, really annoying also) that the people
who are anti-nuke, cause us to continue giving money for oil, to
countries where people don't like us, so that we can finance their next
attack on us. If we'd go nuke, we can tell certain parts of the world
that we're not giving them any more money. They can drink their oil and
eat their sand, good luck with that.

We have the technology TODAY to be free of this whole mess. This isn't
some pipe dream, it's ready to go TODAY. Build it. In my back yard.

Dave Hinz

Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great
solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead
we're polluting the air and consuming more oil.


It IS available today. The problem is it's a little more expensive than
traditional methods. Or, if you need extreme range (250 miles) it's a lot
more expensive than a gasoline car.

A small electric car has around a 100 mile range at around 60 miles per
hour. That is enough to handle a large percentage of all commutes.
Expect to see one like that cost around $20,000. That's a bit pricey for an
economy car, but most people could afford it if they wanted to.


There are electric cars available that can go for 250 miles between charges,
but be ready to spend some money for those. Around $250,000.

These cars can't be bought at your local car lot yet, but they can be
bought. If more people were willing to spend the extra money, it wouldn't be
long before you could buy one locally.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:36:58 GMT, Dave Lyon wrote:

Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great
solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead
we're polluting the air and consuming more oil.

It IS available today.
(snip)
A small electric car has around a 100 mile range at around 60 miles per
hour. That is enough to handle a large percentage of all commutes.
Expect to see one like that cost around $20,000.

Got a link for me? If I can buy it, I'm interested. Of course, that's
only half the equation, what with not having any new nuke plants. Hell,
even France is using nuke more than we are. France?!?!?!?

That's a bit pricey for an
economy car, but most people could afford it if they wanted to.

Well, I'm spending 200 bucks a month on gasoline right now.

These cars can't be bought at your local car lot yet, but they can be
bought. If more people were willing to spend the extra money, it wouldn't be
long before you could buy one locally.

Got any power figures for these cars, or a link where I can read more?
Also, are they road-safe?

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:55:19 GMT, Pete C. wrote:

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

Yup.

The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is
hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the
ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in
the ground.

And into a controlled, planned, long-term secure and stable environment.

A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of
the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order.
Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly
debunked.

The perfect proof of that is to look at how the pro-nuke people talk
about it, vs. how the anti-nuke folks do. The pro-nuke use actual
facts, science, explainations of how no, pebble-bed reactors have
nothing at all to do with the technology that was caused to fail at
Chernobyl, and so on. The anti-nuke people go for the emotionalism and
rhetoric - they want you to "feel" about it, rather than to "think"
about it.

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually
all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres
of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the
hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land
to grow fuel crops, etc.

Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great
solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead
we're polluting the air and consuming more oil.

Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher
construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and
this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist
attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an
underground target.

Somehow I don't think a reactor vessel would be particularly impressed
by an airplane crashing into it. This isn't a soft target, after all.
The terrorists know this; they're evil, they're not _stupid_. So even
that risk is, I think, overstated.

I find it ironic as hell (as in, really annoying also) that the people
who are anti-nuke, cause us to continue giving money for oil, to
countries where people don't like us, so that we can finance their next
attack on us. If we'd go nuke, we can tell certain parts of the world
that we're not giving them any more money. They can drink their oil and
eat their sand, good luck with that.




We have the technology TODAY to be free of this whole mess. This isn't
some pipe dream, it's ready to go TODAY. Build it. In my back yard.

I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke
plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop)
for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing.

Pete C.


Dave Hinz

Got any power figures for these cars, or a link where I can read more?
Also, are they road-safe?


Here's the site that offers the 250 mile range car. Granted, they don't plan
on making very many of them, but they do have plans to adapt their
technology in a more affordable model.
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm One of the cool
things about this car is the ability to use it to power your house if you
loose electricity. They will also sell you the electrical stuff to put in
your own conversion.


This site will teach you how to do your own conversion, and sell you the
parts. From a small car you can expect about 100 mile range. The electricals
will cost around $12,000 by the time you get batteries and such.



This site claims you can convert one for around $8,000
http://www.evadc.org/build_an_ev.html

Here's the site for new car conversions. Unfortunately, I didn't remember my
facts correctly. $20,000 did not include the original chassis.
http://www.cloudelectric.com/category.html?UCIDs=881991


I'm really tempted to find an old MG, or similar car and do a conversion for
my soon to be 16 year old daughter. It might be a fun project for us.

Pete C. wrote:

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

Funny to read _that_ around the 20'th anniversary of Tschernobyl.
Here in Germany there are still mushrooms (and other goods) that you'd
better stay off eating because of radiation.

BTW:
Only metal content I can see is "Uranium".


Nick
--
Motor Modelle // Engine Models
http://www.motor-manufaktur.de
DIY-DRO // Eigenbau-Digitalanzeige
http://www.yadro.de

Water injection on a newer non-turbo vehicle really has no benefit. It
does have have plenty of potential problems, and will likely reduce
your mileage. Your E350 if probably has port fuel injection. It uses
an O2 sensor in the exhaust stream for closed loop control of the AFR
to a stoichometric Air/Fuel ratio during cruise, which for gasoline is
around 14.7:1. This is optimal for operation of the 3 way catalytic
convertor, while maintaining best possible economy. Make sure you O2
sensor(s) is fairly fresh, ie less than 50K miles on it for best
operation, and avoid cold starts and short trips for better mpg. New
engines have vastly better cylinder to cylinder AFR distribution than
25 years ago. Adding water vapor has several possible issues; 1.)
Added upstream of the mass air sensor it may damage the sensor,
downstream It adds an unmetered volume to the intake, ie the computer
has no way to account for the volume. 2.) If it condenses it may cause
corrosion damage to the fuel injectors, valves, rings etc., (think
moist shutdown with steel & aluminum parts in a confined space). 3.)
Metering water vapor accuratly is much more difficult than it seems at
first glance, and if not metered correctly, or if it accidentaly drips
into the intake it can hydrolock the engine bending rods, breaking
pistons. 4.) It needs to be mixed with methanol for freeze protection &
atomization. 5.) More water will wind up in your crankcase oil, and
the PCV system will likely get hosed up at a higher rate. 6.) On some
newer vehicles you may trigger the OBDII and set fault codes for a
failed catalyst. 7.) The water, unless it is totally mineral free will
eventually clog or foul the metering device unless it is either very
crude or very expensive. 8.) On a fuel injected intake manifold which
is usually unheated, (unlike most older cars with carbs.), icing may
occur, possibly jamming the throttle or screwing up the metering. And
probably 10 other things I have not thought of...

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:28:35 GMT, Dave Lyon wrote:

Got any power figures for these cars, or a link where I can read more?
Also, are they road-safe?

I'm really tempted to find an old MG, or similar car and do a conversion for
my soon to be 16 year old daughter. It might be a fun project for us.

Thanks for the links. Saved - I've got a Saab Sonett that might be a
perfect platform for this. Light, well built, and fun.

Rex B wrote in news:1254e2veqqvno15
@corp.supernews.com:


Can't get the good small diesels in the US. Only VW.
I'd love to be able to buy a Ranger with an efficient turbodiesel.
The Liberty CRD is a good move and selling well, but they don't get the
fuel economy that diesels are noted for. Lots of power though. Wish
they'd put it in the CJ.

That VW TDI gets 55 mpg..and has power to spare...

--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

"Wayne" wrote in message
news
I was just discussing this with a friend last weekend.
He was familiar with what your asking about.

See, I'm not crazy!

Lets not forget the massive leases paid for by the oil companies and then the
loonies got a ban on drilling off the west coast of Ca. Likewise off the East coast
and in the gulf of Mexico near Mississippi. That is 100 miles out - but we are happy
for China, N. Korea and Cuba drilling 50 miles off Miami. Odd isn't it.

There has been fundamental research in the production of oil - and it has been shown
and proved that not all oil came from plant or even animal (lots of them it would take)
but in a geo-thermo still of sorts that generates chemicals that spew up volcanoes and
all sorts. It seems that the mantel does the trick in so many places.

Think oil is from green fern or floating bugs - takes a lot of them for that trick.

We know that coal came from plants - but the extension to oil was a stretch.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member


Tom Gardner wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. As for your
complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You
don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller
vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where
we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding
viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than
most.



Well, I can't put a 1,700 lb. pallet in the Honda like I can in the Ford 4
times a week. Don't buy into the oil shortage thing, there's 250 years
worth in Canada oil sand and another 300 years off the US coasts that we
can't drill. I agree in abandoning oil as a primary energy source, but I
don't buy the bull.

With WI you can lean out the mixture without detonation and you CAN get
better mileage!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"oldjag" wrote in message
oups.com...
Water injection on a newer non-turbo vehicle really has no benefit. It
does have have plenty of potential problems, and will likely reduce
your mileage. Your E350 if probably has port fuel injection. It uses
an O2 sensor in the exhaust stream for closed loop control of the AFR
to a stoichometric Air/Fuel ratio during cruise, which for gasoline is
around 14.7:1. This is optimal for operation of the 3 way catalytic
convertor, while maintaining best possible economy. Make sure you O2
sensor(s) is fairly fresh, ie less than 50K miles on it for best
operation, and avoid cold starts and short trips for better mpg. New
engines have vastly better cylinder to cylinder AFR distribution than
25 years ago. Adding water vapor has several possible issues; 1.)
Added upstream of the mass air sensor it may damage the sensor,
downstream It adds an unmetered volume to the intake, ie the computer
has no way to account for the volume. 2.) If it condenses it may cause
corrosion damage to the fuel injectors, valves, rings etc., (think
moist shutdown with steel & aluminum parts in a confined space). 3.)
Metering water vapor accuratly is much more difficult than it seems at
first glance, and if not metered correctly, or if it accidentaly drips
into the intake it can hydrolock the engine bending rods, breaking
pistons. 4.) It needs to be mixed with methanol for freeze protection &
atomization. 5.) More water will wind up in your crankcase oil, and
the PCV system will likely get hosed up at a higher rate. 6.) On some
newer vehicles you may trigger the OBDII and set fault codes for a
failed catalyst. 7.) The water, unless it is totally mineral free will
eventually clog or foul the metering device unless it is either very
crude or very expensive. 8.) On a fuel injected intake manifold which
is usually unheated, (unlike most older cars with carbs.), icing may
occur, possibly jamming the throttle or screwing up the metering. And
probably 10 other things I have not thought of...

Right on the money! It would have to be an OEM thing and the costs outweigh
the benefits from a corporate point of view.

What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00
per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve,
promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market
speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars
in the middle east-over oil).

Tony

"B.B." u wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

[...]

I don't want to drive the
Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any
way
to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore
of
ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich
tree-huggers.
I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound.


After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

One of the reasons water injection lost favor is that the fuel,
especially diesel, has a little sulfur in it. Add water and you get
sulfuric acid. It builds up in the engine and starts etching parts.
Pretty soon, . . . no engine!
Bugs

Tony wrote:
What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00
per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve,
promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market
speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars
in the middle east-over oil).

No, we need to force oil companies to allocate a huge percentage of
profits into alternative energy development. Speed up hydrogen
technologies, etc.

In article ,
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense
to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually
eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all
over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin!

Actually, I totally agree with that.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Lets not forget the massive leases paid for by the oil companies and then
the
loonies got a ban on drilling off the west coast of Ca. Likewise off the
East coast
and in the gulf of Mexico near Mississippi. That is 100 miles out - but we
are happy
for China, N. Korea and Cuba drilling 50 miles off Miami. Odd isn't it.

There has been fundamental research in the production of oil - and it has
been shown
and proved that not all oil came from plant or even animal (lots of them
it would take)
but in a geo-thermo still of sorts that generates chemicals that spew up
volcanoes and
all sorts. It seems that the mantel does the trick in so many places.

Think oil is from green fern or floating bugs - takes a lot of them for
that trick.

We know that coal came from plants - but the extension to oil was a
stretch.

Martin

How about a third political party: "The Common Sence Party"

I've read a bit and it's facinating!

"Tony" wrote in message
...
What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00
per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve,
promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market
speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our
wars
in the middle east-over oil).

Tony

Many years ago, I remember it was said that when gas hit some certain price,
alternative energy processes would blossom. I wonder what that set point is
now.

In article ,
"Tony" wrote:

What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00
per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve,
promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market
speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars
in the middle east-over oil).

Giving the govt more money is the LAST thing we want. Either it will
waste the $$$ on pork, or will start new wars, or will fund new
bureaucracies to harrass the people.

Instead, REMOVE all taxes from alcohol and people will start using it
and other stuff to replace oil.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke
plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop)
for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing.

Not to mention you could get free waste heat for the winter and enough
to keep your greenhouse warm all winter too

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Hell,
even France is using nuke more than we are. France?!?!?!?

France has no oil, no coal, no hydro and no choice

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke
plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop)
for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing.

Not to mention you could get free waste heat for the winter and enough
to keep your greenhouse warm all winter too

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

And real three phase power

Pete C.

Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Hell,
even France is using nuke more than we are. France?!?!?!?

France has no oil, no coal, no hydro and no choice

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

A whole lot of potential BTUs in all their lovely rich food though...

Pete C.

Dan sez:

" Another off the wall idea is a system that has two gas tanks, one for
regular and one for premium. It would let you have a higher
compression ratio, and still use regular gasolene most of the time.
Just use the premium when you need it."

If your car was set up to run on regular why would you ever need premium in
the same car? Or it you meant the car already had a higher compression
ratio, necessitating premium, what conditions do you visualize that would
need regular?

Bob Swinney



wrote in message
oups.com...

oldjag wrote:
Water injection on a newer non-turbo vehicle really has no benefit. And
probably 10 other things I have not thought of...

Okay here is another thought. Would there be any advantage to having a
Ethanol injection system? Especially as a factory installed item. I
would think that Ethanol would provide the same advantages for knock
prevention as the water injection system.



Dan