Would lowering speed reduce the price of gas and be an attack on terrorist and others making big money on oil?

In 1965 a display at the US Army Transportation School featured a new vehicle for all government agencies. This vehicle used water as a fuel. Over 1000 vehicles that use water as a fuel are on order today for the Army. A Fox News video clips below relates how a Ford Escort required 4 ounces of water for a 100 mile trip. It will take several years to get these vehicle on the market, but in the mean time we can save 15.6 % on fuel use by driving and flying just 20% slower. That will also save at least that percentage of lives on the highway and help stop the ';war.'; http://hytechapps.com/company/press





The next link mentions the first patent for using water as a fuel dated 1935.





http://www.lilybrookherefords.com/stef/w鈥?/a>








http://www.rexresearch.com/hyfuel/garret鈥?/a>





The link above confirms the 1935 patent for using water as a fuel. While not a success at the time, this early vehicle may have been near the start of this technology.Would lowering speed reduce the price of gas and be an attack on terrorist and others making big money on oil?
It's not really feasible unless we get other sources of energy as well (solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.). If you study chemistry and look more closely at your links and the process, you will see that cars don't run off of straight water. You can't just pour tap water into your gas tank and it'll run off the water.





Instead, the water has to under electrolysis first to get the hydrogen out and then the car runs off of hydrogen. The slight ';problem'; is that if you look at the chemical reactions, electrolysis is a very expensive process that takes quite a bit of energy. Where are you going to get that energy? You need other sources of energy if you need that fuel as mentioned above.





Reducing the speed limit to 55 mph like we did before would save some fuel, but knowing human nature, everyone is going to complain and people are going to drive at whatever speed they want anyway. I wouldn't mind because I don't need to drive since I take public transportation, but I'm sure plenty of motorists enjoy the feel of going really fast with their cars even though it wastes a bit of gas. That's just how the world is these days.Would lowering speed reduce the price of gas and be an attack on terrorist and others making big money on oil?
In 1965, I saw 1/4 to 1/2 scale Plexiglas model of a vehicle at the US Army Transportation School that used water and a battery as its total source of fuel. Report Abuse

of course
you have a great idea ....but think about it....why do most brand new cars can reach up to 120 mph....if the maximum speed limit is 70mph on interstate highways 75mph in like 4 states??? why would you want a car with 120mph capability when you are not allow legally to drive at that speed? it is all about money my friend ....if they were to make cars with a max power of 70 mph our own government would lose thousands of dollars in revenues from tickets.....this can be done yet there is no legislation for it..........it is all about money...Money makes the planet go around....just a saying....
While these efforts are conscious and worthy in consumption - big oil has a growing Asian and Indian market, that is worth 50 times the US market - and as a commodity fossil fuel - is limited in supply, while demand is always there. The ';raw'; oil of demand isn;t the key factoring in the price of a barrel of oil - it is traders who set the price through an open market of future consideration, therefore if Americans saved 50% of our consumtion - the demand is always there for a price per barrel to remain north of $75 and will continue to climb, as the open market dictates. Additional sources around the globe of oil discovery ';may'; be the only thing that offsets OPEC's and big oils hold on prices - but history has shown they all play together...