Why a topic on cars??? Well cars produce one of the largest amounts of airpollution known to man, smelly combustion engines that eat up all that lovely oxygen that our blood needs and replaces it with a mixture of carbon dioxide and what was once lead.

Not so much lead now adays, but there is still unquestionable damage on the respiratory system. It's even known for Asthma suffers to die just from trying to cross the road at a busy junction because of the pollution that the cars create.

Cars are also lower the amount of oil in the world, even though a car doesn't necessarily need to run on petrol and oil. Petroleum prices are hiked by a monopoly that is controlled, and occasionally they notice the mergence of an immenent collapse in their market.

Some Economists will spell out gloom if those companies faulter, but thats only because they've got shares in them. (they play on the guilt of people buying to help them out)

In truth Oil, is something that shouldn't be used excessively, it's like hiking in the mountains with enough rations for 3 days and your 8 days away from the nearest food source.

There are developments on the horizon for new powersources of perpetual power systems, that only need a kickstart to keep them kicking over, these will eventually be encompassed into electric-car designs that the oil companies would love to veto.

This is where the new market begins and the old market is going to have to mak way for the ecological factors, and of course the FINES for not cleaning up.

Petroleum prices are hiked by a monopoly that is controlled, and occasionally they notice the mergence of an immanent collapse in their market.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our case its the Gov,about 3/4 of the price is tax,& they win both ways,as we are part of OPEC.

Also they say it's a carbon ta, but I see none of that money being used to reduce carbon.

They say it stops people driving around,but I doubt that.

Funny thing is,that they found that the oil fields in Kuwait,refilled themselves after Sadam set them alight.

Just like banning abortion does not prevent people getting unwanted pregnancy, improving fuel efficiency or higher price will not reduce car use or pollution.

What is really needed is to stop using cars. How? A large number of car use is to go to work. If you bring work home via fiber optics, then one does not need to travel to work. For the last 11 years, I could have done 95% of the work at home with remaing 5% elsewhere due to face-to-face meetings.

California freeway will be less gridlocked if the employers will start allowing their employees to work out of home or computer centers built like 7-11s.

Just like freeways and roads, the government should build fiberlines to everyhome so that people can have access.

Or Do it the real way...:D

make a computer mainframe network...all the countries will have their own mainframes connected to a super mainframe and upload urself to it...we can then have anti-gravity propulsion cars there...fuel never runs out...one never dies...no pollution...end of all enviornmental troubles...end of Doomsday prophesies...:D

and wait let AI run the mainframe,Programmed by millions of people around the world...
a perfect neural simulated world you may call it...

bye!;)

Just do not ask /777 to manage all the mainframe... it will be running around in the virtual world with hard(ware) ON ...:D

Okay heres what I've been thinking of recently, and I'm sure it will be a vantage point for you Kmguru since you mentioned Anti-gravity cars and your need to create one that actually works ;)

Quite simply, Take the Bullet Train technology from Japan and apply it to Roads. Change the road system to create a Magnetic force when a "Car" runs over the top, then have the Car produce the exact same magnetic pole to produce an Anti-gravity vehicle.

If you use magnets you form a method for prepulsion and also a better method of BRAKING, using magnetic bumpers to cushion an impact.

Of course this would mean that the car NO LONGER HAS POWER, as you would now be reliant upon a whole road network that is powered (and the cars obtain their power like a Bumper-car, with a Lightening strip that drags across the magna-track. This also means they are safe to be hit by lightening... in theory lol)

You could also encompass the very friction of the vehicles momentum across the track to cause a static charge that too can increase it's power generation, so the more traffic that uses it the more power it generates.

Why a topic on cars??? Well cars produce one of the largest amounts of airpollution known to man
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree,a jet plane just taking off uses more fuel than my car does in a year,they have to measure it in tons its takes so much.
Try getting them banned!

Quote
Quite simply, Take the Bullet Train technology from Japan and apply it to Roads.

No Gov would allow it,not enough Tax.

Odin, I didn't say Ban Cars, I just said they smell, eat up resources, Attribute to road rage, Cause death and dismemberment, cause poverty and ecological retro-degredation and everybody feels the need to have one.

Just for saying I was trying to ban them, I should tell your to get on your BIKE! :p

(That wasn't meant insensitively, I just couldn't pull that gag off any other way)

Odin, I didn't say Ban Cars, I just said they smell, eat up resources, Attribute to road rage, Cause death and dismemberment, cause poverty and ecological retro-degredation and everybody feels the need to have one.

So do Jet planes!except everybody does not feel they need to have one.

Most cars are used to get to work,where as most planes are used to go on holiday.
Hows yer bike Stryderunknown.
:D :D :D

Odin

Do you really feel the need to jump in a jetplane, to go to the shops that you were too lazy to walk too (which are a minute away by foot)

That's a problem with cars.

I wonder what Londons going to be like with the new rules of making car owners pay in the Capital, Hopefully it should inprove the air quality... oh yeah.. your going to blame an airport.

Anyway, since recent developments your whole basis on aeroplanes can't be truly founded as there are now less flights, any you know that if cars wre quicker, then they would be travelling to their destination in one of them.

My Bike is fine... Apart from the rusting caused by the cars Acid rain effect.

Well as you did not ask my bike is OK as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the cars Acid rain effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also have to remind you of what you said!
Why a topic on cars??? Well cars produce one of the largest amounts of airpollution known to man
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are just arguing,as I pointed out that planes use there fuel in tons not gals.
So one plane uses as much going to the USA as a car would on 50 trips from Lands End to John a Groats or maybe even more.
Mind you because its up in the air you do not smell it so it does not matter!
We do not see our Gov saying well planes use so much fuel that they will have to pay LOADS more tax for it here,that would be bad for business.
But the Acid rain effect falls from the sky so you are seeing that,& attributing it to the cars.

Now for the truth,I partly agree with you but think we are all being conned by this,they shout about the things that they can tax us on & keep quite about the rest.

;)

eat up resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to know the Manager of a cracking plant.In the 70s when we had rationing,because the Gov said there was a shortage.
He said to me that the amount of oil the country uses means there is always an over supply of Petrol (Gas in the USA) which they used to sell for less than cost,abroad to keep the oil flowing,or Britain would stop.
So cars are only using the by product
The above is true by the way.

I have to admit I've been a bit stubborn in our discussion, for that blame Tony1 :D (He started my Stubborn streak)

I know you probably like cars, your probably a car enthusiast, thats why you argue for them (but thats good, you picked a stance, and it gives me a chance to argue against)

You mention that one car doing 50 journeys wouldn't create the same polution as one aeroplane, but the problem is there are many more cars than planes worldwide, and it's known that the marketplaces is flooded with them.

I didn't fully mentioned before but there is an Urban Myth that oil companies have shelved alternative fuel methods, just so they could keep the market monopolised.
That will soon be broken with or without their shelving, as certain people won't sell.

Since you keep asking, I'll tell you why I started the subject on Cars... I couldn't think of anything else that could raise any interest, So Cars was put forwards.

Of course I intend to raise more... Infact I think this thread should really be converted to AUTOMOTIVEs rather than just cars this means planes, buses, trucks, trains, boats and a space shuttle or two.

Rather than argueing how annoying the taxation is, a fix should be thought of... But what??? Electric-Pogo sticks all round???

OK it would be nice if we could find a alternative fuel but until then I can not see much else being any good.
It would be better if we had a transport system that worked like there was when I was young,you could go to work by bus or train in those days.
Not much use now,the other day my wife waited for over an hour for a bus,& could not stop shivering for an hour after she got off of it.

I know this sounds cruel but I did once have the idea that the Public transport sector should be subsidised by the Car drivers, Thus making them travel by the now FREE bus services, or be hit by taxes for funding the buses.

This would allow bus services to run more often (As the real reason they stopped running so often is the lack of passengers).

In truth this could also lower the cost of replacing roads, by lowering the numbers in traffic.

There are also idea of replacing tramways that use to exist, which would be another idea, But again I think that dsuch transport should be free to the pedestrian at the price of the car owner, just to legislate change.

they should be using all that carbon tax they already take to do what you have said.
Its a good idea,remember they say they take that tax to cut down on the use but ofcouse it does not,so they already have the money,as i said what are they doing with that carbon tax money,to cut down on the carbon.

water cars:

water electrolysis-->hydrogen and oxygen-->hydrogen as feul and oxygen as aid in combustion.


bye!

Did you know that someone called "howard Hughes" had a patent for the Steam Car when petroleum driven ones were getting underway. He use to own RKO, TWA to name a few companies and a bunch of Casino's.

(I watched a film with Tommy Lee Jones playing Howard Hughes the other daY)

From what I could make out he went into some weird Obsessive-compulsive about dirt and dust and hid from the world for many years. I spotted that he own RKO at one point and realised that the RADIO and TELEVISION was still in virgin terratory, and that every action a writer made could send the owner into a spin over whether something was a flop or not. (I mean this as a whole bunch of frequency parallels that ebbed and flowed over what was to occur)

Thre are also questions that were raised about Political backhanders.

It just shows that someone who got the "Spruce Goose" put together had a design of which we could have been driving around in now. STEAM POWERED!

Yes & just think instead of using all the ( Gas/Petrol ) we could also burn Trees & coal in them.

:D :D :D

Fact Of the Day!!!!

Since their invention, Cars have killed or injured more people than all the major wars combined.:D ;) :) :cool: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Since their invention, Cars have killed or injured more people than all the major wars combined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they have done a lot for the environment!

:rolleyes: :D :D :D

Hehehehehe....:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

The government is pumping money into hydrogen fuel cell cars....Finally....

Originally posted by odin
Since their invention, Cars have killed or injured more people than all the major wars combined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they have done a lot for the environment!

:rolleyes: :D :D :D

Actually all those dead people being buried to be wrotted away produces Methane (CH<SUB>4</SUB>), so in away, those cars didn't stop polution being created they actually increased the polution in a shorter period of time.

Especially since some of those people that got run over and killed in crashes could have probably designed a different engine, or have a better way of cleaning up our atmosphere.

Its only people that pollute the Earth,anyone that says different is just anti something.
The less people,the less cars,the less people the smaller the industries need to be,the less resources needed.
If you make cars burn less fuel,the following year there will be twice as many cars needed for population increase.
In fact anything the people use every year there will be more needed.
So there is only one Green solution.Reduce the population!
You don't hear Greenpeace say that.Why,Because there would be no money in it!
:( :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually all those dead people being buried to be wrotted away produces Methane (CH4), so in away, those cars didn't stop pollution being created they actually increased the pollution in a shorter period of time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They would have died later on any way,so would still have put as much Methane in the air.

Reducing the population is not the answer. For many years Mankind has been doing it's best part to bump of the population base, either by going to war over religion or just because "They look funny!"... well that sort of mentality.

In the long run people will blame population, but in truth it all comes down to politics and corporate monetary entanglement.

Namely, you will say that some places have large farms that grow crops that use up the soils richness, and rape it of it's natural weight, so when wind or floods come the ground is strip'd and made a barren infertile wasteland.

It's education and research that is necessary to deal with this sort or uncoordinated farming methodolgy, but again it comes down to money. Supermarkets require food sources cheaply (which you will point out is due to a population) so they utilise places that are cheap, and in turn this causes future troubles when they can't preduce anymore due to their mass farming.

You can look at the basis of the oil industry being the same, Oil from the ground is not the only oil that man can create or utilise. We can get oils from Rape seed, tree bark and a number of other unmentioned crops.

So any Price hikes on an oil market, are pretty much manufactured. Mentioning this about oil though doesn't mean that vechiles should run upon it, I mentioned Steam engines, and of course Odin mentioned coal and oil to make it Steam....

Thats what they use to use "back in the day..!" but that's not what we need now, even I have a concept of how to utilise a specific method (which I shall not divulge due to patenting information).

Perhaps if we could get our population across the planet to act with more unison, we would have a better methodlogy of surviving as a whole, Afterall Ants work well as a nest. (Of course they don't get on with other nest)

A point why Greenpeace doesn't mention about population control, it's quite simple, some people think that population control is completely wrong as this incourages abortions which certain groups and religions frown upon.

So Greenpeace doesn't raise the topic because it's not their agenda to enforce control in that sense. I should think. (but I wouldn't know, I'm not a greenpeace rempresentative.)

they would be unpopular if they told the truth.
So no chance of that!
Just think if the population was small,the only excuse they could come up with for nuke power,would be to make bombs!
:D :D :D :D

Cars are on my short-list of the most vile creation ever made by man. Unfortunately I've little choice but to drive one, as there's absolutely no mass transportation where I live. I walk or ride a bicycle when possible, still, there is no getting around driving a car here. I sometimes daydream while driving that the best part of being dead will be not having to own and drive a car.

I used to give a ride to an old woman from my town when I found her walking the seven miles to the next town, Northfield, for groceries. She was so stooped by osteoporosis that she could only look down at her feet. The road she walked on parallels a railroad track all the way to Northfield. But only freight trains and the nearly useless Amtrack use that track. I particularly remember picking her up one cold and snowy day. I had just heard the news that the space shuttle had lifted off that morning. I mused that my taxes had paid for these astronauts to ride in style to nowhere, while this old woman had to fight her way in a snow storm along a roadway carrying cars at 50mph to buy her food. What are we thinking?

I love electric trains. I've taken the AVE in Spain, and the TGV in France, but my best memory was in Switzerland. The electric train I was riding on glided by a medium size hydroelectric turbine plant. What a logical system!

There is one car that looks interesting to me however. It's called the "Smartcar", and it's only available in England and Europe. It stands to reason that the only car that I might actually want to own is not available in North America. I do remain hopeful though. One day I might be able to purchase a Smartcar powered by a fuel cell. Then maybe I'll lighten up a bit about cars and driving.

Michael

Not all cars as evil as you people seem to be painting them. I for example Drive a 1972 volkswagen beetle, I get decent gas economy, and in less than a year I will be able to afford the $1400 for a hydrogen powered engine with 0 emmisions, these engines are being made by a man in portland oregon, and Are a great step in the right direction.

Another little known fact to the popularly known "tree hugger" is this. Two stroke engines(like on small motorcycles, and snowmobiles, and chainsaws) burn fuel more efficiently, and give off almost no toxins at all. In the summer months I drive a 1967 Yamaha 350 two stroke motorcycle, and I get 72 mpg, and I dont harm the atmosphere even 1/8 of what those "smart cars" do.

Also available to the general publis is a bicycle with an electric engine that assists you when you get tired, they are capable of 20 m.p.h, and give off no emmisions at all, they are expensive right now, but they are for sale to the general poulous in america. So if you are a moped enthusiast, or even a bicycle enthusiast who would like to get around easier, or just not have to pedal up hills, thats something you should look into.

It is interesting to read the various posts and opinions.

Cars or personal transport are here to stay. Its just way to convenient.

What we need to do is reduce the revhead mentality. Why governments allow the development of high powered, overweight fuel guzzlers, driven by mindless rednecks is beyond me.
I own a 4 cylinders wagon. I have to change down a gear to get up a steep hill. I ride my bike as often as possible (not for environmental reasons but for health).

Yet when the lights turn green there is always a few that will try to move there overweight V8 from zero to the speed limit (and more) as fast as possible. Massive energy wastage.

There are many ways to reduce the energy used by cars but I think the easiest to implement would be education and a little social engineering.

Create adds for TV that will make these rev heads feel embraced by there action. Publish studies that prove driving a big car means you have a small dick, lower IQ, overweight and less likely to get a girlfriend. I don’t care if it true or not we just need to change the public opinions on owning a big powerful car and driving to the limit every time you get into it.

Some truths.
1: Electric cars are not suppressed by oil companies. Electricity does not come from space it is created from the burning of fossil fuels, including oil.. To transmit this power to each house we lose 70% just to overcome the resistance in the wires. Electric engines are not 100% efficient ether. It is far more efficient to burn the fuel in the car then at the power station.

2: Hydrogen fueled cars are not clean. It may be water that drips out of the tail pipe but once again. There is absolutely no natural hydrogen on this earth. Every gram of H is created by man. Usually in factories using conventional power sources.. namely fossil fuels. It is the most efficient, by is hardly clean. Hydrogen is simply a way of storing energy, it is not energy for nothing.

3: Riding a bike is considered as clean.. But anyone that rides there bike on a regular basis know how much more food they need. Food is reasonably efficient at using the sun energy, but it too needs to be processed, transported, and processed again ( I like my food HOT). It may be the most efficient use of solar energy but it is far from clean.

4: Solar panels use more power to produce the cells then is returned in power over the life time of the cells. They only have a limited life. Solar cells are very dirty..

There is a promise of clean power in the future and that is fusion. The Holy Grail. We need to invest in the research. That’s where the fuel taxes should go. That’s the buzz word. (Fusion energy).

Well I’ve had my whinge..

Good points, Blindman.

I must disagree with your summary of solar energy. Sure, the production of photovolaic cells use conventional energy sources and produce dirty chemicals. However, this technology has the potential of reaching and surpassing a critical point (w/ increased usage) where it will, overall, be a much cleaner method.

More impotant, are some exciting thermal energy technologies that are paving the way for the future:

Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) technology is proving to be almost 3 times more efficient than photovoltaic cells. In a nutshell it uses reflectors to concentrate solar energy to a collector. The collector uses glass evacuated tubes and water as its heat transfer medium that ultimately powers a steam-boiler vessel.

The Ocean Thermal Energy Converter (OTEC) project in Hawaii has great potential as well. It simply uses the differencial between high and low temp ocean water to expand and contract water- or ammonia-filled vessels.

Here's an idea... why not tap into thermal energy coming from the earth itself -- near volcano drilling.

Speaking of energy, solar chimneys are a good idea. (and I understand it to, which always helps I guess.)


http://www.sbp.de/de/html/projects/solar/aufwind/pages_auf/principl.htm

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,46814,00.html
:o

Some guy managed to run a lightbulb for years on a prototype of one of these things.