Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:04 AM - Re: HHO (willis robison)
2. 08:16 AM - Re: HHO (Chris)
3. 09:55 AM - Re: HHO (Don)
4. 10:03 AM - Re: HHO (Don)
5. 10:16 AM - Re: HHO (John Vormbaum)
6. 11:04 AM - Re: HHO (Robert S. Randazzo)
7. 11:42 AM - Re: HHO (John Vormbaum)
8. 12:12 PM - Re: HHO (Chris)
9. 12:32 PM - Re: HHO (willis robison)
10. 01:16 PM - Re: HHO (Chris)
11. 01:44 PM - Re: HHO (willis robison)
12. 03:32 PM - Re: HHO (Chris)
13. 04:14 PM - Re: HHO (John Vormbaum)
14. 04:23 PM - Re: HHO (Robert S. Randazzo)
15. 04:48 PM - Re: HHO (John Vormbaum)
16. 04:57 PM - Re: HHO (Robert S. Randazzo)
17. 05:01 PM - Re: HHO (Tom Fisher)
18. 05:17 PM - Re: HHO (John Vormbaum)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And you wonder why they dont let pilots work on aircraft......
-
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Jim Addington <jtaddington@verizon.net> wrote:
From: Jim Addington <jtaddington@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Commander-List: HHO
Don,
A friend of mine and I were talking about it and he says it is 34 times as
efficient
as gas and it did not sound that hard to do. He was interested in getting a
car to run on it. One problem is if the Hydrogen leaks past the rings it g
ets into the crank case and can cause a really big explosion. I talked to o
ne of my late wife=A2s cousins and he said he and some of his friends got a
lawn mower to work on it. I was very surprised at how simple it is and won
der why some one is not really pushing hard for it. The friend is really go
od at electronics and said it could be done for less than $100. He has a ce
rtain amount of BS to him but he is a very smart person.
Jim
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:48 PM
Subject: Commander-List: HHO
-
Commanderland;
-
Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com anything on the
HHO, which is the process of electrolysis to break down water into H & O an
d feeding it into the air intake.- Some make claims of 30% up to several
hundred per cent increase in gas mileage including using it on an 18 wheele
r to double the mileage.- I was talking to my Commander and my Credit Car
d and both thought it would be a good idea.- Has anyone looked into this
in the auto industry and other than the FAA, would it work in Commanders, p
robably take several units.-- Just thinking out loud.
-
Don - ---------- - The Commander-List Email Forum -
-------------- - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ---> http
://forums.matronics.com------------ - List Contribu
tion Web Site ---------------------
--------- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. -
=0A=0A=0A
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Don wrote:
>
> Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com
> <http://www.youtube.com> anything on the HHO, which is the process of
> electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the
> air intake.
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think this will
work (no personal insult intended Don).
Let's take as a given that "burning" a fuel releases energy. In a
piston engine, some of this energy is turned into mechanical motion, but
a lot is lost to heat. Net loss in the energy conversion - agreed? Now
we take that mechanical motion and generate electricity. Quite a bit of
energy lost in that conversion as well. Now we take the electricity and
via electrolysis, split a molecule. Certainly a net loss of energy
there as well, not to mention that even a huge electrolysis cell
generates a tiny amount of hydrogen unless fed *huge* amounts of
electricity. Next we're going to take that fuel we created by so many
lossy steps, burn it, and get more energy out than we put into it's
creation ?????
chris
ps: I have some "carbon offsets" I'm willing to sell cheap. I'll take
$45/flight hour for them. Less than 75 hours available, so get 'em quick.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Chris;
I have read a great deal of the arguments, and I realize there is no such
thing as 'perpetual motion', this said, I have also read many things that
were quote 'impossible' until, something was changed and then it worked,
Mr. Firestone comes to mind with I believe it was sulfur, as well as Mr.
Edison and carbon. So I usually don't just 'write something off', just
because so far it hasn't worked. I also read that God probably made the
perfect compressed hydrogen, its call H2O, something like 1,800 to one
compressions. I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a
revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal combustions
engine.
No thanks on the 'carbon credits', I can just put the money in the NYSE, but
I prefer gold.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <cschuerm@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
> Don wrote:
>>
>> Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com
>> <http://www.youtube.com> anything on the HHO, which is the process of
>> electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the
>> air intake.
>
> I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think this will
> work (no personal insult intended Don).
> Let's take as a given that "burning" a fuel releases energy. In a
> piston engine, some of this energy is turned into mechanical motion, but
> a lot is lost to heat. Net loss in the energy conversion - agreed? Now
> we take that mechanical motion and generate electricity. Quite a bit of
> energy lost in that conversion as well. Now we take the electricity and
> via electrolysis, split a molecule. Certainly a net loss of energy
> there as well, not to mention that even a huge electrolysis cell
> generates a tiny amount of hydrogen unless fed *huge* amounts of
> electricity. Next we're going to take that fuel we created by so many
> lossy steps, burn it, and get more energy out than we put into it's
> creation ?????
>
>
> chris
>
> ps: I have some "carbon offsets" I'm willing to sell cheap. I'll take
> $45/flight hour for them. Less than 75 hours available, so get 'em quick.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
7:19 PM
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I thought they did, have lots of pilot friends who are also A&P and also
AI's.
----- Original Message -----
From: willis robison
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: HHO
And you wonder why they dont let pilots work on aircraft......
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Jim Addington <jtaddington@verizon.net>
wrote:
From: Jim Addington <jtaddington@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Commander-List: HHO
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008, 9:17 PM
Don,
A friend of mine and I were talking about it and he says it is
34 times as efficient
as gas and it did not sound that hard to do. He was interested
in getting a car to run on it. One problem is if the Hydrogen leaks past
the rings it gets into the crank case and can cause a really big
explosion. I talked to one of my late wife=A2s cousins and he said he
and some of his friends got a lawn mower to work on it. I was very
surprised at how simple it is and wonder why some one is not really
pushing hard for it. The friend is really good at electronics and said
it could be done for less than $100. He has a certain amount of BS to
him but he is a very smart person.
Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:48 PM
To: Commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Commander-List: HHO
Commanderland;
Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com
anything on the HHO, which is the process of electrolysis to break down
water into H & O and feeding it into the air intake. Some make claims
of 30% up to several hundred per cent increase in gas mileage including
using it on an 18 wheeler to double the mileage. I was talking to my
Commander and my Credit Card and both thought it would be a good idea.
Has anyone looked into this in the auto industry and other than the FAA,
would it work in Commanders, probably take several units. Just
thinking out loud.
Don
- The Commander-List Email Forum - -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ---> http://forums.matronics.com - List
Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.
" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
10/8/2008 7:19 PM
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Don,
I love your sense of optimism, and yes, things thought impossible have
been conquered. But sulfur, Firestone, Edison and carbon didn't violate
the First Law of Thermodynamics. The HHO thing is the worst sort of
pathological science. You can't generate MORE energy by recombining H &
O2 (combusting) than you used when splitting the H2O in the first place.
If you had a 100% efficient (as in, no loss to heat or mechanical
inefficiency) method of both splitting & recombining them, you'd end up
with exactly a net-Zero energy production.
I think, if this actually worked, that you could just plug a couple of
electrodes into the ocean and turn the world into a small sun, right?
Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.
What ever happened to Fleischmann & Pons anyway?
/John
Don wrote:
>
> Chris;
>
> I have read a great deal of the arguments, and I realize there is no
> such thing as 'perpetual motion', this said, I have also read many
> things that were quote 'impossible' until, something was changed and
> then it worked, Mr. Firestone comes to mind with I believe it was
> sulfur, as well as Mr. Edison and carbon. So I usually don't just
> 'write something off', just because so far it hasn't worked. I also
> read that God probably made the perfect compressed hydrogen, its call
> H2O, something like 1,800 to one compressions. I try and keep and open
> mind, one day I firmly believe, a revolutionary change will happen to
> greatly improve our internal combustions engine.
>
> No thanks on the 'carbon credits', I can just put the money in the
> NYSE, but I prefer gold.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" <cschuerm@cox.net>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
>
>>
>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>> Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com
>>> <http://www.youtube.com> anything on the HHO, which is the process of
>>> electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the
>>> air intake.
>>
>> I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think this will
>> work (no personal insult intended Don).
>> Let's take as a given that "burning" a fuel releases energy. In a
>> piston engine, some of this energy is turned into mechanical motion, but
>> a lot is lost to heat. Net loss in the energy conversion - agreed? Now
>> we take that mechanical motion and generate electricity. Quite a bit of
>> energy lost in that conversion as well. Now we take the electricity and
>> via electrolysis, split a molecule. Certainly a net loss of energy
>> there as well, not to mention that even a huge electrolysis cell
>> generates a tiny amount of hydrogen unless fed *huge* amounts of
>> electricity. Next we're going to take that fuel we created by so many
>> lossy steps, burn it, and get more energy out than we put into it's
>> creation ?????
>>
>>
>> chris
>>
>> ps: I have some "carbon offsets" I'm willing to sell cheap. I'll take
>> $45/flight hour for them. Less than 75 hours available, so get 'em
>> quick.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 7:19 PM
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John-
So this extension chord I'm running over to lake tahoe isn't gonna work
either?????
Robert S. Randazzo
N414C
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Don,
I love your sense of optimism, and yes, things thought impossible have
been conquered. But sulfur, Firestone, Edison and carbon didn't violate
the First Law of Thermodynamics. The HHO thing is the worst sort of
pathological science. You can't generate MORE energy by recombining H &
O2 (combusting) than you used when splitting the H2O in the first place.
If you had a 100% efficient (as in, no loss to heat or mechanical
inefficiency) method of both splitting & recombining them, you'd end up
with exactly a net-Zero energy production.
I think, if this actually worked, that you could just plug a couple of
electrodes into the ocean and turn the world into a small sun, right?
Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.
What ever happened to Fleischmann & Pons anyway?
/John
Don wrote:
>
> Chris;
>
> I have read a great deal of the arguments, and I realize there is no
> such thing as 'perpetual motion', this said, I have also read many
> things that were quote 'impossible' until, something was changed and
> then it worked, Mr. Firestone comes to mind with I believe it was
> sulfur, as well as Mr. Edison and carbon. So I usually don't just
> 'write something off', just because so far it hasn't worked. I also
> read that God probably made the perfect compressed hydrogen, its call
> H2O, something like 1,800 to one compressions. I try and keep and open
> mind, one day I firmly believe, a revolutionary change will happen to
> greatly improve our internal combustions engine.
>
> No thanks on the 'carbon credits', I can just put the money in the
> NYSE, but I prefer gold.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" <cschuerm@cox.net>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
>
>>
>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>> Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com
>>> <http://www.youtube.com> anything on the HHO, which is the process of
>>> electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the
>>> air intake.
>>
>> I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think this will
>> work (no personal insult intended Don).
>> Let's take as a given that "burning" a fuel releases energy. In a
>> piston engine, some of this energy is turned into mechanical motion, but
>> a lot is lost to heat. Net loss in the energy conversion - agreed? Now
>> we take that mechanical motion and generate electricity. Quite a bit of
>> energy lost in that conversion as well. Now we take the electricity and
>> via electrolysis, split a molecule. Certainly a net loss of energy
>> there as well, not to mention that even a huge electrolysis cell
>> generates a tiny amount of hydrogen unless fed *huge* amounts of
>> electricity. Next we're going to take that fuel we created by so many
>> lossy steps, burn it, and get more energy out than we put into it's
>> creation ?????
>>
>>
>> chris
>>
>> ps: I have some "carbon offsets" I'm willing to sell cheap. I'll take
>> $45/flight hour for them. Less than 75 hours available, so get 'em
>> quick.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 7:19 PM
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Sure, but you gotta plug it into a really BIG wall socket.
Robert S. Randazzo wrote:
>
> John-
>
> So this extension chord I'm running over to lake tahoe isn't gonna work
> either?????
>
> Robert S. Randazzo
> N414C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Vormbaum
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:16 AM
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
>
> Don,
>
> I love your sense of optimism, and yes, things thought impossible have
> been conquered. But sulfur, Firestone, Edison and carbon didn't violate
> the First Law of Thermodynamics. The HHO thing is the worst sort of
> pathological science. You can't generate MORE energy by recombining H &
> O2 (combusting) than you used when splitting the H2O in the first place.
> If you had a 100% efficient (as in, no loss to heat or mechanical
> inefficiency) method of both splitting & recombining them, you'd end up
> with exactly a net-Zero energy production.
>
> I think, if this actually worked, that you could just plug a couple of
> electrodes into the ocean and turn the world into a small sun, right?
>
> Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.
> What ever happened to Fleischmann & Pons anyway?
>
> /John
>
> Don wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris;
>>
>> I have read a great deal of the arguments, and I realize there is no
>> such thing as 'perpetual motion', this said, I have also read many
>> things that were quote 'impossible' until, something was changed and
>> then it worked, Mr. Firestone comes to mind with I believe it was
>> sulfur, as well as Mr. Edison and carbon. So I usually don't just
>> 'write something off', just because so far it hasn't worked. I also
>> read that God probably made the perfect compressed hydrogen, its call
>> H2O, something like 1,800 to one compressions. I try and keep and open
>> mind, one day I firmly believe, a revolutionary change will happen to
>> greatly improve our internal combustions engine.
>>
>> No thanks on the 'carbon credits', I can just put the money in the
>> NYSE, but I prefer gold.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" <cschuerm@cox.net>
>> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com
>>>> <http://www.youtube.com> anything on the HHO, which is the process of
>>>> electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the
>>>> air intake.
>>>>
>>> I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think this will
>>> work (no personal insult intended Don).
>>> Let's take as a given that "burning" a fuel releases energy. In a
>>> piston engine, some of this energy is turned into mechanical motion, but
>>> a lot is lost to heat. Net loss in the energy conversion - agreed? Now
>>> we take that mechanical motion and generate electricity. Quite a bit of
>>> energy lost in that conversion as well. Now we take the electricity and
>>> via electrolysis, split a molecule. Certainly a net loss of energy
>>> there as well, not to mention that even a huge electrolysis cell
>>> generates a tiny amount of hydrogen unless fed *huge* amounts of
>>> electricity. Next we're going to take that fuel we created by so many
>>> lossy steps, burn it, and get more energy out than we put into it's
>>> creation ?????
>>>
>>>
>>> chris
>>>
>>> ps: I have some "carbon offsets" I'm willing to sell cheap. I'll take
>>> $45/flight hour for them. Less than 75 hours available, so get 'em
>>> quick.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>>
>>
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> 7:19 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John Vormbaum wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.
John, I purchased the DeLorean used in the movie "Back to the future"
off ebay a few years ago. I've since reversed engineered the "Mr.
Fusion" module and intend to make the design public very soon. Before I
do that, I'm investing heavily in banana peel and empty beer can futures
as that's where I think I'll make my millions. I've also broken the
88mph barrier and am now flying my Aztec entirely on half-empty beer
cans. The only significant technical issue that I've run into is that I
have to drink the first half of the can for it to work right. The eight
hour "bottle-to-throttle" rule has significantly impacted my flying
unfortunately. I'm trying to get an STC for my new designated autopilot
design, but at least one tea-totaling fed at the local FSDO office has
been quite opposed to the whole idea. I'm hoping that if I take him out
to a topless bar and get him highly intoxicated that he'll be more
willing to sign off on the field approval. Always something holding up
progress....
Chris
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Now- now...enough pilot bashing.- I think its cute you know enough thermo
to order a latte.- but if you were really good, you'd figure a way to fi
le STC's without an act of-Congress.
-
Yeah we could use more efficient engines.....but what-we really need is a
streamlined STC process-to put modern engines on-some great flying (ye
t older) air frames.-(and I dont mean turbocharged chevy's)
-
So....Back to the "COMMANDER' list topics.
-
-
Bud
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Chris <cschuerm@cox.net> wrote:
From: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
John Vormbaum wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.
John, I purchased the DeLorean used in the movie "Back to the future"
off ebay a few years ago. I've since reversed engineered the "Mr.
Fusion" module and intend to make the design public very soon. Before I
do that, I'm investing heavily in banana peel and empty beer can futures
as that's where I think I'll make my millions. I've also broken
the
88mph barrier and am now flying my Aztec entirely on half-empty beer
cans. The only significant technical issue that I've run into is that I
have to drink the first half of the can for it to work right. The eight
hour "bottle-to-throttle" rule has significantly impacted my flying
unfortunately. I'm trying to get an STC for my new designated autopilot
design, but at least one tea-totaling fed at the local FSDO office has
been quite opposed to the whole idea. I'm hoping that if I take him out
to a topless bar and get him highly intoxicated that he'll be more
willing to sign off on the field approval. Always something holding up
progress....
Chris
=0A=0A=0A
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Don wrote:
> I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a
> revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal
> combustions engine.
Well Don, I applaud your positive outlook. From a purely scientific
perspective, there are very few areas to improve a traditional Otto
cycle engine. Even if some new miracle material were to arrive that
would allow unlimited temperature operation, basic physics still apply.
Small efficiency gains could be had, but there is simply no room for
huge improvement. Energy out equals energy in minus losses. As long as
the "energy in" part involves oxidation of petroleum products, you are
limited by that reaction. Most likely, someone will eventually come up
with an efficient means of directly generating electricity from a
chemical reaction and the next "great advancement" in transportation
will involve electric motors. I'm not aware of any ground-breaking
technology in that arena currently under development though.
cheers,
Chris
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
>From an engineering and Thermodynamics standpoint, the internal combustion
engine (at least the Otto Cycle) is pretty maxed out.- For regular piston
-gasoline pushrod or overhead cam engines the total efficiency is dictated
by the maximum pressure you can obtain.- Lately, higher compression and h
igher temperatures have pushed the efficiency to the limits obtainable with
current materials (aluminum blocks, nitrided steel cylinders etc).- comp
uter control of the mixture took it to another level, but noone will allow
a micro controller on an AC without going through an extensive Qual process
.-
-
Newer High Temperature materials may increase this but absolute "e" is stil
l = [T(high) - T(low)]/T(low).
-
Diesel's are less dependent on T(high) but are still dependent on the Max p
ressure.- Thats why they are so good at being turbocharged at high altitu
de.- Same goes for Brayton cycle engines (jets).- in that case the limi
ts are [P(high) - P(low)]P(low).-
-
Now you know why those old---GSO-480's are still popular.- Lots of juice
and still efficient at high altitude if you roll back on the throttles. (bu
t who would?)
-
bud
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Chris <cschuerm@cox.net> wrote:
From: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Don wrote:
> I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a
> revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal
> combustions engine.
Well Don, I applaud your positive outlook. From a purely scientific
perspective, there are very few areas to improve a traditional Otto
cycle engine. Even if some new miracle material were to arrive that
would allow unlimited temperature operation, basic physics still apply.
Small efficiency gains could be had, but there is simply no room for
huge improvement. Energy out equals energy in minus losses. As long as
the "energy in" part involves oxidation of petroleum products, you
are
limited by that reaction. Most likely, someone will eventually come up
with an efficient means of directly generating electricity from a
chemical reaction and the next "great advancement" in transportation
will involve electric motors. I'm not aware of any ground-breaking
technology in that arena currently under development though.
cheers,
Chris
=0A=0A=0A
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
willis robison wrote:
> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure a
> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>
No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to
Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's more
likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
:-)
chris
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the proper
Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21 Gigawatts.
Chris wrote:
>
> willis robison wrote:
>> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
>> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure a
>> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>>
>
> No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
> knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
> I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to
> Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's more
> likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
> :-)
> chris
>
>
> .
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John-
I have a flux capacitor good to 1.21Gw powering all the electric displays we
just put into N414C... I have a spare on the shelf in the hangar just in
case we have to send one out for overhaul.
You guys can borrow it if I get a ride in the delorean OR the bear-can
burning commander.
Robert S. Randazzo
N414C
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the proper
Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21 Gigawatts.
Chris wrote:
>
> willis robison wrote:
>> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
>> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure a
>> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>>
>
> No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
> knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
> I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to
> Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's more
> likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
> :-)
> chris
>
>
> .
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Deal! Right now the only kind of flying I can do is hangar flying. Makes
me want to drink 1.21 Gigabeers and blow my flux into the porcelain
capacitor. Luckily I've matured (well, a little) and will instead remain
stoic until I have new engines hung on 3CC.
/John
Robert S. Randazzo wrote:
>
> John-
>
> I have a flux capacitor good to 1.21Gw powering all the electric displays we
> just put into N414C... I have a spare on the shelf in the hangar just in
> case we have to send one out for overhaul.
>
> You guys can borrow it if I get a ride in the delorean OR the bear-can
> burning commander.
>
> Robert S. Randazzo
> N414C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Vormbaum
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
>
> Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the proper
> Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21 Gigawatts.
>
> Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> willis robison wrote:
>>
>>> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
>>> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure a
>>> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>>>
>>>
>> No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
>> knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
>> I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to
>> Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's more
>> likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
>> :-)
>> chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John-
How much longer, you think?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Deal! Right now the only kind of flying I can do is hangar flying. Makes
me want to drink 1.21 Gigabeers and blow my flux into the porcelain
capacitor. Luckily I've matured (well, a little) and will instead remain
stoic until I have new engines hung on 3CC.
/John
Robert S. Randazzo wrote:
<rsrandazzo@precisionmanuals.com>
>
> John-
>
> I have a flux capacitor good to 1.21Gw powering all the electric displays
we
> just put into N414C... I have a spare on the shelf in the hangar just in
> case we have to send one out for overhaul.
>
> You guys can borrow it if I get a ride in the delorean OR the bear-can
> burning commander.
>
> Robert S. Randazzo
> N414C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Vormbaum
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
>
> Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the proper
> Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21 Gigawatts.
>
> Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> willis robison wrote:
>>
>>> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
>>> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure a
>>> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>>>
>>>
>> No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
>> knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
>> I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to
>> Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's more
>> likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
>> :-)
>> chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Back in the early 70's I used to fly John Delorean around in helicopters at
his plant in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Tom
C-GISS
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
> Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the proper
> Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21 Gigawatts.
>
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> willis robison wrote:
>>> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
>>> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure a
>>> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>>>
>>
>> No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
>> knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
>> I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to
>> Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's more likely
>> to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
>> :-)
>> chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Cool!
In the 80's I imagine he didn't need a helicopter, as he was generally
very "high" for most of that decade from what I remember.
Tom Fisher wrote:
> <tfisher@commandergroup.bc.ca>
>
> Back in the early 70's I used to fly John Delorean around in
> helicopters at his plant in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
> Tom
> C-GISS
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>
>
>>
>> Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the
>> proper Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21
>> Gigawatts.
>>
>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> willis robison wrote:
>>>> Now- now...enough pilot bashing. I think its cute you know enough
>>>> thermo to order a latte. but if you were really good, you'd figure
>>>> a way to file STC's without an act of Congress.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he
>>> knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.
>>> I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it
>>> to Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer. I think it's
>>> more likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......
>>> :-)
>>> chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|