Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80

Thread: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozmultis View Post
    What is it with you yanks and Kool-Aid. (and yes I know all about Jim Jones blah blah blah and it wasn't kool aid apparently it was some other brand)

    Where it involves governments and conspiracies, I have always faithfully believed in my Government.

    Believed that they are too stupid to organise and carry out a reasonable conspiracy.

    I'm not sure what name to call an Ozralite that is equal to the insult of calling a Texan a 'yank'. It's like calling a Scot an Englishman.

    Let me work on it.
    Tropical island life in the Devil's Triangle.
    http://2gringos.blogspot.com/

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    548

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gringo View Post
    I'm not sure what name to call an Ozralite that is equal to the insult of calling a Texan a 'yank'. It's like calling a Scot an Englishman.

    Let me work on it.
    This is gonna be good,

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stratford upon Avon
    Posts
    3,380

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gringo View Post
    I'm not sure what name to call an Ozralite that is equal to the insult of calling a Texan a 'yank'. It's like calling a Scot an Englishman.

    Let me work on it.

    No, the English would not like that. Probably the yanks wouldn't either.

    But an Ozralite - ooooh - they just hang around in eucalyptus trees don't they????????????????

    Mike
    Nothing works on an old boat, except the skipper.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    An Ozralite? Hey!! I like that--

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,154

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Banks View Post
    Soon on-board sewage treatment systems (of which chlorine are among the most practical) will be mandatory--in parts of Australia they already are.
    Which states, I know of none, for private recreational vessels. What is mandatory is the non discharge of unmacerated vessel sourced sewerage.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozmultis View Post
    Which states, I know of none, for private recreational vessels. What is mandatory is the non discharge of unmacerated vessel sourced sewerage.
    Type I and II MSDs (any system that dumps treated sewage overboard) are already illegal in virtually any fresh water lake and most rivers. Most coastal states have significant no discharge zones which prohibit discharge from any onboard treatment system. Most of these systems use maceration followed by disinfection with chlorine. There are so many no discharge zones that they are becoming impractical. Specific states on the east coast include Florida, North Carolina, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. There may others of which I am unaware. I have a holding tank which is legal in any of the coastal waters, but because it even has an option for pumping overboard it's not legal in the great lakes and most other inland waters. So I get to pump it into any number of municipal sewage systems which have even a worse record than do the onboard systems or into septic tanks.

    People with onboard treatment systems are installing holding tanks so they can store the waste onboard while traveling through all of the no discharge zones.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Web Need a new topic for this.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    709

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    [quote=Gringo;51799]How about the conspiracy to completely cover up what happened to TWA flight 800? When your own government lies to you and lots of people die, I think that conspiracy means something.

    Really Gringo? Flight 800? Tell me you're just trolling...

  9. #49

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    No. I wasn't trolling. There were a lot of eyewitnesses to what happened to that airplane. I was involved with the search, and talked to one guy who saw it first hand, and two other guys who told me they knew at least a dozen eyewitnesses.

    Eyewitnesses described the flame and vapor trail from the surface of the ocean that streaked up and hit the TWA flight, which was flying normally until that moment. When it exploded.

    The guy I met at the FBO ( I flew a part down to oceaneering during the search in a Cessna 172 I rented on Cape Cod) was in the pattern doing touch and go's and he said he saw it as clear as could be and that he well knew what a SAM looked like. He had zero doubt that the plane was shot down with a missle.

    Laugh all you want. That's exactly what the government wants.

    You probably believe bin Laden is dead, too.
    Last edited by Gringo; 5th August 2012 at 07:58 PM.
    Tropical island life in the Devil's Triangle.
    http://2gringos.blogspot.com/

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    709

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Sorry, Gringo. You picked up a bad grape at the internet buffet. I was one of those government folk you think did the "coverup". Those same witnesses were key to our understanding of the events that were confirmed by the flight data recorders, wreckage distribution and land-based radars. You can read the factual report somewhere on line if you are open-minded enough to to test this conspiracy theory.

    If you ever had much exposure to us government science types, you would find all these coverup stories hilarious. There are way too many renegades, realists, and rugged individualists among us for something like that to float. One simple fact blows all that poo right out the window: Whistle-blowing is a very, very rewarding way to fame and fortune, with a fat government retirement, and lots of residuals. I myself would have gladly taken a shot at that if there was any way to prove it or even partially substantiate any of those conspiracy claims.

    And no, the science behind the findings of the NTSB aren't simple enough to explain in a few words, but I'll try:

    The low order explosion in the center fuel tank (ignited by a short outside the tank sending a high voltage through a low voltage fuel sensor circuit) blew the nose off the aircraft.* The Center of gravity shifted aft, the plane shot straight up trailing fuel, hydraulic fluid and oil until the first engine flamed out, followed in seconds by the others, and appearing to most of the ground based eye witnesses to be a missile. Their attention was drawn by the sound of the explosion, miles away, so most of them did not see the 747 prior to the event. What they saw and described began seconds after the initial events.

    The sad, simple truth behind the rampant conspiracy theories lays the blame on the FBI. As in any accident initially reported with suspicious circumstances ("airplane blows up") We (the NTSB ) show up first and begin the preliminaries of the investigation, but the FBI takes over to determine if a crime was committed. They, unfortunately, made a few too many grandstand plays for media attention, and kept them going for eleven (?) days. The press picked up the terrorist twist, and kept that slant in their reporting while we sat on our hands. For lack of anything better to do, conspiracy theorists all piled into the internet bus for a love fest. Once started, conspiracy theories are self perpetuating. Any attempt to explain the science and reality of a factual investigation is immediately seen as confirmation of a cover up, just as the FBI withdrawing from the scene was seen as a behind-the-scenes agreement to play it down.

    Rarely have these urban myths been stopped in their tracks. The best one I remember had to do with MacDonald's padding their hamburger meat with worms. That went away in very short order when MacDonald's pointed out that worms cost more than beef.

    So I don't really think you will give up this tasty cover-up theory based on any objective factual evidence, and I might even be perpetuating the myth by replying, but

    It's just not true.


    *We recovered most of the aircraft and did a very expensive (had to get extra money out of Congress, a bad move) reconstruction placing parts in their pre-separation locations. There is good science behind examining the tears and rips in these structures, and they all indicated a slow pressure wave typical of a fuel explosion, and no evidence of a rapid pressure wave found in high explosives such as a bomb or missile.
    The origin of the explosion was accurately mapped to the forward tank, and the ignition sequence was finally mapped almost a year later, through some intensely focused research. Plane-o-Saurus Rex is I believe still being used as a training aid at the new NTSB School near Dulles in DC. Look as hard as you want, you won't see a missile-sized hole leading to that tank

    While the final results took a year to present, they were suspected, among a host of other scenarios, in the first week of the investigation. But they could not be proven. In the old days, one of the original group of crusty old investigators might have stood up and claimed it, and there would never have been such a popular feeding frenzy of conspiracy theorists. Sigh.

    Last fact. I taught Witness Interviewing at the Board when I ran the School while it was still in Oklahoma. The FBI calls the same course Witness Interrogation. Note the distinction. few ground witnesses have the vocabulary to describe aircraft movement. They don't know the difference between roll and pitch, they don't have the experience to describe engine noises well, and as a result, they pick up and misunderstand these terms when they talk to others after the accident. The longer it takes a trained investigator to get to them, the more confused or garbled their recollection of the event becomes. After a few days, their recollection has been changed, and hardened by everyone who talked to them earlier. It is extremely important that witnesses be interviewed early by someone trained to not put words in their mouths, or tell them what REALLY happened, but to get the best information they can provide in ways that bypass vocabulary, (using airplane models) referencing location and altitudes against trees or buildings. The NTSB interview is more productive because it is non-threatening compared to an FBI interrogation, not misleading as many media interviews looking for spicy tidbits, or worse as in the case of someone who has something to prove.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Thanks for outlining the government's explanation for what happened, and yes, I did read what I could find that's online. I don't see where it addresses the eyewitness accounts of a streak of flame originating at the sea surface, traveling up to the aircraft, and then exploding. But I am positive that somewhere there exists a government document designed to address that situation. I'd like to see it. The thought of a stream of volatile fuel holding coherently together from the aircraft to the sea surface at several hundred miles an hour seems interesting. That was one of the things being described that I was wondering about. How do you get a streak of flame through the air under those circumstances. I had a mental image of a water pistol in a wind tunnel.

    Of course I had an interest in it after my experiences and personal involvement at the time. It was a pretty big deal for us that I was able to rent a Cessna and get the replacement hydrophone down to LI in few hours. We had a lot of things going on with Oceaneering, and they appreciated the response.

    The guy I spoke to told me that he was flying in the pattern and was looking directly ahead and at the explosion when it happened within his field of view. He was a pilot, working on his instrument rating, meaning that he could, indeed, tell the difference between pitch and roll. The crash was of course the main topic of conversation there at the FBO while I was waiting for Oceaneering to come pick up their parts. All of my information came from one eyewitness and two other people who had been talking to other eyewitnesses. I didn't question his military background, but came away with the impression that he had first hand experience with SAMs. All in all, he struck me as professional, experienced, intelligent, level headed, and at that time, totally convinced of what he witnessed.

    I didn't make up any conspiracy theories on it. I noted the huge difference between what eyewitnesses reported, and what the government says happened. Someone says that they saw a missle. The Government says 'no, you did not see a missle'.
    Last edited by Gringo; 6th August 2012 at 07:56 PM.
    Tropical island life in the Devil's Triangle.
    http://2gringos.blogspot.com/

  12. #52

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Sandy, thanks for your post. I have no knowledge (or recollection) of the incident being referred to but I do have experience of being involved in an investigation into the cause of a fatal (x3) mid-air collision between two gliders. Although not in the same league as the loss of a commercial passenger carrying aircraft, there were similarities with your experience regarding witnesses. There were numerous witness statements taken and, as you say, the differences between pilot and non-pilot witness statements were significant.

    My experiences led to a perhaps morbid interest in the human factor element of accidents. One of the things that surprised me was the relatively poor performance of the human eye and that the brain fills in the gaps of what we actually 'see', based on previous experience of how the same or similar things behave. What we sometimes 'know' we see, turns out to be nothing of the kind. The less experienced the person in whatever the subject is, the less their account of an unexpected event can be relied upon. If they are also in shock then things get even more hazy.

    I'm not taking sides re: conspiracy/non-conspiracy - I'm just saying that sometimes the facts are not the same as what we see, and vice versa.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    709

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Britain's Cranfield University has taught hundreds of professional Aircraft Accident Investigators over the last thirty years. I'm told that some time ago forty students were at an airport as part of their training, and witnessed a general aviation accident. The instructor had the presence of mind to have each of them immediately write down exactly what they saw.
    There were forty different descriptions.
    In my own classes I showed a video of an accident sequence, and got the same range of responses from my students, who were all highly experienced aviation specialists; pilots, engineers, forensic scientists.
    In India, 10 blind men were introduced to a placid elephant... and so on.
    A good interviewer tries to get as close to the raw original experience as possible to get what a witness saw or heard BEFORE the logical mind finds a comfortable explanation, and before the experience gets influenced by others. No witness is right or wrong when they recall the scene. Its in the second telling that interpretation replaces the confusion.
    When a cub reporter points a microphone at a farm wife and asks if she thought the aircraft stalled, she is likely to think about her car stalling. And when a pilot thinks he saw a SAM 16 miles away, he either has better vision than a telescope, or has let his rational mind substitute an acceptable explanation.
    And, apparently, many people pick and chose explanations to fit their value system. I think this is most likely to happen with those who have a more rigid world view, where "being right" outweighs "getting it right."

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    709

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    p.s.
    Just an example: I was the NTSB Chairman of the Witness group in the investigation of Delta 191 at Dallas. We hit the road early the next morning in groups to quadrants around the accident site. We got good clear statements from everyone we talked to for two days, and issued public calls for more witnesses. By day four, we were hearing what was coming from the Press Circus* rather than personal observations, and we were getting dozens of village idiot reports about mind control, secret weapons from a neighbor's back bedroom, and of course, conspiracy theories.

    I worked for the government for 30 years, and never met or heard of any civil servant who could call down a microburst.

    *Press Circus: a group employed to find something alarming or titilating in the most mundane if tragic circustances. The theory is to find a new smoking gun every day, and to get it from the next available talking head.

    p.p.s. OK, so I got sucked in by Gringo. I appologize for hijacking this thread!

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stratford upon Avon
    Posts
    3,380

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Sandy. I'm glad you hijacked it. You expressed standard evidential theory and practice far better than I could. It is also basic barrister training material.

    The catchphrase when I was first taught this at school was that "A person doesn't see both sides of a coin".

    Mike
    Nothing works on an old boat, except the skipper.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Thanks, again, Sandy. Fascinating stuff. As the crow flies I live about 5 miles away from Cranfield University and used to visit the airfield for the PFA rally (as it was called then).

  17. #57

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    [quote=Sandy Daugherty;52364]
    Quote Originally Posted by Gringo View Post
    How about the conspiracy to completely cover up what happened to TWA flight 800? When your own government lies to you and lots of people die, I think that conspiracy means something.

    Really Gringo? Flight 800? Tell me you're just trolling...

    REALLY Sandy? Flight 800? Tell me you still feel you have any credibility in this....

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18...laim-original/

    or if you don't like Fox News:
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/twa-crash-claim/
    Tropical island life in the Devil's Triangle.
    http://2gringos.blogspot.com/

  18. #58

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver L. View Post
    As a physicist I second the last post. This is bullshit - whatever Youtube says.

    Generating Hydrogen from electricity has an efficiency of less than 25%. Now you have to multiply that with the efficiency of the engine that turns the alternator and you arrive at a very efficient device to burn more Diesel fuel.

    Another REALLY scary thought on a boat is the ignition behavoir of hydrogen. In comparison, our fears of propane or butane gas are a child's folly: Hydrogen will explode if mixed with anything between 1 and 99% of air (plus any spark that comes in handy...).


    Oliver
    Yep, and hydrogen, being the smallest molecule there is, at any useful pressure is almost impossible to leak-proof against.

    Ooops.. sorry for discussing the original topic.
    Last edited by 44C; 20th June 2013 at 10:48 PM.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by 44C View Post
    Yep, and hydrogen, being the smallest molecule there is, at any useful pressure is almost impossible to leak-proof against.

    Ooops.. sorry for discussing the original topic.
    Didn't Zepplines have this problem. Oops going off topic again

  20. #60

    Default Re: Is anyone using Hydrogen or HHO in their engines?

    I do know of a trawler using a gas generator which feeds into the air intake of a diesel engine. The owner claims that it improves the fuel efficiency of the engine by about twenty five percent. he explains this as being due to the improved combustion characteristics of the fuel-gas mixture, which gets more power from the diesel fuel and a little power from the gas which offsets the power used to generate it. A kind of catalysis so to speak, and a big reduction in emissions and no unburned fuel residues. This is one big diesel engine, and the power generated by the Brown's gas alone in the combustion is less than it takes to produce it. It is the increased fuel efficiency which is producing the real savings and makes the installation worthwhile.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •