Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power

And you can too if you want... for much less than the advertised price.


http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529


Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power
Stephen Leahy Email 11.15.05

Hundreds of semitrailer trucks zipping along North American highways are now powered in part by hydrogen. These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist.

These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution.

"We're saving $700 a month per truck on fuel," said Sherwin Fast, president of Great Plains Trucking in Salina, Kansas. The company tried the HFI system on four trucks and has ordered 25 more.

"Drivers like the increased power and noticed there is a lot less black smoke coming out of the stacks," said Fast.

HFI is a bolt-on, aftermarket part that injects small amounts of hydrogen into the engine air intake, said Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Steve Gilchrist. Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency.

While this is a very interesting add-on for boosting fuel efficiency, it's in no way "hydrogen power". Spinning it like that is just another attempt to put the sheeple back in their driving trance until the last gallon of diesel has been sold.

But what was I expecting, honesty in advertising? :shrug:

and a rather cheaply priced chlorine generator that uses electrolysis to make the chlorine and one of the by products is hydrogen gas and the module that has the plates in it that does this work is fed 6 volts dc and its not that expensive so I'm thinking about buying that part and making one of these hydrogen generators to try on my f150, as the only way for me to know for sure is to do the experiment myself and see what the results are. Back through the years I've done many experiments to find out how and what rather than just take someones word for it so the cost to me for doing this would be a drop in the bucket compared to what I've spent in my 63 years on educating myself about first one thing then the other.
Rec

http://www.fuelfromh2o.com/emissiontests.php


Even if you are not interested in fuel economy, consider the drastically lowered emissions factor for a cleaner environment. One of these tests was done on a 17 year old vehicle with over 170,000 original miles without any mechanical repairs or adjustments also a 13 year old vehicle w/296,000Km on the odometer in Australia.

Facts you should know...
It’s not the HHO that makes the engine run. It’s what the HHO does to the inefficient gasoline concerning combustion efficiency. Gasoline is but only 18% efficient on average when it comes to actual power produced by the combustion process. Adding an additional fuel and oxidizer "aka HHO" causes the inefficient gasoline to burn at a rate of better than 95% efficiency. That is what gives you the increased performance and horsepower and cleaner emissions from the gasoline which is now being supplemented by the HHO. It’s not the HHO; it’s what the HHO does during the combustion process to the gasoline. Simply explained, if you increase the efficiency of a fuel by supplementing it with an additive that enhances its production of energy thru combustion, it takes less fuel to do the same amount of work.

this morning in support of what you're trying to get across.
:hi: friend

it and you do have the book with all the instructions, and thanks again for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Entropy in terms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Thermal Efficiency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

Gasoline Engines can NEVER do better then 73% efficiency according to the Carnot theorem::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_%28thermodynamics%29

Please note, the Carnot Theorem assumes NO other loss of energy EXCEPT for the lost is transforming energy (in the above case, Gasoline) into heat. It ignores losses do to friction, movement of oil and water and every other part of an engine, thus overall Gasoline engines are about 35% efficient, in an ideal situation diesel can do 51%. That is the max, no where near 95% efficiency.

Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics assumes no other input, the problem is adding HHO (another way to write H20, Dihydrogen Monoxide, also know as DHMO, hydro-hydr­oxide, oxidane and Hydrogen Acid, all are possible scientific names for what most people call "Water", all are valid, and other names are possible) is adding HHO adds nothing to the level of energy, nothing to easing any loss do to friction, nothing to the whole issue of energy efficiency.

H20 is an inherently stable compound, it is the main source of Hydrogen in most processes that require Hydrogen (Such as plants converting Sun Energy into compounds to build the plant), it add NOTHING to the energy being made or used.

Thus the 95% efficiency is to high for any heat energy engine. Some of that number may be just do to the fact the test in question was in Canada, and thus the "savings" may be do to less need to provide heat to the engine and diesel fuel system during Cold Weather (I have my doubts as to this, but I will concede it is a possible reason, how I have no idea and maybe someone with better knowledge on the subject can correct me, i.e. either saying Water adding to Diesel does nothing in Cold Weather, which I suspect, or that it does keep such diesel liquid at lower temperatures then diesel alone, which I doubt).

My suspicion, is that whoever is doing the calculations is using some bad numbers, for example 1% efficiency increased to 2% efficient can be called a 100% improvement in Efficiency, 100% of 1 is only 1, thus doubling the efficiency can also be a 100% increase in efficiency if the base number is low. Somehow that error is creeping into the calculations and people are either ignoring it, or missing it. I have problem with the claim of 95% efficiency in any thermal engine (Through 95% increase in efficiency is possible, for example a 10% efficient engine increased to 19.5%, while well below the 35% efficient limit of the Carnot Theorem, would also be a 95% INCREASE in efficiency of that engine.

Something is wrong here, I do NOT know what, but something is. It may be the actual test, or just how it was reported, but something is wrong.

What they're saying is it increases the burning of gasoline from an 18% or so efficiency to burning of the gasoline at a 95% efficiency. Nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics nor the Carnot cycle. Read what is being said not what you seem to want to read into what they're saying. They're talking about the increase in the ability of the fuel to burn only.

Facts you should know...
It’s not the HHO that makes the engine run. It’s what the HHO does to the inefficient gasoline concerning combustion efficiency. Gasoline is but only 18% efficient on average when it comes to actual power produced by the combustion process. Adding an additional fuel and oxidizer "aka HHO" causes the inefficient gasoline to burn at a rate of better than 95% efficiency. That is what gives you the increased performance and horsepower and cleaner emissions from the gasoline which is now being supplemented by the HHO. It’s not the HHO; it’s what the HHO does during the combustion process to the gasoline. Simply explained, if you increase the efficiency of a fuel by supplementing it with an additive that enhances its production of energy thru combustion, it takes less fuel to do the same amount of work.

Under the Second Law of Thermodynamics the best you can hope for in any oil powered engine is 73% efficiency, NOT the 95% being claimed in the article. The Carnot Theorem is THE MAX EFFICIENCY of any engine using HEAT as an driving force. In real life it is impossible to even get close to that limit, and 95% EXCEEDS that limit. Thus my point this is either a out and out Fraud OR a miscalculation of HOW the 95% efficiency was determined (i.e. 95% improvement of a 10% efficient engine is an engine with a 19.5% efficiency NOT an engine with 95% efficiency). I suspect both (i.e. A Fraud playing with numbers to loot more impressive, and then leaving misstatements uncorrected).

In real life Gasoline engines tend to have a maximum of 35% efficiency, Diesel 51% (And either rarely get close to those numbers, thus the 18% used in your text typed in bold). The reason for the difference being that Diesel uses injectors and thus permit burning at higher temperatures then Gasoline and thus greater efficiency. Neither number violate Carnot's Theorem, but a 95% efficiency does by at least 22 percentage points.

at a 95% efficiency. Big difference if you'd only read you'd see that. Surely you can comprehend what they're saying and its not what you're trying to say they are. They do not say that the engine is operating at a 95% efficiency only that the gasoline is burning at that percentile.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1251676

One good aspect of that report is it clearly shows that there is no violation of the Rules of Thermodynamics at work AND it still helps, but only 4%. That is a LARGE improvement given that most vehicles are using Engines of only 18% efficiency.

The Actual Study:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Guidelines-H2-Fuel-in-CMVs-Nov2007.pdf

Page 11 of that report contains the following Language:

1.2.3 Hydrogen Injection Systems
A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces small amounts of hydrogen and
oxygen on demand by electrolyzing water carried onboard the vehicle. The electricity required is supplied by the engine’s alternator or 12/24-volt electrical system (see Section 1.5 for a description of electrolysis). The hydrogen and oxygen are injected into the engine’s air intake manifold, where they mix with the intake air. In theory, the combustion properties of the hydrogen result in more complete combustion of diesel fuel in the engine, reducing tailpipe emissions and improving fuel economy (CHEC, n.d.). Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use and a 7 percent reduction in particulate emissions with the system on (ETVC, 2005).

A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces and uses significantly less hydrogen than a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE, and does not require that compressed or liquid hydrogen be carried on the vehicle. The system is designed to produce hydrogen only when required, in response to driver throttle commands. When the system is shut-off, no hydrogen is present on the vehicle.

I don't have to look at shit to know where the power for the electrolysis is coming from. That necessary power is less than what it takes to light one headlight. The point you seem to be not able to grasp is its not that the burning of the minute amount of hydrogen itself is causing the power increase but by adding the hydrogen to the fuel mixture causes the fuel to burn more thoroughly. What is so difficult in that? The thing when you add nitrous to the mixture it allows you to burn more gas to get more power from the engine but with nitrous in gasoline engines it causes a decrease in MPG but you'd got gobs more power. This is making the fuel mixture in the combustion chamber burn at a higher temperature for a more complete burn for more power, hence better MPG

The added power from a nitrous injection setup is coming from the huge amount of added gasoline you have to add to the engine or you fry the pistons. nitrous is like adding more air so you can add more gas so you get a bigger bang and more power, not a whole lot different than using a blower or turbo to stuff more air into the engine, completely different than what is happening with the hydrogen injection.

Again there is no violation of the rules of thermodynamics going on here.
forest, trees, trees, forest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B

There is no reason that 18 wheelers can't do the same. Stop the Hydrogen Scam!

It takes 3 x the energy to use Hydrogen in a vehicle than a pure battery electric vehicle, mile per mile. The link above proves it can be done as a Diesel Electric and no H2 scam is necessary!

Thats the same as a train locomotive, a Diesel/Electric drive. Nothing in what you posted is even remotely related to the subject at hand. What the studies are showing is an increase in fuel economy due to the HHO creating the atmosphere for a cleaner more powerful burn. Hence the increased mpg and power gain.
Having said that I think we should have been building our autos and trucks with a ICE/Electric drive and should have been doing it that way all along rather than the mechanical drive that is used on our vehicles today. Apparently you are blind to new technology as this post shows. This is not substituting HHO for diesel or gasoline it is being used to create a more complete cleaner burn that results in more power at the wheels which in turn shows up at the gas/diesel pump in less fuel used for the same amount of work done. I brushed it off as crackpot science until this company that HD links to have provided real numbers to put up and a customer who substantiates those numbers. Now I'm beginning to think that there may be something there after all.
As I was saying earlier we have a chlorine generator in our pool that one of the by products of creating that chlorine is hydrogen gas and if what I've read is correct the unit that actually does the work is the same unit that could be used for making HHO without the chlorine if it is used for that purpose only by leaving out the salt in the water and it uses 250 watts of electric total that includes the transformer that drops the voltage from 120 volts AC to 6 volts DC and powers the electronics that controls the timing and control of this unit. That transformer gets quite hot so some of that 250 watts used is being wasted there. In the case of an auto or truck that wasted heat wouldn't be necessary as the unit could be designed to use the 12 or 24 volts DC that cars and trucks use without having to reduce it to 6 volts DC. Observing the gas stream coming out I can see that there would be enough Hydrogen gas being made to possibly have an effect on an ICE. The added load on the electrical system of a vehicle would be less than the lighting of one headlight.
I've collected that gas stream coming out of the chlorine generator and it is indeed rather explosive. The chlorine part is absorbed by the water treating the water in the pool but the hydrogen gas is simply left to rise to the surface to be wasted into the atmosphere. I'm just happy I just collected a small amount of the gas as it would have been very dangerous if I had not.

Why do you do that? I don't think you're stupid but I do wonder what your motivation is. Is it because you don't understand what is being said here or is it you just want to derail an otherwise worthwhile discussion. NO one here is saying to replace gas or diesel with hydrogen what is being said is by adding a tad of hydrogen to the fuel mix it changes the whole combustion process.

Did you ever see "Arnold" drive his Hydrogen Hummer up to the fake H2 pump, someone else "filled 'er up" then Arnold drove the H2 Hummer about a block, then got into his gasoline powered hummer.

Dubya threw billions of dollars into hydrogen fuel cell research and we have received absolutely zero from it. During the "Dubya" years, Hydrogen was swimming in taxpayer dollars while electric cars received nothing (or next to nothing). To me, it doesn't matter where the H2 comes from. It *always* takes more energy to produce and contain the H2 than any benefit derived from it.

To aid you in your understanding, please google hydrogen hoax.

Used in Europe for decades, till the price of oil became to cheap. Still used in certain off-road mines for large trucks. Most European use ended in the 1950s and 1960s, but in the Former Soviet Union still used more then the norm outside of Russia and the former Warsaw Pact countries. Only used on streets that also used Trolley-Buses. I.e. on the same line as the trolley buses either keep the road clean or maintain the road and/or overhead electric lines OR have a place to pull over so regular trolley-buses could get by (Which can be done by simply pulling the dual trolley poles down so any trolley bus behind the truck could drive around the truck using the overhead lines, one of the few advantages of Trolley-buses over traditional streetcars)

http://englishrussia.com/2007/03/05/electic-powered-trucks-in-russia/

To this day "Trolley-Trucks" are still being used in various strip mines throughout the world, the overhead powered "Trolley Trucks" could go twice as fast up steep grades as diesel powered trucks of the same size. This was do to the fact that the electric engines could provide more power to the wheels on such steep grades. Hybrids can NOT match that speed, for such vehicles are limited by the ability to generate electricity, in overhead powered system no such limitation exists (The only limit being the ability of the electric engine to draw from the overhead lines, most lines are of high enough voltage so that is rarely a limitation).

Some people have proposed that we convert most trucks to hybrids WITH the capacity to use overhead wires on steep grades. This would permit such vehicles to go faster up such grades AND minimize the initial investment is overhead wires (i.e. Steep grades would get the overhead wires first and then flatter areas later). Many modern Trolley Buses have embraced this concept, having small electric generators installed to provide power to brief time period to go beyond areas where overhead electric wires exist.

Please note, electric powered vehicle (NOT hybrids) can last twice as long as Diesel or Gasoline powered vehicles. The main reason is the Electric Motor are very simple and thus can last for decades after any gasoline or Diesel engine either need a complete re-haul OR replacement.

Siemen advocating using "Trolley Assist" for off road mining trucks:
http://www.sea.siemens.com/us/Industry_Solutions/Mining/mining-solutions/Pages/Trolley-Assist-Haul-Trucks.aspx

http://www.leonardo-energy.org/trolley-trucks-steep-mining-slopes


Here is a 2008 Picture of a Trolley Truck in the Ukraine:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ab_trolleybus_01.jpg

2005 Photo of a Trolley Truck in Bryansk Russia:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freight_trolleybus_TG-08_in_Bryansk.jpg

2006 Photo of Trolley Truck in St. Petersburg Russia:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SPB_freight_trolley.jpg

Trolley Buses, Seattle is looking at replacing their ancient Trolley buses with New Trolley buses with axillary power source, i.e. a small diesel generator that will be used rarely):
http://thesunbreak.com/2011/04/20/metro-may-stick-with-electric-trolley-bus-with-benefits/

If you can read German, here is a German Cite advocating a return to Trolly-Trucks on the Autobahn:
http://trolleytruck.eu/

Here is a Computer translation of the above cite:

Trolley Truck | Transport System of the Future

For us, the idea and implementation of this "idea" to the trust and the re-orientation of our future generations and primarily to the continued dominance of Germany as an innovative environment developing country No. 1 in the world.
The idea Trolley Truck

.. Based on the dual-mode drive fossil fuel in combination with power for commercial vehicles on highways. On the top view, you will learn very quickly the effectiveness and economic efficiency of logistics revolution.

The trolley truck is used on highways. The future utility vehicle is operated with dual-mode electric motor and konvetionellem. At the entrance to the highway, the driver stands by touch sensor at the current collector and couples during this slow ride to the power line that is installed along the highway by masts. When leaving the highway, the driver the pantograph moves in the opposite way down again and reaches the target by conventional operations or via electric motor with auxiliary batteries that can be automatically recharged while driving on the top line (reach up to 100 km).


The system trolley truck OUTLINE
(According to patent AZ: 102008032226.1-32):

"With overhead lines and electric motor is electrically driven truck (in addition to conventional propulsion (diesel engines, etc.)."

Function:

A trolley truck is built like a trolley bus, driven by one or more electric motors and two pole current collector required for the drive power from the two-pole on the street (highway) stretched overhead line (direct current) refers.



The current collectors are pressed by strong spiral springs on the train overhead lines. A trolley truck also has an internal combustion engine as an auxiliary engine. This makes it possible to continue on without the power from the catenary. Remedy for the conventional operation would be by installing auxiliary batteries that are charged from the catenary, possible and feasible ...

Economic & ecological balance:

The running performance of a trolley trucks is due to less wear in the drive system than those of diesel vehicles, the maintenance is so much cheaper.

The trolley truck will be in the future, mainly because of the impending energy crisis in the near future on the fossil fuel sector is an important freight transport, and the capacity of the western economy and to promote and maintain. The resulting independence from oil-exporting countries also guarantees the independence and prosperity of future generations.

An average truck consumes these days with average load of 60 liters per 100 km = 85 € for a diesel price of 1.40 € per liter. In highway driving reduces the cost of pure power consumption to 40 € per 100 km.

In addition, the current collector technology for many other purposes be used, such as solar energy, radio towers, etc. This would include the exposure of the population decrease in the use of media technology ...
Benefits trolley truck:

1. The ecological balance of the economy in emissions would improve by a quantum leap - the reduction of CO ² emissions as per survey!

2. The economics of the logistics sector in Germany / Europe is more efficient. With the all-German installation of power lines and the innovative implementation of the dual-mode drive in the car industry will create thousands of new and sustainable jobs. Moreover billion € are generated from sales.

3. The innovative trolley truck marked and reinforces the supremacy of Germany in the environmental sector.

4. The overall economy, ie small, medium and large companies benefit from the huge cost savings. The logistics section, with 2.6 million employees in Germany's third largest industry, would relieve long term and would also receive an important way forward, both economically and economically.

5. The new economic field opens up large companies contract opportunities all over the world.

6. The additional electric motor increases the life of the utility vehicle considerably, because the request diminishes in the conventional operation many times.

7. In the long term progressive independence from fossil fuels.

8. The safety aspect is increasing enormously, since overtaking lorry on the motorway will be a thing of the past (automatic distance control, automation, etc.)

9. The private road will be considerably relieved - the growing congestion problems eliminated - further expansion of highways can be reduced - cost savings in many areas ...

10. The economic efficiency in the transport of goods is optimized and consumers benefit from cheaper prices for consumers.

11. Multiple use of existing installations by other digital innovation or energy, as solar technology, telephone, radio, TV etc.

12. Reducing air pollution by environmentally friendly energy technology. Linked to this is the increasing expansion of the full range of primary energy, including renewable energy, which in turn enables emerging industries best prospects.

Idea of ​​Access:
Christian Dumitru | Blumenstr. 271b | 86 633 Neuburg / Donau
Phone 08431-42836 | Fax 08431-42853
E-mail: info@brennessel.com

Trolley Truck ® is a registered trade mark: RegNr: 302008058481.5
Trolley Truck ® is a registered patent: Patent AZ: 102008032226.1-32

This site is a beta that is, coming soon the official site online

Sure beats breathing the particulates and poison coming from diesel trucks today.

And if you don't know that then nothing else you say I care to read. OK

Wikitionary defines motors as:
A machine or device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, or imparts motion
a small internal combustion engine, especially a powerful one for the size (as in motorboat, motor car)
an electric motor
Synonyms: engine
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motor

Wikipedia defines Engines as follows:
(engineering) A device to convert energy into useful mechanical motion, especially heat energy
Synonyms: motor
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/engine

Please note I did edit out other definitions of both terms as not relevant to this discussion.

As you can see, both terms are almost interchangeable, the term "engine" is older and of wider use. The term "Motor" is newer (The term "motor" has only been used the early 1800s as oppose to Greek and Roman Times for the Term "Engine").

As to electric Motors NOT being engines, if we accept Wikipedia definition of Engines, then electric Motors are engines for both terms are used for devices that convert energy to useful motion.

Wikipedia solution to this almost interchangeability of definition is to define them together, which is not a bad solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine

Even wikipedia acknowledge the term "motor" came into use only to show that the early gasoline engines where different from earlier Steam Engines, thus Internal Combustion Engines were referred to as "motors" instead of engines, but most mechanics to this day use the terms interchangeably.

When it comes to Electric "Motors" Wikipedia shows it was a term used in the early 1800s only for electric devices, it is from this use of the term "motor" that the term Automobile Motor came from to show it was more "Modern" then old fashion Steam Engines, and thus the term "Gasoline Motor" and "Diesel Motors" were invented, used and are still in use.

Thus your argument is on very thin ice, one of disagreeing with terms most people use interchangeably and that fact is acknowledge by most people.

an engine is internal powered, a motor is external powered. Only people who don't know what they're talking about call an electric motor an engine. Its as simple as that..
No one I know or have ever met who calls themselves a mechanic confuses the two. As I said Wiki's ass. Wiki is to be taken with a grain of salt, not as definitive so that shows me you have no clue there either. I might link to something in wikipedia but only as conformation of something thats happened not as what something is.
An electric motor, a gasoline engine. A steam engine is called an engine because the expansion of the steam that is the prime mover is inside the cylinder pushing the piston. A sterling engine is called an engine for the same reason as a steam engine is called an engine.

There is nothing now or novel about generating Browns Gas on a moving vehicle. And one testimonial that he is saving fuel from trucks that produce visible black smoke? Which other than at cold startup, is a sign that the injectors need to be cleaned.

No patent protection and not adopted by Caterpillar or Wartsilla? Countless previous scams claiming great savings from HHO aka Browns Gas. Going to take alot more Certified Data to convince me.

GM, and others choose the simple way to do things..... maybe.

I understand what they, your post, are claiming but why can't these supposedly smarter people than this dumb old okie can't see that is beyond me. Just because these other manufacturing companies don't get it or aren't on board doesn't change a thing either.

worldwide manufacturer of products xyz and he did say (after I pushed the Cat generator file under his nose and told him THIS IS THE FUTURE) that they were "working along these lines". As far as I am concerned they are a day late and a dollar short after seeing the crap glued onto todays diesel engines, it is like something out of a Steven King flick. Makes me want to hide under the bed. Glad you get it, too bad about the others though. As was often said in The Sopranos, "What can you do? What can you say?".

Now that I do get it I'm with you 100% where as before I wasn't. I was nothing but a thorn in your side so to speak. Today we're on the same page on this HHO injection improving the quality of the burn so more power is made so less fuel is burned with an increase in work done for the same amount of cost.

But I'm just a dumb guy who has very poor penmanship so I'm to not be taken seriously by the more educated or thats what some seem to want to think. Its their loss not mine. As I've admitted so many times my writing leaves a lot to be desired but that doesn't define who I am or what I know or understand.

before anyone goes too far claiming it is impossible, it was claimed quite vehemently that you couldn't sail dead downwind, at a velocity faster than the wind itself. But you can.

It's been done. Violated everything people expected with years of personal sailing experience, sailboat design, and centuries of knowledge to draw upon. But you CAN sail directly downwind, faster than the steady state wind. When it came up, people kvetched about it violating thermodynamics, or being another perpetual motion hoax, but it violates nothing, nor is it perpetual motion, fake or otherwise, as it requires energy input (wind) to make it go.

Without further adieu:

http://jalopnik.com/5556198/wind+powered-car-proves-internet-naysayers-wrong

http://learningcomputation.com/blog/2008/12/counter-intuitive-science.html