I think you mean to say that your uncle converted his car to use lower octane fuel. Petrol = gasoline (just a difference in terminology), but gasoline in the USA typically has a slightly lower octane rating. Regular unleaded gasoline in the USA ranges from 85 to 87 AKI, depending on region/altitude. This is equivalent to 90 to 91.7 RON. Premium gasoline in the USA ranges from 91 to 94 AKI, (95 to 98 RON).

Id guess you have a very conservative driving style, but if not then your car may be running too lean, which can cause issues as well. Mainly higher combustion temperatures, and increased chances of knock.

Easy. You don't try to weight the antimatter directly, you weigh the trap containing the antimatter and compare to the weight of an empty trap.

Actually, that would probably work pretty well. Insects are attracted to the light and become plant food.

If you wanted a series hybrid, (which is what you're describing), then you wouldn't want to build it on top of a parallel hybrid (which is what the Prius is). You'd be adding a bunch of unnecessary weight and redundant equipment.

A 2kw generator wouldn't be enough to power a Prius that's driving down the road, though I suppose you could use it to charge a Prius when it's sitting in the parking lot... but why?! A plug in Prius has a gas engine already, and it's probably more efficient and cleaner burning than the 2kw generator on the roof, so there would be no point.

Maybe there's some issues I've never heard of with regard to series hybrids, but it sounds to me like your series hybrid wasn't designed/engineered very well. Properly designed, a series hybrid should fairly easily outperform a parallel hybrid since the engine doesn't need to operate over a broad range of speeds. If your series hybrid was forcing the engine to run at variable speed, then yes, you aren't going to see much advantage.

Also, the caparison to trains is invalid, as trains generally aren't hybrids. I concede that there are a few true-hybrid trains out on the market, but in the vast majority of cases, diesel electric trains have a diesel engine powering a generator, from which cables run directly to the drive motors. This is used because it's more robust and less complicated than a mechanical transmission. Probably more efficient as well. But these trains do not store braking energy in a battery for later use, thus they are not hybrids. They just have an electric transmission.

Refining aluminum hydroxide back into pure aluminum requires a heavy industrial multistage process that would not be easily scaled down to something that would fit in your car. It's like suggesting that you should have a steel mill in your trunk. Not going to happen.

No... the distilled water is consumed by the reaction. The test cell apparently only has enough room for a certain amount of water, so you have to refill it every 200 miles or so. Presumably, one could build a larger reservoir and not have to refill the distilled water, but after 1000 miles, the aluminum is all used up and the cell has to be removed and replaced.

The article did say that they are also working on a zinc-air battery that is claimed to be rechargeable, but the aluminum air battery is not.

You're describing a local hidden variable theory. Local HVTs have been dis-proven in multiple experiments.

I assume you meant to reply to me. I wrote Central Europe exactly once. I guess that's a mantra... My point was about the distribution of population not just density. I guess you missed that. It's possible to have low average population density where people still live in fairly tight clumps. If so, then bus lines that feed the rail system become more efficient as they can stop once or twice in each clump/village, rather than randomly throughout the countryside, thus making the rail system itself more useful. That may not be the case in Finland, and you do appear to have a nicely developed and apparently self sufficient passenger rail system. So whatever you're doing is working. Congratulations on that. But that doesn't make my point invalid.

You could reverse that too: "If most people wanted cars instead of trains, we wouldn't need government funding to have more highways." Except that highways are heavily subsidized as well. I agree with you that I wouldn't give up my car for regular day to day traveling, but a decent passenger rail system would be awesome for medium distance travel.

For freight, it make sense that fedex and UPS don't use freight rail, because they work on short delivery time-lines, and that isn't what current freight rail is about. Freight rail, as it exists today, is best at transporting large quantities of non-perishable goods/raw materials. Iron ore, oil, grain, large machinery, steel, coal, etc. In that market, it's incredibly competitive. As it turns out, the US has one of the best freight rail networks in the world.

Also, if we did have a reliable high speed passenger rail network, fedex and UPS probably would be using trains, as many passenger trains also have a mail car for packages, etc.

I guess my point was that one can have a population density of say 20 people per square mile where nearly all live in a clump somewhere in that square mile, or you can have them spread out rather evenly throughout. Central Europe appears to be mainly like the former and the USA (and perhaps eastern Europe/Scandinavia) like the latter. The latter is a more challenging environment for mass transit. Not to say that it's impossible.

Presumably the fuel burn is calculated for maximum take-off weight, thus simplifying the fuel calculation to flight hours. The physics of flight require greater energy input for greater weight, so the plane does burn more fuel when fully loaded than when empty.

Well, how much does it take to build and maintain the interstate highway system? If we put anywhere near as much money into a rail system, we could have something actually usable, and we probably wouldn't need such massive highways.