CONSERVATION: Savin' Energy is Makin' Energy!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William Engwer on February 21, 2010 at 11:16am

I'm sorry, but I fervently disagree with performance limitations as an important way forward towards conserving vehicle fuel. I don't know what your experience in this field is (I'll look up your profile shortly) but I can assure you that, based on my extensive work in this area, the majority of vehicle fuel WASTED is from unnecessarily heavy vehicles designed to carry 4 or more people carrying only the driver during commuting, and these same vehicles sitting in stop-and-go traffic, getting essentially ZERO MPG. Additionally, I would suggest that a more logical step to take in this arena might be to require traffic lights to be more responsive to actual conditions. A HUGE amount of fuel is wasted sitting, idling at again ZERO MPG, when there's no cross traffic. William Engwer

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on February 21, 2010 at 11:44am

Great! I don't disagree. STAY ALIVE = 75 + 5 m.p.h. is only 1 aspect of Reform Autos. Correcting a hazardous design flaw in present automotive design, and MENTALITY (What are these guys drinkin' & sniffin'?) will not only add to the Safety considerations; (How much risk are You willing to take?), will add to fuel econmy.

You trust your neighbors/strangers, on the on-comming side of the double yellow lines? (You leave your door unlocked when you leave home. Have a CCW permit?) I don't. I almost got killed by a High Horse Power Mustang. The High Horse Power Mustang gained enough torque + energy in 35' to drive another 6 cylinder Mustang, sitting on a parking lot with the parking break = ON to ram it 35' into a busy intersection. Almost crushing me in the mayhem.

Let's rid Ourselves of the dangerous, hazardous vehicles. CAP Top Speed at = 80 m.p.h. And, redirect civilian automotive design in a positive direction.

Your suggestions, infared traffic light control is working in other Countrys, should work here. We need the full mix of improvements for Safety, and Economy of the Automotive Industry.

"from unnecessarily heavy vehicles designed to carry 4 or more people carrying only the driver during commuting," - Maybe, add requirement to License requirements where a Driver would have to justify why they need a large SUV for everyday transportation.

Ck-Out the Attachments - replies to Comments on the Topix...

PS: Your sorry? For what? You like to Speed? If not, why would you object to owning a vehicle which would not be able to atain a top speed of higher than 80 m.p.h.; exceed Legal Speed Limits? With reasonable, (A 600 h.p. Corvette is a Manslaughter machine!) Horse Power -to-Weight ratio.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Espeseth on February 21, 2010 at 2:26pm

from another post...

Sorry Mr. Bill, I've already paid that one.

Go see "Who Killed the Electric Car", about why I do not support your current line of 'information'. Your statement progression reminds me of the suppression method of "Alan" on the "CARB", -in the film-.

Again;,...

Who cares how it is done, as long as it is clean???

The reason .... "Free trade for CLEAN Energy"...

doesn't get any advertising is the same reasons that subverted the electric car / clean air mandate in California (sociopath personalities that want to tell you, and your kids, what decisions to make in the very near future, under pain of death).

Currently a potential of $ 10 BILLION EACH DAY, is being sent to Dubai as opposed to being re-circulate back again -many times- within the US middle class ($.05 KWH @ 20 HP for each residence, constant), because the home owner is contained in a 'money pit' of spending money on energy (and as a result, financing) instead of that resource being able to MAKE money for the homeowner, (and the personal -financial- freedom and resultant independence it stabilizes.

BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL CLEAN ENERGY TO TO LOCAL GRID, AT A PRICE THE LOCAL MANUFACTURES WANT TO PAY US FOR!


Who cares how it is done, as long as it is clean?

With the stable baseline price of (adv.) $.05/KWH, Nat gas (and all the profitable for you in particular Mr. Bill) methods WILL be developed, and all the "FOX news" innuendo of bad physics gets shut out. Personally, Nat. Gas in a home energy conversion system (that uses the waste heat for the home / water apps) can go a long way if the 'caustic soda waterfall' air filtration system, to convert the carbon dioxide is required to take up a large space in the garage, to be effective.

Still, I don't see why that primary conversion system has to be stationary / connected to the higher efficiency dioxide removal filter at all times (see other view below)....

Point being, in spite of all the tripe being generated, the following transportation will be the only method I will be able to af 'ford'. If that is not an indication that the current 'system of management' is not self-absorbed to the point of self-destructive behavior, then maybe building it on the unemployment checks will convince you how stupid / blind these people have become.

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on February 21, 2010 at 4:11pm

W-h-a-t...?

Spit it out Man...

We're talkin' ENERGY CONSERVATION!

It's best to communicate on a level that even the stupidist guy listening can understand.

Who's "Mr. Bill"?

PS: The vehicle frame pictured above has only 2 front wheels, and a spare...

Permalink Reply by Kevin Espeseth on February 21, 2010 at 2:46pm

I should elaborate.

First, the internal combustion engine spits out 75% (+) of the BTU energy in the form of heat out the exhaust and radiator. so be careful of the 'facts' Mr. Bill produces. Not putting the guy down, I have made similar bonehead primary concept errors before, more times than I like to think about. I blame the education system. ;>

About your 'conservation direction', it is important, particularly in the involvement to energy independence for the individual, and the -0- carbon footprint we can -as a result- leave with the machinery in our daily lives.

Keep in mind, however, that -historically- the cultures that dominated, and evolved, have been the ones that (as a population average) used the greater amount of energy, not less.

There is an old military axiom that goes" It is better to have the firepower, and not need it, than need the firepower, and not have it". Make no mistake here, we are in a very active (economic) war these days, and sentiment and ideals will only get you so far.

As you can see from my previous statement, if it comes down to the "for us or agin' us" "FOX" crap propaganda, I keep this close at hand;, "We, as a society, have a tendency to build ever larger political 'battleships', in an era of increasing air power".