Update from Mrs.Landsend

[Mrs. Landsend]

Hello Everyone, again!

In view of all the nasty and rude responses to our original posting, we have decided to stop posting. To those of you who asked questions and contacted us offsite to express interest and support, thank you. For anyone wanting additional information I would suggest going to the MIT, Virginia Tech , GM and Ford sites. YouTube has interesting videos on how to build one and from people all over the world who have put them in their cars.
Happy and safe sailing.
Mrs. LandsEnd

 

[PilotAlso]

LOL

If the lack of scientific understanding in this country wasn't so SAD, I'd have to laugh!

Please do as you like and believe what you want but please try not to hurt anyone in the process.

I agree that we need to search for alternatives to our energy needs. One possibility may be hydrogen but certainly not in the way these home-grown "generators" function. But, IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER, go ahead, have at it.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

lack of reliable and reproducable data is the real problem

With all due respect, I didn't read anything I considered to be either rude or nasty. I and others simply asked for some fundamental info on which you base your conclusion. Again, what I get in response is non-responsive with some reference to other sources of info, UTube notwithstanding, some of the others I have read extensively.

About the only constructive result wwhich can come of this is to either educate me and other skeptics or refrain from making unsupportable claims about something totally unrelated to sailing.

 

[BrianW]

Please Provide Links

Landsend, I am very interested in finding out the additional information from MIT, Va Tech, GM and Ford websites. I went to the MIT and Va Tech Home Pages and wasn't very successful in going from there. I find all of these institutions to be very credible, I just need to know the specific location (links) on how to get the specific info you referenced. If you are legit, please don't retreat when folks ask for backup info. Thank you very much in advance for your additional info. BrianW

 

[ClownPilot]

Okay okay ...

I will have to fess up here. I am an uneducated idiot when it comes to Politics and Religion. But I do not profess to be a genious at them. I don't post unbelievable claims in those areas. I am not the political genious Al Gore is. He does not have a science degree and yet he can shovel a good load of horse shit and people will believe him. I don't understand why he does that, but people will believe him before they believe academic proof. Not that I care about that, but I am puzzled and amused by it. I call it 'Chicken Little' Science. Chicken Little (al core) cries that the sky is falling and the entire barnyard is aloof and inspired. Ok. enough of that.

This is merely a recreational pastime for me. I am retired. I used to be a research scientist for a semiconductor development facility and digital systems division was where I was. Name withheld. My graduate studies from Case School of Engineering is currently one of the finest Academies of Science and Medicine. Known today as Case Western Reserve, Cleveland Ohio. Undergraduate studies in physics and later biometrics gained me and understanding of how the human body responds electrically to normal system interactions. Bio-electrical sensor studies were my final A exam for dissertation research that earned me my PhD. Embionic sensors. The very ones that may have been attatched to your Mom so the doctor could monitor such things as breech or other fetal distress problems.

I don't get my kicks making people feel uncomfortable or making sport of someone. It simply isn't me. If you feel that I have ... please accept my sincere appology.

CP

 

[Jim]

ClownPilot you are right

enough sad better leave this alone.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

CP

I hope your response wasn't intended as a retort to anything I said. If so, I have no clue who you are, what you posed previously and frankly what you are talking about.
If it is in response to my request for some supportable data by which you intend to demonstrate the efficacy of H generators, reciting your resume doesn't help me. I've know too many PhD chemists who couldn't utter a coherent sentence to be impressed by a resume.

For THE LAST TIME, does anyone have any evidence that shows these things produce more energy than they consume?

 

[CalebD]

If you want rude or nasty I am a New Yawker

I thought that the Chinese had some success with creating methane from composting raw sewage. Perhaps we should all pool our holding tanks and we could make it back into town for more beer and get most of the way back. We could always add some extra fuel along the way.
Hydrogen is an exciting idea but more likely to be used in fuel cells.
I personally feel that you should all be driving standard shift cars instead of the lazy a$$ed automatics that Detroit has sold you on. I get 33 mpg in my Honda 5 speed Accord. Can you beat that in your Land Cruncher or pickup? If you really care then get a damn Prius and maybe you can get 50 mpg.
It is nice to tinker with stuff and I applaud you for doing so. There are too many damn rocket scientists on this board to appreciate that you are actually trying to make a difference. Perhaps hydrogen is a bit more difficult than gasoline which is why you have found so many skeptics. Frankly, I think that the Japanese are going to run the US automakers out of the market with their more fuel efficient and better made cars.
I like the no BS posts of Landsend so I encourage you both (if it is really both of you) to keep on posting.
Your mileage will vary.

 

[Alan]

Don

You're missing the big picture.

You're only looking at the energy in energy out of the hydrogen production window. If you expand your vista and look at the entire vehicle you will see that introducing hydrogen to the petro fuel driven engine dramatically increases the efficiency of the fuel burn. This more than overcomes the cost of making the hydrogen alone. The net result is a more complete burn of the combimned fuels resulting in greater horse power output, higher fuel efficiency and lower tailpipe emissions.

As for evidense, well yes I do have dyno before and after and I do have fuel efficiency before and after. It seems to me that these are the bottom lines on whether or not it works.

 

[ClownPilot]

A mixup occurred here ....

In reply#4 I was addressing Mrs Landsend. Sorry Don if you think I was attacking Al Gore for anything more than being 'Chicken Little'. Didn't mean to imply he was wrong. Only meant to say, I don't see his academia and thus his authority to make alarming speculation on science facts. He is an alarmist and a grandstander. But then save me the argument that by pointing out my academia would put me in the same oxymoron of the post #4. I realize that my friend, I truly do and I am laughing at myself for having done that.

Ok Don this is for you and et al. I could shoot numbers at you, but before I do consider the problems we face when experimenting with Hydrogen.

Here are the arguments against the hydrogen economy:

1. Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy
carrier or transfer media and NOT a
substance capable of delivering net NEW
BTU's to the on-the-books economy.

2. Terrestral hydrogen creation is inefficient
as considerably more energy of usually
much higher quality has to be input than
is eventually returnable.

3. No large terrestral source of hydrogen gas
is known. Water, of course, is a hydrogen
sink and, by fundamental chemical energitics,
is the worst possible feedstock.

4. The CONTAINED energy density of terrestral
hydrogen by weight is a lot LESS than gasoline.
And drops dramatically as the tank is emptied.
The energy density of hydrogen gas by volume
is a ludicrous joke.

5. Virtually all bulk hydrogen is produced by methane
reformation. And thus is EXTREMELY hydrocarbon
dependent.

6. Hydrogen has the widest explosive range known,
the least spark energy required for ignition, and
has no known colorants or odorants. Its flame is
often invisible or nearly so.

7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline
than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

8. No effective vehicle compatible means of hydrogen
storage is known that is remotely as cheap, safe,
dense, and convenient as carbon bonded hydrides.

9. No infrastructure exists for gaseous hydrogen
distribution. Pipelines in particular raise major
density and embrittlement issues.

10. Electrolysis from high value sources such as
grid, wind, or pv is totally useless as a hydrogen
source because of the staggering loss of exergy.
There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things
to do with the electricity.

11. Improper burning of hydrogen produces highly
polluting nitrous oxides.

12. Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION
AMPLIFIER that INCREASES the pollution of
its underlying sources. It is utterly ludicrous to
claim that hydrogen is in any manner, way,
shape, or form "nonpolluting".

13. Hydrogen rots most metals through embrittlement.

14. "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better
than "Carbon Free" because (A) A significant
measure of the energy of most fuels is in its carbon
fraction, (B) Carbon appears to be essential for
convenient and safe room temperature liquids,
and (C) Reformation is not required or else
is simpler, cheaper, and wastes less energy.

15. An optimal hydrogen storage solution exists by
carbon bonding as in heptane or iso-octane. Both
of these room temperature liquids ain't broke.

Don, on number 7, common sense would make you wonder why you would want to supplement or boost the effiency of gasoline whith hydrogen or less (Browns Gas) or oxyhydrogen which is over 4 times less the energy density.

The idea that gasoline combustion can be boosted with hydrogen is speculative at best. But HOO gas. Not a chance. NASCAR and FORMULA FUEL dragsters would be using it.

CP

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

The big picture is still out of focus

Alan
Your following quote is PRECISEY my point:
"You're only looking at the energy in energy out of the hydrogen production window. If you expand your vista and look at the entire vehicle you will see that introducing hydrogen to the petro fuel driven engine dramatically increases the efficiency of the fuel burn. This more than overcomes the cost of making the hydrogen alone."

What you said regarding H increasing burn efficiency is true but neglects the larger issue of how much energy that same engine requires to produce the H. Simply stating that "this more than overcomes the cost making H gas" is the heart of the issue and a dynomometer inherently cannot measure the balance between energy required and energy produced. Taken by itself, the dyno will surely be misleading if you only consider the result of a before/after test.

Please understand I am trying to be objective and would love to see anything that really works. Toward that end, I hope you will bear with me by explaining if this is the sole basis by which you and others claim the generators increase the efficicy of a combustion engine?

The answer could be as simple as providing empirical data on burn rates, qualtified measurements of electrical energy required to run the H generator, power curves of both the generator and engine, etc...

All I ever see in response are
unsubstantiated claims and political rants.