If you’re wondering what your state or province’s license plate looked like 70 years ago, here’s a complete collection. This ad for Atlas Tires appeared 70 years ago today in the June 29, 1953, issue of Life Magazine.
Some links on this site are affiliate links, meaning that this site earns a small commission if you make a purchase after using the link.
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the death of Edsel Ford, as shown here in the May 26, 1943, issue of the Detroit Times. Ford died at the age of 49, having served as the President of Ford Motor Company. Upon his death, his father Henry Ford took over temporarily, until after a few months, Edsel’s son Henry Ford II took over.
Seventy five years ago this month, the March 1948 issue of Popular Science carried some pointers on safe driving, highlighted by this cover illustration captioned “This Can Happen to You.” They didn’t actually drive off the roof of a downtown parking ramp. Instead, the magazine noted that a head-on crash at the “safe” speed of 30 MPH was the equivalent of falling from a nine story building.
Happy Groundhog Day from OneTubeRadio.com!
If your car’s transmission is giving you problems today, perhaps it’s as explained in Gasoline Alley this day a hundred years ago. The image here is taken from the February 2, 1923, issue of the Casper (Wyoming) Daily Tribune.
Electric cars are nothing new, as shown by this one on the cover of Popular Mechanics fifty years ago, September 1972. (In fact, we previously showed you one from 1909.)
Electric motors have been extremely reliable for a long time, and they can develop high torque, even at zero RPM (which, incidentally, is why railroads now use them exclusively for moving trains). In addition, an electric motor will essentially last forever with little maintenance. And with the drive wheels driven directly by an electric motor, there’s no need for a transmission. (I still scratch my head and wonder why Toyota designed the Prius with a transmission, since it seems to me it would have been a lot easier and cheaper to drive the wheels directly, and use the gasoline engine solely for charging the battery.)
For over a hundred years, the limiting factor on electric vehicles has been the battery. All of the other parts are extraordinarily simple. It’s best to think of an electric car as being a battery, along with a few other parts, such as wheels, that make it move. So yes, when the battery dies, it probably means that the car is totaled. With internal combustion engines, the fuel tank lasts forever. But when the engine throws a rod after a few hundred thousand miles, then the car probably needs replacement. This is considered normal.
In 1972, however, this wasn’t quite the case. However, the battery had serious limitations. The car shown here is the Transit IV from Anderson Power Products of Bedford, Mass. (Yes, that appears to be the same company that makes Anderson Powerpole connectors, which have a nearly religious following.) The company was in talks with Avis to provide the vehicles for rental. The car had a range of 60 miles, making it useful for urban applications, although the magazine noted that it was not yet a replacement for vehicles to be driven on the road. It used twelve 12 volt lead-acid batteries, which could be charged in the vehicle, or removed. The recharging time was said to be 4-5 hours.
The $300 battery pack was said to be good for about 400 discharge cycles, or about 20,000 miles, which works out to a cost of about one cent per mile, plus, of course, the cost of the electricity. Since they were just garden variety lead-acide batteries, they were designed for replacement.
At the time, the magazine predicted that molten salt batteries would be the next development that would make electric vehicles practical for more application. It was actually the lithium-ion battery that was the breakthrough to make electric cars (and many other portable devices) practical or close to practical for most applications.
The editors did a road test of the vehicle. The first observation was that when the ignition is turned on, all is quiet, and only a small red light indicated that it was ready to go. The car reached its 65 MPH top speed in eerie silence, the only sounds being the whirr of the 20 HP DC motor and the hiss of the tires on the road. The editors concluded that “as an urban car it sure makes a lot of sense.”
Some links on this site are affiliate links, meaning that this site earns a small commission if you make a purchase after following the link.
Seventy-five years ago this month, this young woman undoubtedly took home the blue ribbon of the 1946 Science Fair with this experiment in which she constructed an electrostatic precipitator to fight air pollution. In the photo above, a column of smoke is rising. But the moment she flips the power switch on her precipitator, the smoke ceases. An electrostatic precipitator, known at the time as a Cottrell precipitator after its inventor Frederick Gardner Cottrell, removes particulate matter from the air through an electric charge, but does not affect the flow of gas. The same principle is used in home air purifiers such as this:
In the 1946 experiment, a column of polluted air passes through a mailing tube, where it passes through a high voltage electric field. Particulate matter clumps together as a result of the electric charge, and falls to the bottom of the tube.
We enjoy providing inspiration for projects such as these, and we hope modern school children can do the same experiments. And for this project, your young scientist will need the following items. Where available, we have provided links to Amazon:
As you see, Amazon no longer has all of the needed parts. The Model T spark coil is apparently out of production. And while this young woman had no problem bringing a pack of Chesterfields to school and nonchalantly lighting one up in the science classroom to show off her invention, it’s no longer 1946. If a kid did that today, they would probably get expelled. So if Junior wants to do this experiment today, some modification is necessary.
Fortunately, as long as your young scientist has some creativity, substitutions shouldn’t be a problem. In place of the cigarette, the original 1946 experiment allows for the use of an incense stick, and as long as Junior has the teacher’s permission, this shouldn’t be a problem.
The Model T spark coil, however, is a bit more problematic. The spark coil from a Model T was known as a trembler coil. The device was a transformer. To be able to operate with DC, the coil operated in interrupter: When voltage was applied to the coil, the magnetic field opened the contacts of the interrupter, which turned off the coil. With the coil off, the contacts closed, allowing the coil to re-energize. The result of this on-off action was an alternating current, and the voltage of this alternating current was stepped up to thousands of volts with the transformer.
The Model T spark coil remained in production for many years after the last Model T rolled off the assembly line, and many of them found their way into things other than cars. When this experiment was published in Popular Science in December 1946, there was apparently no question that if you wanted a Model T spark coil, that finding one wouldn’t be a problem. One popular use of the coil in the early days of radio was for use in a spark-gap transmitter.
But if you walk in to the parts counter of your local Ford dealer today, they probably don’t have them any more. (On the other hand, there are still Model T’s on the road, and if you want to buy a new spark coil, they are still being made, but they’re probably too expensive, such as this one.)
The advanced student should be able to build their own induction coil. They will need a transformer and a method of interrupting the current. Experimentation with a filament transformer and mechanical buzzer will probably prove fruitful. Our earlier post describing a spark coil should give the advanced student enough information to construct one that is essentially identical to the Model T version.
The school might already have the equivalent stashed away in the back room of the science lab, or you could convince the teacher to spend some of the science budget on one of these:
Some links on this site are affiliate links, meaning that this site earns a small commission if you make a purchase after clicking on the link.
Gasoline versus Ethanol
Shown above is a molecule of ethyl alcohol, also known as ethanol. If you ignite it with a spark, it will burn. This is not rocket science. (Come to think of it, though, if you use it as rocket fuel, then it is rocket science.) Gasoline (or petrol, as our friends across the pond like to call it) is a mixture of molecules, most of which look very similar to the one above. If you ignite it with a spark, it will also burn. The difference, however, is the “O“. Gasoline doesn’t have any oxygen atoms. To burn it, you need to supply all of the oxygen from another source. Fortunately, that’s easy to do, since we live in an atmosphere consisting partly of oxygen, and it’s free for the taking.
But this means that for a given amount of fuel, the ethanol will have less energy content: If you burn gasoline, you can use the free oxygen that is floating around. If you use ethanol, then you are paying for some of the oxygen, which you could have gotten for free.
For this reason, I’ve heard many people explain that you shouldn’t use ethanol as fuel, because your fuel mileage will be lower. But that’s not the end of the discussion: If you’re like me, you are really concerned about saving money, and your main concern is which fuel is cheaper.
A Real World Comparison Test
I’ve heard many persons express their opinion as to the relative fuel economy, but I’ve never heard anyone actually test it, so I decided to do so myself. I recently had to drive from St. Paul, MN, to Escanaba, MI, to do an FCC Great Lakes Ship Radio Inspection. I drove eastbound using e85, a mixture of approximately 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, and drove westbound with gasoline (which is actually e10, 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol). For the nitpickers, here are the conditions of the test:
To make sure I was able to purge almost all of the E85 from the system before the return trip, I tested the mileage from St. Paul, MN, to Marinette, WI, short of my final destination. I started with a full tank, and upon arriving in Marinette, I checked the cumulative mileage and then added about 6 gallons. I also added a few gallons in Escanaba, MI, about 56 miles away. When I arrived back in Marinette, I was down to about a quarter tank, at which point I filled with gasoline (actually, e10) for the trip home. So almost all of the e85 had been purged from the system for the trip home.
My vehicle is a 2014 Dodge Journey with the 3.6 liter 6 cylinder engine. The EPA estimated highway mileage is 25 MPG with gasoline, and 18 MPG with e85. The two endpoints have similar elevations (795 feet in St. Paul, versus 594 in Marinette). Winds on the day of my trip were light, and whenever I did see flags moving in the breeze, the prevailing wind seemed to be from the north. So there should be no effect from a headwind or tailwind. I took an identical route both directions, mostly over four lane freeways, but a small portion over county highways suggested by Google. In other words, the driving conditions both directions were more or less identical. The average mileage reading was taken from the car’s computer, which was reset after each fill-up.
The average mileage using e85 was 21.6 MPG. The average mileage using gasoline (actually e10) was 26.4 MPG. As noted above, the mileage with ethanol was lower, since the fuel has a lower energy content. The real question is which fuel is cheaper.
To make the comparison fair, I’ll use the prices at the same station, the one where I bought the e85: The e85 cost $2.229 per gallon. In other words, it cost me $2.229 to drive 21.6 miles, or 10.32 cents per mile. (I actually used a loyalty card, which brought the cost down to $2.029 per gallon, or 9.4 cents per mile).
The gasoline I bought for the return trip cost $3.239 per gallon, since one gallon allows me to drive 26.4 miles, that means I spent 12.3 cents per mile. But in fairness, if I had bought that gas for the eastbound trip at the same place where I bought the e85, it would have cost $3.099 per gallon, which works out to 11.7 cents per mile.
In other words, it was cheaper to drive using the e85: 10.3 cents per mile versus 11.7 cents per mile. In other words, the e85 is 12% cheaper than using gasoline.
It should be noted that these figures are based upon the price at one particular station, a Holiday gas station. You can view the current prices at this station at this link. Some gas stations sell e85, but at a much smaller discount over the price of regular gasoline. In fact, I’ve occasionally seeing a station inexplicably selling e85 for more than the price of regular gasoline. Obviously, it makes no sense to buy to buy there. To be economical, the price of e85 needs to be below 21.6/26.4 = 82% the price of regular gas. In my case, the price of e85 was 74% the cost, and thus a clear bargain.
Other Considerations
There are a couple of other factors to keep in mind. Even though the name of the fuel is “e85” the exact blend can vary. During the winter months, the gasoline content is higher, and I have noticed that stations do not adjust the price based upon the exact mix. So during the winter, the e85 might be an even greater bargain.
Also, I have not measured it, but I have noticed that when I have a mixture that is around 50% ethanol and 50% gasoline, I don’t notice much mileage difference between it and 100% gasoline. So even though the energy content is lower, the actual effect on mileage might not be linear. It would be interesting to repeat this experiment with different blends.
I’m not sure of this, but I suspect that for applications requiring more power (such as towing), gasoline would have a greater advantage. But again, I’ve not tested this hypothesis.
And you will certainly have more range using gasoline than you would ethanol. So if cost isn’t an issue, but you need to drive as far as possible before refueling, then you will be able to drive 22% further by using gasoline.
I suspect that ethanol might have a greater cost advantage for high altitude driving. The reason why there is a lower energy content is because the fuel contains oxygen, which is available at no cost from the atmosphere. At higher elevations, the additional oxygen in the fuel might be an advantage.
Precisely because it has a lower energy content, ethanol also increases the octane rating of the fuel, so it is an inexpensive option for use in high compression engines.
Ideas for Young Scientists
Interestingly, I exceeded the EPA mileage estimates for both fuels. There was a time when the EPA estimates were overly optimistic, but I guess those days are gone.
But Ethanol Will Clog My Fuel Filter!
Someone will invariably claim that ethanol clogs fuel filters, and I want to explain what is really happening. Alcohol can mix with both water and gasoline. Water, by itself, cannot mix with gasoline. If you have 100% gasoline in your tank and some water is added, it is heavier than gasoline and will settle to the sump at the bottom of the tank, which is below the point where it can be drawn out by the fuel pump. It doesn’t do any harm there, as long as it stays below the level of the fuel intake. But it does dissolve dirt, and that dirt has nowhere to go but stay in the water.
Eventually, if water keeps getting added, it will continue to collect. If it ever gets up to the level of the intake, then this will be a problem, since water mixed with dirt will be going to the engine rather than gasoline. The fuel filter will clean out the dirt, but the engine will try to burn the water, and water doesn’t burn.
When ethanol was first added to gasoline in the U.S., this meant that it found its way, for the first time, into cars with water in the bottom of the tank. The alcohol allowed the water and dirt to mix with the gasoline. The dirt, which may have collected since the car was new, went into the fuel filter, as the filter was designed to do. This is how ethanol got a reputation for clogging fuel filters.
Some links on this page are affiliate links, meaning that this site earns a small commission if you make a purchase after clicking the link.
Fifty years ago this month, the September 1971 issue of Elementary Electronics carried a feature describing a proposed system known as Electronic Route Guidance System (ERGS). While it was apparently never adopted, the system was tested in the Washington, D.C. area, and amounted to an early prototype of Google Maps.
he system would provide directions to your destination as you drove. It was ultimately envisioned as a nationwide system. The user would enter a 6-digit alphabetical code into the car’s unit. This code could be looked up in a directory (or provided by a person at the destination) and would represent one of up to four million destinations. As he or she drove along, the system would continually give directions of whether to go straight, turn right, or turn left. In many cases, the instructions would alert the driver to take the second right or the third left. Directions would be given on a heads-up display, such as shown at left, or on a unit mounted on the dashboard, as shown above.
This was all done long before the advent of GPS, and the position locating and storage of directions were elegantly simple. To service four million destinations, up to 200,000 intersections would have installed loop antennas under the pavement. Each loop antenna would be connected to a receiver and 2-watt transmitters operating on 170 and 230 kHz. Cars would be equipped with a similar system. As a car drove over a loop, a 230 kHz signal from the pavement would be detected by the car, and this would trigger the car to transmit its destination, in the form of a 25-bit binary code, on 170 kHz. This would be received by the pavement antenna. For each of the 4,000,000 possible destinations, the system would then have locally stored the proper direction to go to get to that destination. The pavement antenna would then transmit that information as a 16-bit signal, which would be displayed on the 16-element display shown at right. Only the needed segments would be lighted, allowing a wide variety of messages. 
The entire process would take 21.0-24.3 milliseconds. The system used on-off keying with a data transmission rate of 2000 bits per second. When the driver passed over the station closest to the final destination, the display would indicate “END.”
More technical details of the system can be found in this 1969 report of the Federal Highway Administration.
If a driver missed a turn, the system would be automatically self-correcting. At the next intersection equipped with a loop antenna, the system would show directions to the programmed destination, from that location.
Shown here, in the April 1921 issue of Popular Mechanics are members of Boy Scout Troop 2 of Maxwell, Iowa. While it probably wouldn’t comply with the current edition of the Guide to Safe Scouting, the scouts put together this automobile.
The gears, frame, and axles came from different makes of cars, but they managed to put them together in a perfectly serviceable fashion. The power plant was a damaged stationary engine (or we should say, formerly stationary) which they acquired for $10. The engine was bolted to an old automobile wheel, which transmitted the power to a long shaft, which was in turn geared to a normal drive shaft.
“Speed was sacrificed in favor of reliability,” and the vehicle was capable of 10 miles per hour. The car had recently made a round trip to the Iowa State Fair, where it was said to have created a sensation.
Here’s a snapshot of the cost of living from 80 years ago, on the eve of World War 2, from the April 16, 1941, issue of the Pittsburgh Press, courtesy of this ad for Western Auto Stores. (For a larger image, from most browsers, click twice on the image.)
According to this inflation calculator, one dollar in 1941 was the equivalent of $18.02 in 2021 dollars. Here are some representative prices, with the modern equivalent in parenthesis:
Western had its own brand of radios, Truetone. A portable, which could operate on battery or household current, sold for $14.45 ($260.39), not including the battery. A single-unit car radio, with pushbutton tuning, could be had for the same price. A three-piece unit sold for $27.95 ($503.66), which included installation. The six-tube set had a chassis that mounted out of the way, with separate control unit and speaker. Whichever car radio someone bought in 1941, there’s a good chance that they would be taking it inside to listen to when gas rationing meant the car spent most of its time in the garage.
Spark plugs would set you back a quarter ($4.50), but they were guaranteed for 10,000 miles. Fan belts started at 34 cents ($6.13). A new battery for the car would be $4.45 ($80.19) and was guaranteed for two years. A bicycle was $18.75 ($338), but if you needed just a tire, that was $1.62 ($29.20). Tires for the car started at $6.44 ($116.05), but they included a free tube. If you wanted to go fishing, a complete outfit could be had for just 98 cents ($17.66).
