Paper written in 2008, just before the market crash, Subject what it would take to convert personal transportation from petroleum to electric power.

The following text in taken from a paper I write in 2008 when it looked like Gasoline might hit $5.00 a gallon by the end of the year and it looked like we could be running out of oil. Obviously, that did not happen because a couple of months latter the Market crashed and a project I was about to finish — was finished as well as all capital dried up and I lost close to $500,000 of investment of which this paper was only a part.  The logic and engineer is still sound today although the financial numbers would need to be adjusted.  Attached at the end are a copy of the paper and the related power point presentation.

There are almost 250 million vehicles (cars, pickup trucks and SUV’s) on U. S. roads used for personal transportation. They all use some form of ICE as the power source.  They also all use some derivative of petroleum as the fuel i.e. gasoline, E85 or diesel fuel and thereby emit million of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (about 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned).

When this transportation system was started emissions and the supply of fuels were hardly on anyone’s mind and so what we have today is a system built with millions of hours of hard work and billions of dollars of capital investment. Today, in hind sight, we might have chosen a different path had we known better. However, this system has served us well for over 100 years and has contributed to the reasons we have the best place in the world to live.

But now we have rising CO2 emissions creating global warming and petroleum supplies running out and both creating issues that threaten our very way of life. So we find ourselves searching for a way out of these serious predicaments that many of us see.  One group focused on the environment sees CO2 emissions which are leading to Climate Change as the most important issue. The other side focused on Economic Growth sees the supply of cheap petroleum “Energy” as the most important issue since without that supply the world economy could collapse.

Both sides have valid points but for some reason they can’t seem to see, how by working together, they could come up with alternatives that satisfy completely both points of view. That would not seem possible, but it is and it will be shown to be so in the body of this White Paper.

The solution is right before our eyes and we just need to focus on the results we want. Doing that shows us that by switching Personal Transportation from gas/diesel fuel to electric power both issues can be solved in one project. From an all-electric vehicle production point of view this process could be started today with existing technology and, in fact, several automakers are planning on introducing limited capacity electric or electric hybrid cars by 2010.

Therefore, why write this paper if these alternative vehicles will soon be for sale.  The answer is that although building the vehicles is now possible albeit with limited driving range to start, there is no infrastructure in place to deliver the electric power to them in the quantities required to convert even a small percentage of today’s almost 250 million vehicles to electric vehicles let alone those yet to be produced.

The bottleneck here is finding a way to deliver the electric power equivalent, of the gasoline that those ICE’s now use, to the electric cars in the form of electric power.  That delivery system has three parts; first the electric power generation, next is the transmission of that power to the user and lastly is the charging of the vehicles battery. All three elements are required before the production of the electric vehicles can begin in earnest or it would be the equivalent of building ICE vehicles and having no gas stations.  Unfortunately the first two “The Grid” is already close to capacity and has its own problems, so we seem to be at an impasse.

A classic chicken or egg quandary … No electric cars, no reason to expand the Grid … No Grid capacity, no reason to build electric cars.



Malcolm Gladwell: The strange tale of the Norden bombsight

Published on Oct 26, 2011 Master storyteller Malcolm Gladwell tells the tale of the Norden bombsight, a groundbreaking piece of World War II technology with a deeply unexpected result. TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the “Sixth Sense” wearable tech, and “Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on, at

The Moment in Time: The Manhattan Project

The Moment in Time documents the uncertain days of the beginning of World War II when it was feared the Nazis were developing the atomic bomb. The history of the bomb’s development is traced through recollections of those who worked on what was known as “the gadget”. [6/2000] [Science] [Show ID: 5090]

4th Generation Nuclear Weapons

Published on Dec 16, 2013

This is an overview of the 4th generation of nuclear weapons outlined in the report, Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects, condensed into an easy to digest video. Full report click here, FAQ:
Q: In a nutshell what is a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW)? A: It is a nuclear fusion weapon that doesn’t use a fission trigger. The most feasible method to trigger fusion in a FGNW is to use microscopic amounts of anti-matter.
Q: What advantages do FGNWs have over conventional nukes? A: They are “clean” (radioactive fallout negligible, about on par with conventional depleted uranium weapons that are already in use), they are very small (potentially can fit in your pocket), and fill in the “yield gap” between the most powerful conventional weapons and the lowest yield conventional nukes.
Q: Will FGNWs really be more politically acceptable to use in actual combat? A: Who knows? Only time can tell for certain, but their “radioactive cleanness” is a compelling argument in favor for it.
Q: What would be the TNT equivalent of a FGNW be? A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would release around 302 gigajoules of energy (about 72 tons of TNT), so around that.
Q: How much antimatter is needed to catalyze a single FGNW? A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would need 1×10^11 antiprotons to catalyze nuclear fusion
Q: Isn’t carrying antimatter dangerous? What would happen if containment failed? A: The quantity of antimatter is extremely small. 1×10^11 antiprotons would release the equivalent of about 6 milligrams of TNT, that’s less than a firecracker. However the energy would be released in the form of ionizing radiation so it would be a radiological hazard if containment failed.
Q: Wouldn’t failure of antimatter containment result in the FGNW detonating? A: No, nuclear fusion requires very precise injection of antimatter to catalyze fusion. Failure of containment would not result in the precise injection of antimatter to the fusion fuel. Added safety measures can be taken by separating the fusion fuel from the antimatter containment until the weapon is ready to be armed.
Q: If you accidentally drop it, wouldn’t containment fail? A: These weapons are intended to be incredibly rugged with one of their applications being bunker busters. They contain little to no moving parts and are “full like eggs”. The FGNW report indicates that the overall ruggedness would be far superior over conventional nuclear bunker busters so no, simply dropping it wouldn’t cause containment to fail.
Q: Wouldn’t FGNWs be attractive for nuclear terrorism? A: No, it’s easier to build conventional nuclear weapons. FGNWs require extremely large particle accelerators to manufacture the antimatter necessary for the FGNW. A terrorist who wants a suitcase nuke is better off with something like the M-388 Davy Crockett.
Q: Are FGNW a proliferation concern? A: No, see above.
Q: Why not make pure anti-matter weapons instead? A: A couple of reasons. It’s prohibitively expensive. It’s single handedly the most expensive substance in the world and incredibly difficult to make. Right now, if we took all the antimatter we produced and annihilate it, it would only be enough to power a lightbulb for a few hours. On the other hand, fusion fuel is incredibly cheap and abundant, you can literally make it from sea water as all it is are isotopes of hydrogen. But even if we had large quantities of antimatter, it’s questionable how useful it would be as a weapon on its own. It’s incredibly difficult to contain as if it touches any normal matter, it will annihilate. Containing microscopic quantities is not a problem, but macroscopic quantities are. Even if you could contain it, it would be incredibly unstable. Fusion and fission weapons fail safely, if you damage a nuclear weapon the nuclear weapon doesn’t detonate. An antimatter weapon would detonate as soon as containment fails. From a cost-benefit point of view, pure antimatter weapons do not make sense.
Q: Can you use conventional explosives to catalyze nuclear fusion? A: No.…


The Saturn V Story (Space Race Documentary) | Spark

Published on May 2, 2018

In 1961 when President Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, no rocket existed with the power or capability to rise to the challenge. In order to win the race to space, the United States would need to establish a multi-billion dollar space program. One man, Werner Von Braun believed he had the knowledge and vision to make Kennedy’s dream a reality. With the American public galvanised and the expertise of over 200,000 scientists and engineers, Von Braun masterminded the development of the Saturn V; the rocket that flew 24 men to the moon and launched the greatest adventure in the history of exploration. Using visual effects, stunning NASA footage and expert interviews with Apollo Space Scientists, this inspirational film tells the story of the colossal challenges NASA faced to fulfill Kennedy’s pledge. With the accolade of flying 24 men safely to the moon, the mighty Saturn V will always be considered one of mankind’s greatest technological achievements. This is the story of the most powerful machine ever built, and the men and women who believed it could fly. Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech and engineering videos – Follow us on Facebook: Follow us on Instagram:… Content licensed by Espresso Media to Little Dot Studios. #Space #saturn #apollo11 #NASA #science #rockets #spacetravel #manonthemoon #Engineering #technology #spacerace #SaturnV #Saturn5

“APOLLO 13: To The Edge And Back” – (1994 Documentary)

Published on Mar 3, 2018

CHECK OUT THESE OTHER CHANNELS: CLASSIC COMEDY CLIPS:… WSCVIDEOS: I SAW IT ON TV: I SAW IT AT THE MOVIES:… FUNNY FILM FEATURES:… PAST BLAST MUSIC (50s & 60s):… PAST BLAST MUSIC (70s & Beyond):… THE HISTORY OF ROCK:… FUNNYFILMFEATURES:… Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 14:13 EST (19:13 UTC) from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, but the lunar landing was aborted after an oxygen tank exploded two days later, crippling the Service Module (SM) upon which the Command Module (CM) had depended. Despite great hardship caused by limited power, loss of cabin heat, shortage of potable water, and the critical need to make makeshift repairs to the carbon dioxide removal system, the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17, 1970, six days after launch. The flight passed the far side of the Moon at an altitude of 254 kilometers (137 nautical miles) above the lunar surface, and 400,171 km (248,655 mi) from Earth, a spaceflight record marking the farthest humans have ever traveled from Earth. The mission was commanded by James A. Lovell with John L. “Jack” Swigert as Command Module Pilot and Fred W. Haise as Lunar Module Pilot. Swigert was a late replacement for the original CM pilot Ken Mattingly, who was grounded by the flight surgeon after exposure to German measles. The story of the Apollo 13 mission has been dramatized multiple times, most notably in the 1995 film Apollo 13.

World War 2 Top 10 Tanks (Videos)

Published on May 11, 2016

Tiger II is the common name of a German heavy tank of the Second World War. The final official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B, often shortened to Tiger B. The ordnance inventory designation was Sd.Kfz. 182. It is also known under the informal name Königstiger[6] (the German name for the Bengal tiger), often translated literally as Royal Tiger, or somewhat incorrectly as King Tiger by Allied soldiers, especially by American forces. The Tiger II was the successor to the Tiger I, combining the latter’s thick armour with the armour sloping used on the Panther medium tank. The tank weighed almost 70 tonnes, and was protected by 100 to 185 mm (3.9 to 7.3 in) of armour to the front.[9] It was armed with the long barrelled 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 anti-tank cannon.The chassis was also the basis for the Jagdtiger turretless tank destroyer. The Tiger II was issued to heavy tank battalions of the Army (Schwere Heerespanzerabteilung – abbreviated s.H.Pz.Abt) and the Waffen-SS (s.SS.Pz.Abt). It was first used in combat with s.H.Pz.Abt. 503 during the Normandy campaign on 11 July 1944; on the Eastern Front, the first unit to be outfitted with Tiger IIs was the s.H.Pz.Abt. 501, which by 1 September 1944 listed 25 Tiger IIs operational.



World war 2 Top 10 Fighter Planes (Videos)

Published on Aug 14, 2016

World War II featured fighter combat on a larger scale than any other conflict to date. German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel noted the effect of airpower: “Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success.” Throughout the war, fighters performed their conventional role in establishing air superiority through combat with other fighters and through bomber interception, and also often performed roles such as tactical air support and reconnaissance. Fighter design varied widely among combatants. The Japanese and Italians favored lightly armed and armored but highly maneuverable designs such as the Japanese Nakajima Ki-27, Nakajima Ki-43 and Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Italy’s Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC.200. In contrast, designers in Great Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, and the United States believed that the increased speed of fighter aircraft would create g-forces unbearable to pilots who attempted maneuvering dogfights typical of the First World War, and their fighters were instead optimized for speed and firepower. In practice, while light, highly maneuverable aircraft did possess some advantages in fighter-versus-fighter combat, those could usually be overcome by sound tactical doctrine, and the design approach of the Italians and Japanese made their fighters ill-suited as interceptors or attack aircraft.During the invasion of Poland and the Battle of France, Luftwaffe fighters—primarily the Messerschmitt Bf 109—held air superiority, and the Luftwaffe played a major role in German victories in these campaigns. During the Battle of Britain, however, British Hurricanes and Spitfires proved roughly equal to Luftwaffe fighters. Additionally Britain’s use of radar and the advantages of fighting above Britain’s home territory allowed the RAF to deny Germany air superiority, saving Britain from possible German invasion and dealing the Axis a major defeat early in the Second World War.On the Eastern Front, Soviet fighter forces were overwhelmed during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa. This was a result of the tactical surprise at the outset of the campaign, the leadership vacuum within the Soviet military left by the Great Purge, and the general inferiority of Soviet designs at the time, such as the obsolescent I-15 biplane and the I-16. More modern Soviet designs, including the MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1, had not yet arrived in numbers and in any case were still inferior to the Messerschmitt Bf 109. As a result, during the early months of these campaigns, Axis air forces destroyed large numbers of Red Air Force aircraft on the ground and in one-sided dogfights. In the later stages on the Eastern Front, Soviet training and leadership improved, as did their equipment. Late-war Soviet designs such as the Yakovlev Yak-3 and Lavochkin La-7 had performance comparable to the German Bf-109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Also, significant numbers of British, and later U.S., fighter aircraft were supplied to aid the Soviet war effort as part of Lend-Lease, with the Bell P-39 Airacobra proving particularly effective in the lower-altitude combat typical of the Eastern Front. The Soviets were also helped indirectly by the American and British bombing campaigns, which forced the Luftwaffe to shift many of its fighters away from the Eastern Front in defense against these raids. The Soviets increasingly were able to challenge the Luftwaffe, and while the Luftwaffe maintained a qualitative edge over the Red Air Force for much of the war, the increasing numbers and efficacy of the Soviet Air Force were critical to the Red Army’s efforts at turning back and eventually annihilating the Wehrmacht. Meanwhile, air combat on the Western Front had a much different character. Much of this combat was centered around the strategic bombing campaigns of the RAF and the USAAF. Axis fighter aircraft focused on defending against Allied bombers while Allied fighters’ main role was as bomber escorts. The RAF raided German cities at night, and both sides developed radar-equipped night fighters for these battles. The Americans, in contrast, flew daylight bombing raids into Germany. Unescorted Consolidated B-24 Liberators and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers, however, proved unable to fend off German interceptors (primarily Bf-109s and FW-190s). With the later arrival of long range fighters, particularly the North American P-51 Mustang, American fighters were able to escort daylight raids far into Germany and establish control of the skies over Western Europe.

Remanufacturing a Packard V12 engine

Published on Mar 31, 2017

Restore Cars remanufactures all types of senior classic car engines of the 1930’s era. I have received many questions about the dyno numbers. Here are the numbers. The torque curve starts out at 436 and bottoms out at 320. HP starts out at 124 and steadily raises up to 197. All pulls were on a same line and very smooth throughout the RPM range. These are corrected numbers. Book value is stated at 175 HP peak. Sometime I will post all the runs on my website so you can see all the pulls. I’m not website say, so it may take a little while to get this done. Mark


America’s Worst Disaster | Fatal Collision Over New York City | United 826 and TWA 266

Published on Apr 18, 2019

Find out why United Airlines Flight 826 bound for JFK airport, collided with TWA flight 266 descending into New York’s LaGuardia Airport.