Gas price Idea

[RacerX]

Isn't he like Douche of the Week by now?

[marcus]

I seen on TV a few weeks ago, some guy deffending the oil companies. He was saying that the price of a gallon of gas would be about $1.00 if it wasn't for taxes. I have an idea. Why don't we audit the government like they do us. Aftre all, they work for us don't they? That would solve a butt-load of problems.

This is a bunch of BS. Gas taxes are nowhere near $2 a gallon. They are actually more on the order of a few dozen cents a gallon or less, depending on what state you are in.

[RacerX]

Yup - varies by US state:

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Here's a great article with more charts and how US taxes compare with other nations:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm

[Newc]

Perpetual motion machines are unpatentable because they don't work. And yes, your proposed solution here is a perpetual motion machine: it generates more energy than is put into it. As Dr. Doug mentioned earlier, this violates the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, the kind you are talking about violates both the first (conservation of energy) and the second ( increasing entropy) laws of thermodynamics. There is no way around this.

It is possible to put an alternator in an electric motor to convert some of the mechanical energy of the motor into electrical energy, but you will never generate more electricity than you are using to power the engine. I wish this would work, believe me, as it would solve a lot of our problems.

It's entirely possible for an electrical system to generate more energy than it uses. Ever start a car with the radio and AC/Heat on at the same time?

The second law of Thermodynamics is more of a theory, based on the idea of time always moving forward, or spent energy being lost and not recoverable.

[thetroy]

It's entirely possible for an electrical system to generate more energy than it uses. Ever start a car with the radio and AC/Heat on at the same time?

The second law of Thermodynamics is more of a theory, based on the idea of time always moving forward, or spent energy being lost and not recoverable.

Cars have batteries...

[Cygnus X1]

This is a bunch of BS. Gas taxes are nowhere near $2 a gallon. They are actually more on the order of a few dozen cents a gallon or less, depending on what state you are in.

Ron's qouted survey was dated 2005.
48 cents a gallon, I believe, here in South Carolina.
Plus many other embedded taxes that are not quite as visible.
Cost of regulatory compliance is beyond calculation.

Simply the move to drill for oil domestically would get some of OPEC's
antics in check. I think in this world of speculators, it would make a big difference.

[Cygnus X1]

Yup - varies by US state:

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Here's a great article with more charts and how US taxes compare with other nations:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm

Oh, great, a site dedicated to the idea of raising taxes to combat greenhouse gasses. More legitimate scientists are coming out with the opinion that the global warming consensus types are doing it for political purposes, and for
favorable funding grants.

[Newc]

Cars have batteries...

And where does the battery get its charge to power the electricals?

[jgcable]

I take the train to work. Sure.. its not as convenient as taking the car but I lowered my fuel consumption from $60.00 per week to $10.00
My next vehicle will be a hybrid. Also.. after the winter I am going to start biking to the train station. Thats the kind of stuff we all should be doing. Everybody can conserve if they put their minds to it.

[Tekky]

And where does the battery get its charge to power the electricals?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the battery doesn't power the electricals. The battery is there to provide juice to the starter which obviously starts the engine. From there, the alternator powers the electricals, and in turn, recharges the battery.

[Newc]

So the whole system generates enough excess power to recharge the battery, correct?

Wasn't that stated earlier as being impossible?

As for perpetual motion being impossible (defined here as something that has continuous motion once it is set in motion, providing its own energy to maintain motion), explain Newton's Cradle away.

Or better yet, disprove the law of inertia.

[Cygnus X1]

So the whole system generates enough excess power to recharge the battery, correct?

Wasn't that stated earlier as being impossible?

As for perpetual motion being impossible (defined here as something that has continuous motion once it is set in motion, providing its own energy to maintain motion), explain Newton's Cradle away.

Or better yet, disprove the law of inertia.

Newc, I understand your pain.
But, without going through all of the physics, there is no such thing as over-unity gain. There is always loss, somewhere, that has to be made up, somehow. Usually the loss is in areas we don't consider. Consider frictional loss, given up as heat. Think of the perfect pendulum. It swings on something, right? That something is a bearing, of whatever sort. Even if it is
a completely fluid bearing, then there is still frictional loss in the liquid.
Or if it is suspended by gravitational repulsion, the same applies. There is a
price to pay, however small, that multiplies over time.
And ignoring the time factor, or gravitational (frictional) forces, just negates the benefits that are percieved to be there.
The battery simply stores a charge. The charge is supplied at the very high price of running the alternator. The alternator's energy is a rotational by product of something that has a relatively high cost to run. Even windmills
can't produce "free" energy. But, it's much cheaper than charging batteries with other elictricty, or fuels.

[Newc]

Yet if an electric battery provides the power to an electric motor that turns, and that motor turns the alternator, which then charges the battery, where's the problem?

Yes, the battery would lose power over time. How much, and over what period of time? That's relative to the motor's consumption rate, correct?

Assuming you have 12 batteries, 6 of which power the motor, 3 for the auxilliary electricals (radio, wipers, lights, etc), and the other 3 are constantly switching between being charged by the system and running the motor (3 of those 6 are switching out with the 3 backups - one set charges while the other set is running), there's no reason it can't work.

Yes, the batteries will need maintenance over time - water, electrolytes, etc - but not every day, nor every week (unless you're a traveling salesman with a 1000 mile daily route).

Add some sort of self-powering device (inertia, magnets, etc) to help turn the alternator and you reduce the power drain of the motor and batteries.

No design will be maintenance free, but it can be gasoline free, and that's the most important step.

[marcus]

Using an alternator in an electric car makes no sense as you are using electricity to power the motor, which generates mechanical energy. Using this mechanical energy to power an alternator will generate more electricity, but it is impossible for it to generate more electricity than the excess of electricity that was used to generate the mechanical energy to power the alternator in the first place. This follows from the aforementioned 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[marcus]

It's entirely possible for an electrical system to generate more energy than it uses. Ever start a car with the radio and AC/Heat on at the same time?

I am unsure of what you are trying to say here. But if I understand you correctly, this is simply wrong. The law of conservation of energy pretty much rules this out.

The second law of Thermodynamics is more of a theory, based on the idea of time always moving forward, or spent energy being lost and not recoverable.

The second law of thermodynamics is no theory. It is not called a law for nothing It is used in the same way Newton's or Maxwell's laws are. I am somewhat familiar with the theories involving time and entropy, and yes it is theorized that time has to move forward due to the second law of thermodynamics. There is actually a very interesting essay on this by Richard Feynman in one of his books. I am not well versed on theoretical physics though, so I can't go to deep on this one.