Beyond EVs and regular gas powered cars

[Scott]

As some here know, a few days ago, I started participating in a thread titled "Reality check on electric cars". At first, I wrote a post that was definitely on topic, linking to an article citing a study that had concluded that EVs were actually worse for the environment than regular gas powered cars (link).

I soon veered off the topic of EVs vs. regular powered cars, though, writing posts that talked about alternatives to both. I've determined that I've gotten enough feedback from these posts to warrant making a thread on the subject. My plan is to respond to any posts I haven't responded to on this subject there here and see where things go. With that said, I'll reintroduce what I wrote in the other thread to have a good point to start the conversation.

The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

The link above has information on Stanley Meyer and his patented water powered car, but also that the U.S. Navy made a model plane that ran off of sea water and an inventor who made regular gas super efficient. Why does no one talk of these things?

Some more links on those last 2:
Navy powers model plane using fuel made from sea water | newatlas.com

Tom Ogle Engine Explained And The Story Behind It | Mechanic Base

I know at least one poster who thinks that hydrogen powered cars may have a stronger future than they have. I agree to a point, but I think the best way to store most of the hydrogen is by having reserves of water and only converting what's needed into its constituent parts. This makes for a much less dangerous vehicle, as very little hydrogen would ever be free to potentially wreck havok. I know that the key issue is whether it can be done. That's one of the main points of this thread, to see if we can come to an agreement on whether it can or can't be done. The Navy's invention of a fuel made from sea water may be able to shed light on this too eventually.

Then there's Tom Ogle's invention that suggests that regular gas could be used much more efficiently.

 

[RB 60]

Would you like to see gasoline powered cars ultimately eliminated if your ideas come to fruition?

 

[Scott]

Do you believe that the motorcycle is extracting the hydrogen from the water to use as fuel?

That is what is happening. Water is not fuel. Water is the exhaust. Read up on electrolysis. Hydrogen is extracted from water, used as fuel which, when combusts in oxygen, produces water, i.e. H2O.

I know about electrolysis, that is indeed part of the process. If we can agree that this motorcycle could store water and basically extract the hydrogen from it on demand for fuel, then we are essentially in agreement.

If you agree that the motorcycle is taking the water and extracting the hydrogen from it to use as fuel, then we don't actually disagree on the fundamentals.

We disagree completely. For some reason, you insist that the engine is water-powered when it clearly is not. No engine runs on its own exhaust.

This motorcycle also doesn't run on its own exhaust. it runs on -liquid- water, not water vapour, extracting hydrogen from it as needed.

So we agree then. Into the Night seems to be going with the conventional wisdom that this can't be done in a manner efficient enough to be worthwhile

Into the Night is correct.

Can you prove that?

You could say that gas is not fuel,

Gasoline is fuel; the resulting exhaust, i.e. CO2, is not fuel, however it is great for plants. Hydrogen is fuel; the resulting exhaust, i.e. water, is not fuel, however it is great for plants.

We agree that hydrogen is fuel. What I'm wondering is if we can agree that this hydrogen could be stored as water and only extracted as needed to keep the motorcycle running.

Its exhaust would be water vapour, which is a bit different than liquid water,

Frozen water (ice), liquid water and water vapor are all water. Different states. All water.

Agreed. The motorcycle doesn't store ice or water vapor though, it stores liquid water.

I haven't seen any claim here that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

I'll state it for you now. By having the electrolysis unit internal to the closed system in question, the unit has no energy to perform the electrolysis in the first place if the source of that energy is the hydrogen it extracts through the hydrolysis that it cannot perform.

I assume that, like regular motorcycles and cars, the motorcycle in question has a battery- the battery would start the electrolysis. The battery could then be charged by the motion generated by the moving motorcycle.

The extraction requires more energy than is produced by the resulting hydrogen,

Can you prove that?

I -have- seen a claim that it takes just as much energy to extract the hydrogen from water as one gets out of it, but to date, I've seen no hard evidence for this claim.

You should study a little physics.

I did actually take a basic physics course in high school. Unfortunately, we didn't cover the subject of whether a vehicle could run on water (with the help of a battery to get the electrolysis started).

You don't need any "evidence."

Oh yes I do. It is all too easy for people in positions of authority to say such nonsense as "trust the science" and get away with all kinds of things. If those who claim that water powered vehicles can't work, let them prove it.

Any time energy changes form in a closed system, there is less usable energy. It will always require more energy to extract hydrogen from water than the usable energy garnered by the extracted hydrogen.

If you can prove that, by all means, do so.

Perhaps the most famous person to have made this claim was Stanley Meyer, who actually got a patent for his water powered car.

If you had performed a little independent research instead of clinging to the hype, you would have found that Stanley Meyer was convicted of fraud for using standard electrolysis to extract hydrogen to fuel his dune buggy.

I did hear that he was sued for fraud, but that doesn't mean that his invention was fraudulent by default. His suspicious death also suggests that he was on to something. One thing that you haven't responded to, do you believe the video of the water fueled motorcycle is also fraudulent?

To date, I've seen no hard evidence that Stanley Meyer's car didn't run on water.

Because you didn't look, and you are gullible in that way.

Oh, I've looked, and I've found that his detractors haven't provided strong evidence that his car couldn't have run on water. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm -sure- that his car worked as advertised. And if no one else had claimed to have made a water powered vehicle since Stanley Meyer, I might not be so interested. But they have, and the evidence that their claims are real, such as the motorcycle video that I posted, can look pretty persuasive.

No engine runs on water; water is not fuel. Hydrogen is fuel.

No one is debating that hydrogen is the final step. The only issue is whether hydrogen can be extracted from water in such a way that it can be stored inside a motorcycle or car and then have its hydrogen extracted when needed.

There -is- evidence that he was killed by two alleged Belgian investors.

Are they two of the investors Stanley Moore defrauded?

First of all, you haven't shown any hard evidence that Stanley defrauded anyone. Secondly, from what I've read, they were only potential investors in Stanley Meyer. Below is a quote from an article that certainly suggests that they played a hand in Stanley Meyer's demise:

**
Stanley Meyer’s Mysterious Death

On March 21, 1998, Meyer was having lunch at a Cracker Barrel with his brother and two potential Belgian investors. The four clinked their glasses to toast their commitment to uplifting the world, but after taking a sip of his cranberry juice, Meyer clutched his throat, sprang to his feet, and ran outside. Rushing after him, his brother Stephen found him down on his knees, vomiting violently. He quickly muttered his last words, “They poisoned me.”

Meyer’s death was investigated for three months, though it was eventually written on the coroner’s report that he died of a cerebral aneurysm.

Stephen Meyer insists his brother was murdered. After all, Meyer’s invention posed an incalculable threat to billions of oil industry dollars and untold fortunes, and he’d successfully resisted succumbing to numerous buyout offers. Additionally, the inventor had warded off pressure from numerous overseas visitors and weathered persistent government spying operations. And, perhaps not so strangely, those investors who dined with the Meyer brothers on that fateful day declined to offer so much as a condolence following Meyer’s demise.
**

Source:
The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

 

[Scott]

Would you like to see gasoline powered cars ultimately eliminated if your ideas come to fruition?

If water powered cars can be shown to be better than gas powered cars, sure. I think we can agree that it's a pretty important if. There is also Tom Ogle's invention, which actually uses regular gas, but just much more efficiently, and also claimed to eliminate pollution.

 

[RB 60]

If water powered cars can be shown to be better than gas powered cars, sure. I think we can agree that it's a pretty important if. There is also Tom Ogle's invention, which actually uses regular gas, but just much more efficiently, and also claimed to eliminate pollution.

There's many of us who won't let traditional gas powered cars go. I don't think from the concours d'elegance classic car shows like Pebble Beach, Greenwich and Amelia Island (featuring the richest of car collectors) to the local car shows featuring guys like us who just enjoy what our heritage has to offer.

 

[Scott]

There's many of us who won't let traditional gas powered cars go. I don't think from the concours d'elegance classic car shows like Pebble Beach, Greenwich and Amelia Island (featuring the richest of car collectors) to the local car shows featuring guys like us who just enjoy what our heritage has to offer.

If Tom Ogle's invention of simply making cars more fuel efficient with regular gas worked, that wouldn't be much of a change, would it? More on Tom Ogle's invention can e seen in a video at the end of this article:

The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

Here's an article on the subject from 2022 that I think is interesting:
El Paso inventor Tom Ogle fueled gas-saving dreams with 1977 Deming trip | El Paso Times

Quoting a bit from it:
**
The odd thing about Ogle's system is that it doesn't add complex gadgets and intricate gimmicks. Instead, it removes the carburetor, a piece of the engine long considered sacred.

"Engineers said it wouldn't work because without a carburetor there's nothing to vaporize the fuel," Ogle explained during the trip across the hot dessert. "They couldn't understand that it's already working on vapors.

"Instead everybody kept trying to add something to the carburetor while nobody thought of taking the thing off."

How it works

Basically the system uses a standard engine with a few modifications in lieu of the carburetor. There is a series of hoses feeding a mixture of gas vapors and air directly into the engine.

Gas in the tank passes through a series of filters, which stretch the energy available in each gallon. The invention also stores excess vapors for later use for up to 45 days. Premium gas is needed, as its higher octane level allows for more vapors to build.

Not only does Ogle's car promise more miles per gallon, but he says it will clean the environment while causing its owner fewer repair headaches.

"It will top anything on the road today, being smoother, better running and more efficient," Ogle said. "The life of your car will be two times longer because there will be no carbon buildup.

"The carbon comes from unburned gas, but we burn it all. You won't need all the catalytic converters for the air."
**

 

[RB 60]

If Tom Ogle's invention of simply making cars more fuel efficient with regular gas worked, that wouldn't be much of a change, would it? More on Tom Ogle's invention can e seen in a video at the end of this article:

The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

Here's an article on the subject from 2022 that I think is interesting:
El Paso inventor Tom Ogle fueled gas-saving dreams with 1977 Deming trip | El Paso Times

Quoting a bit from it:
**
The odd thing about Ogle's system is that it doesn't add complex gadgets and intricate gimmicks. Instead, it removes the carburetor, a piece of the engine long considered sacred.

"Engineers said it wouldn't work because without a carburetor there's nothing to vaporize the fuel," Ogle explained during the trip across the hot dessert. "They couldn't understand that it's already working on vapors.

"Instead everybody kept trying to add something to the carburetor while nobody thought of taking the thing off."

How it works

Basically the system uses a standard engine with a few modifications in lieu of the carburetor. There is a series of hoses feeding a mixture of gas vapors and air directly into the engine.

Gas in the tank passes through a series of filters, which stretch the energy available in each gallon. The invention also stores excess vapors for later use for up to 45 days. Premium gas is needed, as its higher octane level allows for more vapors to build.

Not only does Ogle's car promise more miles per gallon, but he says it will clean the environment while causing its owner fewer repair headaches.

"It will top anything on the road today, being smoother, better running and more efficient," Ogle said. "The life of your car will be two times longer because there will be no carbon buildup.

"The carbon comes from unburned gas, but we burn it all. You won't need all the catalytic converters for the air."
**

I recall years ago hearing about some kind of "invention(?)" that could increase mileage and run much more efficiently on gas, but it was said the oil companies somehow nixed it. I don't know if it was true, so I kinda don't believe it. I don't know if Ogle's philosophy was part of it, but I'd like to see and gain an understanding of it.

If Ogle's car would become a manufactured reality, and using higher octane gasoline, that sure would make us vintage car owners happy!

 

[Scott]

I recall years ago hearing about some kind of "invention(?)" that could increase mileage and run much more efficiently on gas, but it was said the oil companies somehow nixed it.

I suspect this rumour that you heard was based on Tom Ogle's story. I haven't found any direct evidence that oil companies nixed it, but I've found some snippets that suggest they may have:

**
What Happened to the Tom Ogle Engine?
There was so much focus on the Tom Ogle engine in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so when did all of the excitement die down? Tom’s life became a mess when his wife left him and his career tanked. In 1981, it was said that an assassin tried to kill him, but the attempt was unsuccessful. It appears that big oil companies were not fond of his new invention.

Following the shooting attempt, Ogle died anyway. That’s when the invention died with him. Nothing ever materialized from his concept, even though there were plenty of investors ready to move forward. Imagine what the world would look like if the world had adopted the Tom Ogle engine in the 1980s.
**

Source:
Tom Ogle Engine Explained And The Story Behind It | mechanicbase.com


Here's one from Tom Ogle himself:

**
He isn’t afraid of oil interests.”My wife Monika is scared, afraid I’ll get kidnapped. But I’m safe. People still can’t believe or understand what I’ve discovered.["]
**

Source:
What Ever Happened to Tom Ogle? His super carburetor gave 100 mpg on a 427 inch v8 1970 Ford Galaxy | knightspirit.com


He was later shot and died the same year.

I don't know if it was true, so I kinda don't believe it.

I don't know if it's true either, but I suspect it is.

I don't know if Ogle's philosophy was part of it, but I'd like to see and gain an understanding of it.

If Ogle's car would become a manufactured reality, and using higher octane gasoline, that sure would make us vintage car owners happy!

On this, I think we can all agree.

Here's a thread of people talking about the feasibility of Ogle's invention:
https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/37184/is-tom-ogles-100mpg-engine-actually-feasible

 

[IBDaMann]

I know about electrolysis,

Great. Now you need to learn and understand the laws of thermodynamics. Your error lies in your willful non-understanding of thermodynamics, specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this case, and then trying to pretend that the laws of physics are somehow merely my phony argument of authority.

The bottom line is that you are objectively in error. Basic physics bears this out, not any opinion of mine. Nobody but you is preventing you from learning what you need to know to answer your question. I tried to explain it to you and you gave me the Heisman. I will extend to you the courtesy of an explanation one more time but if you decide that learning is not for you, then you'll have to waste someone else's time.

The motorcycle in question runs on hydrogen. The "design" has the motorcycle acting equivalently to running on its own exhaust, i.e. water. You shouldn't be worrying about the state of the water because having to change the state of water is the least of your problems in this scenario. The big problem is that the electrolysis requires energy to perform. How much energy is required? Answer: more than can be produced by the resulting hydrogen. The energy from the hydrogen will not be enough to maintain the electrolysis. But wait, you want to run a motorcycle on top of this, with all the negative net energy provided by the electrolysis.

The only option is to do as you suggested, i.e. have a fully charged battery perform some intitial electrolysis, garnering enough hydrogen to turn a corner. You will quickly realize that the range of the motorcycle is next to nothing, and that one would be better off just powering the motorcycle as an EV, i.e. directly with the battery to a motor. At least you'd get a few miles as opposed to a few feet.

If we can agree that this motorcycle could store water

Anything can store water. Stay focused on the hydrogen requirement.

... and basically extract the hydrogen from it on demand for fuel, then we are essentially in agreement.

Electrolysis takes time. The motorcycle would not be able to extract "on demand" to the extent needed, and it would not be able to produce enough to keep the electrolysis going.

We agree that hydrogen is fuel. What I'm wondering is if we can agree that this hydrogen could be stored as water

Water is the exhaust. It's exactly like asking if we could just extract food from shit. You are talking about recycling, and any such process requires more energy than you could ever get out of it.

I did actually take a basic physics course in high school. Unfortunately, we didn't cover the subject of whether a vehicle could run on water (with the help of a battery to get the electrolysis started).

The laws of thermodynamics are straightforward. Look into why there are no perpetual motion machines and you will see that it pertains to everything you are discussing here.

I did hear that he was sued for fraud, but that doesn't mean that his invention was fraudulent by default.

The trouble that gullible people have is that no matter how many red flags go up, they point to each red flag individually and say "That doesn't necessarily mean ..."

The maker of the video is hoping to reach all such gullible individuals who will insist on regurgitating the video's content with all the hype and euphoria, just because the claim is full of the most exciting red flags to make their rounds in a long while.

Let me ask you, did you fall for the quantum computing hype? Did you fall for greenhouse effect? They come with a very interesting red flag, i.e. they are not physically possible. That's a red flag that I will never ignore. Thermodynamics-based red flags are to be ignored at your peril.

His suspicious death also suggests that he was on to something.

His predictable death at the hands of furious investors he defrauded comes as absolutely no surprise. Did you fall for the tabloid's reference to his death as somehow being "suspicious"?

One thing that you haven't responded to, do you believe the video of the water fueled motorcycle is also fraudulent?

I did respond. The video cannot be fraudulent until someone is defrauded (i.e. suffers damages). At that point the video becomes fraudulent. Before that point, it is not fraudulent. Let me know what is not clear.

No one is debating that hydrogen is the final step.

You are. If you wish to correct your error, properly refer to the motorcycle as hydrogen-powered as opposed to water-powered, in recognition of the engine operating on hydrogen and not on water.

The only issue is whether hydrogen can be extracted from water in such a way that it can be stored inside a motorcycle or car and then have its hydrogen extracted when needed.

Now you know that all the hydrogen will be used to power the electrolysis. Otherwise, there's no reason to have the electrolysis unit. One should just have a home charging station, i.e. a home electroysis station with a bathtub water tank, that refills the hydrogen cell. The motorcycle would then be like any other hydrogen-powered vehicle. Trying to have the hydrolysis unit as an internal part of the closed system makes the idea stupid/not workable.

First of all, you haven't shown any hard evidence that Stanley defrauded anyone.

I'm happy to let you believe what you want to believe. All I will tell you is what you shouldn't believe because it is FALSE.

Secondly, from what I've read, they were only potential investors in Stanley Meyer.

Apparently they were psychotic, murdering potential investors.

Below is a quote from an article ...

Clearly a tabloid article.

Thermodynamics is where your answers are to be found.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Would you like to see gasoline powered cars ultimately eliminated if your ideas come to fruition?

I would like to see the world population reduced to about three or four billion
so we wouldn't need to concern ourselves with all of these annoying environmental considerations.

Overpopulation is causing unacceptable compromises to our standard of living.

What we really need are fewer people living however the hell they like.

Send US troops to Ukraine and Gaza.
Start World War III.
In the end, after the smoke clears,
humanity will come out ahead.

 

[Into the Night]

As some here know, a few days ago, I started participating in a thread titled "Reality check on electric cars". At first, I wrote a post that was definitely on topic, linking to an article citing a study that had concluded that EVs were actually worse for the environment than regular gas powered cars (link).

I soon veered off the topic of EVs vs. regular powered cars, though, writing posts that talked about alternatives to both. I've determined that I've gotten enough feedback from these posts to warrant making a thread on the subject. My plan is to respond to any posts I haven't responded to on this subject there here and see where things go. With that said, I'll reintroduce what I wrote in the other thread to have a good point to start the conversation.

The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

The link above has information on Stanley Meyer and his patented water powered car, but also that the U.S. Navy made a model plane that ran off of sea water and an inventor who made regular gas super efficient. Why does no one talk of these things?

Some more links on those last 2:
Navy powers model plane using fuel made from sea water | newatlas.com

Tom Ogle Engine Explained And The Story Behind It | Mechanic Base

I know at least one poster who thinks that hydrogen powered cars may have a stronger future than they have. I agree to a point, but I think the best way to store most of the hydrogen is by having reserves of water and only converting what's needed into its constituent parts. This makes for a much less dangerous vehicle, as very little hydrogen would ever be free to potentially wreck havok. I know that the key issue is whether it can be done. That's one of the main points of this thread, to see if we can come to an agreement on whether it can or can't be done. The Navy's invention of a fuel made from sea water may be able to shed light on this too eventually.

Then there's Tom Ogle's invention that suggests that regular gas could be used much more efficiently.

You cannot run a motorcycle, model airplane, or run a car on water as fuel.
Water doesn't burn.

Electrolysis to produce hydrogen costs more energy than you get by using that hydrogen. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

If water powered cars can be shown to be better than gas powered cars, sure. I think we can agree that it's a pretty important if. There is also Tom Ogle's invention, which actually uses regular gas, but just much more efficiently, and also claimed to eliminate pollution.

You cannot run a vehicle on water, dude.
Water is not hydrogen.
Ogle's carburetor never worked. He claimed to have 'removed it' and it was 'difficult to reinstall' when confronted with an independent test. He later died of alcohol (he drank himself to death).

 

[Into the Night]

I would like to see the world population reduced to about three or four billion
so we wouldn't need to concern ourselves with all of these annoying environmental considerations.

Overpopulation is causing unacceptable compromises to our standard of living.

What we really need are fewer people living however the hell they like.

Send US troops to Ukraine and Gaza.
Start World War III.
In the end, after the smoke clears,
humanity will come out ahead.

So you first. Let me know when you kill yourself.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I know about electrolysis, that is indeed part of the process. If we can agree that this motorcycle could store water and basically extract the hydrogen from it on demand for fuel, then we are essentially in agreement.

It seems you know nothing about physics. It requires more energy to create hydrogen from water using electrolysis than is created by burning hydrogen to make water since energy is lost in both conversions.

It would be much more efficient to use batteries to power a motor than it would to use batteries to create hydrogen from water.

 

[gfm7175]

I would like to see the world population reduced to about three or four billion
so we wouldn't need to concern ourselves with all of these annoying environmental considerations.

... then you and your "climate crisis" buddies should immediately kill yourselves "for the good of the planet".

 

[NiftyNiblick]

... then you and your "climate crisis" buddies should immediately kill yourselves "for the good of the planet".

That's silly. I said what I'd like to see.
How would I see it then?

 

[gfm7175]

That's silly. I said what I'd like to see.
How would I see it then?

Then you're not "doing your part" to "save the planet" then, are you?

It's just something that "other people" "need to do", eh?

 

[Into the Night]

That's silly. I said what I'd like to see.
How would I see it then?

So you advocate murder, then?