30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships

Do you have a link to the paper ? We have plenty of skeptics here....

SolarEagle wrote, "

Do you have a link to the paper ? We have plenty of skeptics here...."

REPLY: I would like to provide this to a skeptical reviewer privately. Then, when it is critically reviewed for accuracy, I plan put it on the web for wider review. if the material in my draft is correct, then I believe an annual fuel cost savings of $6 million to $10 million per ship may be easily obtained without costly engine changes or lengthy R&D. My thought is with new engineering concepts such as this, some peer review will serve to catch any unintended technical errors. I am a new user of the email software here on CR4, and I don't see a way to attach a file to an email message. Please let me know how best to send this engineering draft to you (or another engineer) for your critical review. Kind Regards, Howard

if its friction reducing paint...they have that, if its a large blade that rides in front of the hull to convert wave energy....they have that, if its a large stack that's a different twist on a sail. they have that. if its a large para glider type of sail off the front of the ship they also have that. so lets see the link

Fredski wrote, "if its friction reducing paint...they have that... ... ... so lets see the link." REPLY: Thanks for your comment. My thought is that there is already ENOUGH material on the internet that is in need of technical correction. So, for NEW ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, my practice is to seek private critical review, then revise the concept paper if necessary to improve the technical accuracy. Then, I plan to post the material for public review and comment. How can I send the info to you privately? I'm not looking for endorsements -- I am looking for "sanity check" feedback from one or two fellow engineers who can spend a few minutes looking over the technical concepts in the draft I have prepared. I can't seem to figure how to attach a pdf file to an email message using this (CR4) email client software. Kind regards, Howard

I'll play your silly game. Send it to me.

Here's how:How do I email a friend / send an internal message?

Your comment: "I'll play your silly game. Send it to me."

1. It's not a silly game; at least not to ME. Worldwide fuel cost reduction is a challenge that deserves serious attention. I regret that you think this is a "silly game." It is not.

2. I looked at the link you sent. It doesn't answer my question. My question is... "how can I attach a pdf file to an email message using the CR4 messaging system?" If that can't be done, how can I send this to you directly before it is posted on the web?

Respectfully,

Kind regards,

Howard

If you intend to make this whatever it is public, just do it and let the entire forum critique it.

You are playing a game, it seems to me.

Can you cut and paste it into a private message?

Why not just put it out there for everyone to see?

Howard, we love to tear things apart around here and discuss pros and cons so any valid point you have will br taken seriously if you post it. if it can't be explained on the back of an evelope in less than a minute you're going to have difficulty. you might consider posting a short video on YouTube (as I have for this forum before) drop the paranoia about revealing your secret "on the web" none of us here are here for that, and chances are good no matter what it is already exists or has been tested. so either write 4-6 paragraphs or post a video or your PDF and you'll get a wealth of input from a collective of some pretty sharp people.

Just go to his website, http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/ This will get alot clearer after you check it out.

JPool wrote, "Just go to his website, http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/ This will get a lot clearer after you check it out."

REPLY: Mr. Pool (and others) -- I'll be pleased if anyone wants to review the web site. But, there is no engineering data or cost analysis on the web site regarding my current topic, "30% increase in fuel economy for large ships." We only put things on the web site after they have been reviewed for accuracy -- and that is what I'm hoping for regarding the engineering draft that is available for review by competent engineers, if interested. For that, we seek an open-minded skeptic who wants to spend a few minutes checking the engineering draft for any errors that might be there; and there probably are some, which can be corrected when they are identified. For us, that MUST be done before we float such a document for public review (and justifiable ridicule, if it contains errors.)

If we can exchange technical views as gentlemen and engineering peers, I'd like to hear from you; especially if you have an interest in worldwide energy cost savings that might be possible using new technology to benefit mankind. But, if you are looking for someone with which you can have a public argument in a non-gentlemanly and non-professional manner, then 'thanks but no thanks."

Respectfully, with kind regards,

Howard, Phillips Company

After looking at your website, I conclude that you are fishing for something, just not sure what.

I don't think it's free validation, since you seem to have an established company.

My skepticism is well known here, and usually I am not alone. That's because 99% of the posters who come here to tease, as you have done, have nothing worthwhile to validate.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

So far, I'm not impressed.

Comment received from Lyn: "After looking at your website, I conclude that you are fishing for something, just not sure what."

REPLY: Please refer to my original post. The topic is 30% fuel economy increase for large ships. To be specific about what I want -- I seek an open-minded skeptic who wants to spend a few minutes checking the engineering draft for any errors that might be there.

================================================

Comment received from Lyn: "99% of the posters who come here to tease, as you have done, have nothing worthwhile to validate."

REPLY: I'm not trying to tease you or others about anything. I'm sorry that "99% of the posters who come here ... have nothing worthwhile to validate." I am surprised by that. I am a new member and my initial impression was that this was a professional site, frequented by engineers who try to behave in a competent manner. An example is this:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/76597

The member who wrote that analysis seems like a competent, brillant engineer. I had hoped that others on this forum, who are members, or visitors, might be similar. So, I am dissapointed to learn from you that "99% of the posters who come here ... have nothing worthwhile to validate." But, I accept your assessment of the visitors (and members) of this site if you really believe what you are saying.

===============================================

Comment received from Lyn: "I stopped here: "splits water to produce hydrogen, while retaining oxygen in the water". Then there's the heat required for the reaction. Endothermic reactions always require heat (energy) input. This sometimes requires more energy than is produced by the process."

REPLY: Respectfully, Lyn, you are technically wrong. This is not an endothermic reaction. The CC-HOD process is described as follows:

2Al + 6[H2O] + CC => CC + 2[Al(OH)3] + 3H2

This is an EXothermic reaction. It produces heat; not absorbs heat. It produces about 419 Kcal/mole of the Al used in the reaction.

===============================================

Comment received from Lyn: "I stopped here: "splits water to produce hydrogen, while retaining oxygen in the water. ... This sometimes requires more energy than is produced by the process."

REPLY: Lyn, you are correct in that most methods (electrolysis, thermoforming) sometimes require more energy than is produced in the process.

Our technology is dramatically different. The CC-HOD method of producing hydrogen is the only method, worldwide, for which more energy results from hydrogen use (combustion, burning) than the input energy required to produce the hydrogen. This claim has been firmly established and confirmed as fact.

The CC-HOD technology is available to any company that wants to commercialize this technology. We have a new technology, and we want to take it to the people of the world.

We call it Catalytic Carbon, Hydrogen On Demand - CC-HOD. This simple, straightforward hydrogen-generation approach is the only technology, worldwide, that combines all of the following features and advantages:

1. CC-HOD results in more energy when the hydrogen is used (combusted, burned) than the energy required to generate the hydrogen.

2. CC-HOD uses only low-cost and friendly materials (carbon and fuel).

3. CC-HOD uses only two fuels - aluminum and water. All the hydrogen produces comes from water. The process uses about 3 times more water than aluminum.

4. The water does not need to be distilled. Any water will work. Sea water can be used to generate hydrogen using the CC-HOD process. Dirty water can be used to generate hydrogen using the CC-HOD process.

There are about 30 other characteristics that describe this new technology. Upon request, I will post more, but I stop here before I am accused of using this post to promote a new technology that may not be of interest to other readers.

So, if you want more info, just ask.

================================================

Comment received from Lyn: "You're beginning to sound like others who have come here claiming to have something to save the world, but unwilling to disclose any evidence of such."

EDIT: Lyn, I have the feeling that you have not understood my earlier posts. So, although somewhat redundant (apologies to other readers), please read and understand the following: I seek an open-minded skeptic who wants to spend a few minutes checking the engineering draft for any errors that might be there. We only put things on a web site after they have been reviewed for accuracy. That rule applies to our web site and to any other web site where we post. The reason is that if you post material with technical errors, without review by a competent reviewer, then you establish a reputation for posting material with technical errors, without review by a competent reviewer. We only post things that have had a techical review. I take professional engineering seriously, and I am willing to accept some lack of approval, from you, for that.

=============================================

Comment received from Lyn: "Anyway, thanks, but no thanks!"

REPLY: Finally, you and I are in agreement. I think we both agree that you are not the best reviewer to consider a new idea and perhaps a new technology that can result in a 30% increase in FUEL ECONOMY for large ships.

=============================================

Comment from Fredski: Howard, we love to tear things apart around here and discuss pros and cons so any valid point you have will be taken seriously if you post it.

REPLY: We only put things on a web site after they have been reviewed for accuracy. That rule applies to our web site and to any other web site where we post. The reason is that if you post material with technical errors, without review by a competent reviewer, then you establish a reputation for posting material with technical errors, without review by a competent reviewer. We only post things that have had a techical review. I take professional engineering seriously, I suppose, and I am willing to accept some lack of approval for that.

================================================

Comment received from TMCTECH: "I am already skeptical being that the giant Diesel engines that power ships are already in the 50 - 55% efficiency range. Adding another 30% over that has me doubting right from the get go."

REPLY: I sense that you are jumping to conclusions and therefore may be a bit confused. If you look at the engineering draft, you will see that it makes no difference WHAT the current efficiency is for the engine on the ship. That is because our goal is NOT to increase engine efficiency, although there may be a bit of that in the mix. Specifically, our goal is to provide a new idea and perhaps a new technology that can result in a 30% increase in FUEL ECONOMY for large ships. That means that you can run the same engine in the same way on the same ship, but burn about 70% of the diesel that you used previously for the same operational conditions of the ship.

================================================

Comment received from TMCTECH: "A full hydrogen fueled engine still isn't any more fuel efficient than that."

REPLY: Once again, I sense that you are jumping to conclusions and therefore may be a bit confused. If you look at the engineering draft, you will see that our new idea and our new technology has NOTHING to do with a "full hydrogen fueled engine." At the risk of being helpful to you, might I suggest that you may be better served on a public forum if you temper your urge to jump to conclusions and become confused, without first having some facts.

================================================

Comment from Fredski: "Generally speaking the regulars around here don't work for free....which is what you're seeking."

REPLY: If you have no interest in new technology that can increase fuel economy for the world, then please disregard my original post. Specifically, if you have no interest in anything that does not pay you money, then please disregard my original post. Our research company is a not-for-profit company and we are trying to provide a new technology to the world if it can be helpful in lowering worldwide energy costs and thereby improve the human condition. At the expense of being redundant in my reply ... If you have no interest in new technology that can increase fuel economy for the world, then please disregard my original post.

================================================

A gentle reminder to members who might tend to enjoy sending a harsh comment without having the facts:

If we can exchange technical views as gentlemen and engineering peers, I'd like to hear from you; especially if you have an interest in worldwide energy cost savings that might be possible using new technology to benefit mankind. But, if you are looking for someone with which you can have a public argument in a non-gentlemanly and non-professional manner, then 'thanks but no thanks."

==============================================

Comment from JPool: Howard, I sent you a P.M. I would love to take a look at your paper.

REPLY: Splendid. James, I think you will be a splendid reviewer.

Thank you,

Howard

================================================

Response to others who have sent a PM, offering to spend a few minutes reviewing our engineering draft: THANK YOU SO MUCH. PLEASE PROVIDE AN EMAIL ADDRESS SO I CAN SEND YOU AN ATTACHED PDF FILE. I can't seem to attach files to PMs sent within this (CR4) system.

Respectfully, with kind regards,

Howard, Phillips Company

Howard,

I think you may be so far ahead of me as to be beyond my comprehension.

Joe.Fordham was so far advanced that he, too, had problems in rational communication with me.

Too bad Tornado isn't here to support you. Good luck with this latest endeavour.

Cheers.

While I may not be as technically adept as many of the very clever people on this site I do see myself as a problem solver based on 60 years in the engineering field-I like to look at off the wall projects and those rejected by others that are more conventionally structured, and would be pleased to take a peek and comment - but will advise that I might also find it over my head but -I can only try

email removed - cr4 admin

Ah I see you've picked this engineering concept up off of some poor student, who's work you don't entirely trust. So you've come here for a free evaluation.

EASY MONEY if you can get it. NICE

I stopped here: "splits water to produce hydrogen, while retaining oxygen in the water".

Then there's the heat required for the reaction. Endothermic reactions always require heat (energy) input. This sometimes requires more energy than is produced by the process.

<Edit: got called to work, so I had a lapse here.:>

Anyway, thanks, but no thanks!

You're beginning to sound like others who have come here claiming to have something to save the world, but unwilling to disclose any evidence of such.

I always leave the possibility open that I could be wrong....but I think not this time. just the amount of aluminum that you sacrifice to fill the tanks of a "large ship, and the energy it takes to produce that aluminum make this idea nuts! I never finished the page but it's not science nor is it written by a scientist...your "cooking directions" on adding heat stopped me dead, this is a total joke and I'll waste no more time debunking it then this

Comment from Fredski: "I always leave the possibility open that I could be wrong....but I think not this time. just the amount of aluminum that you sacrifice to fill the tanks of a "large ship, and the energy it takes to produce that aluminum make this idea nuts!"

REPLY: Fredski, I agree with you -- your could be wrong. I sense that you, too, are jumping to conclusions and therefore may be a bit confused. If you look at the engineering draft, you will see that THE MAIN GOAL OF THE DOCUMENT IS TO ADDRESS THIS VERY POINT!

Specifically, our goal is to provide a new idea and perhaps a new technology that can result in a 30% increase in FUEL ECONOMY for large ships. That means that you can run the same engine in the same way on the same ship, but burn about 70% of the diesel that you used previously for the same operational conditions of the ship. The amount of aluminum, the rate of hydrogen production and the cell design are all TOPICS OF PRIMARY CONTENT in the engineering document. I sense that you have not seen the document, and that you are jumping to conclusions and therefore may be a bit confused.

==========================================

Comment from Fredski: "I always leave the possibility open that I could be wrong... ... it's not science nor is it written by a scientist...your "cooking directions" on adding heat stopped me dead, this is a total joke"

REPLY: It's not a joke to me. You are right, the engineering draft I offer for review is not written by a scientist. It is written by an engineer (me). I sense that you have not seen the document, and that you are jumping to conclusions and therefore may be a bit confused.

===========================================

Comment from Fredski: "I'll waste no more time debunking it then this"

REPLY: Do you mean THAN this? No matter. This is not about spelling and grammer. Goodness! English is a second language for me, so I'm not qualified to question the good English and spelling of others.

But, that is not the point. Your point is, "I'll waste no more time debunking it then this" I agree that your time should be spent elsewhere. I think you would NOT be a good reviewer of the engineering description of a new idea and perhaps a new technology that can result in a 30% increase in FUEL ECONOMY for large ships. What is needed is a technically-competent expert who does NOT tend to jump to conclusions and become confused.

Respectfully and Kind regards,

Howard

Phillips Company

I am already skeptical being that the giant Diesel engines that power ships are already in the 50 - 55% efficiency range.

Adding another 30% over that has me doubting right from the get go.

Even more so being that a full hydrogen fueled engine still isn't any more fuel efficient than that.

tcmtech is Right. once you convert to a gas from oil you are going to loose a percentage of power just in the losses between BTU's of the fuels. Let alone the cost to convert a very large engine to run on gaseous material. can't imagine the conversion cost.

My little bitsy calculator says that 50-55% efficiency (if these are gas turbines on fuel oil, etc.) with a 30% increase in fuel economy, means something like a 15% increase in efficiency, to 65% (which is a really high number even for a gas turbine, or a state-of-the-art diesel. This means a really high conversion of thermal BTU/sec into mechanical HP. However, recall that if hydrogen ratio of the fuel increases, so does the ratio of steam (water vapor) to carbon dioxide in the products of combustion, resulting in more molecules gas per pound fuel, thus it is possible to increase volume throughput of the engine without a large increase in mass throughput. This is intuitively the opposite of what we normally think of in making an engine more powerful, for a given amount of fuel.

Howard, I sent you a P.M. I would love to take a look at your paper.

Tomtech wrote, "Diesel fuel has a specific amount of chemical energy that it contains per unit of volume or per unit of mass."

REPLY: I agree with you.

===========================================

Tomtech wrote, "Same with an engine. If it puts out 30,000 HP while burning x units of fuel to get the exact same power out of it by burning 70% of the x units of fuel requires a step up in fuel energy to mechanical energy conversion efficiency or a 30% supplement from a different source of fuel."

REPLY: I agree with you.

============================================

Tomtech wrote, "There is no way that the same engine power can be maintained while using 30% less fuel without somehow changing the conversion efficiency or replacing that 30% of diesel fuel with some other fuel."

REPLY: I agree with you. Changing conversion efficiency is the focus of the new technology regarding my original request for a reviewer regarding 30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships.

Conversion efficience is a measure of how effectively fuel is transformed into usable energy. Each type of fuel is deemed to have a specific energy-producing potential per unit of weight, but some or most of that potential is lost through various ways, even including during production or refining.

While 100% efficiency is always the goal, in practice the fuel conversion efficiency of automobiles rarely boast better than 20% fuel conversion efficiency. Ref: http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/fuel_conversion_efficiency.html

Automobiles and many other ICEs have a similar low conversion efficiency. We believe that if the fuel conversion efficience is in the range of 20% to 25%, there is room for improvement.

A test vehicle has shown a mileage improvement of 32%. These results are not in dispute. This amount of MPG improvement has been obtained by many other workers using both HHO and hydrogen -- including hydrogen produced using the CC-HOD method. A mileage improvement of 32% using CC-HOD is documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/CT.pdf

We believe we have a new technology that can result in a 30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships. The primary purpose of our engineering draft is to explain this in some technical detail. That is the engineering draft that we offer for review by anyone that is competent, non-prejudicial, and an open-minded skeptic who considers the facts and data before rushing to a conclusion.

============================================

Tomtech wrote, "If the 30% supplement of fuel is coming from hydrogen produced by splitting water molecules into their base atomic components I have my doubts."

REPLY: Yes, I can see that. All new technologies that never before existed raise similar doubts. We are accustomed to that, and expect that. After all, we WANT reviewers who are an open-minded skeptics.

=============================================

Tomtech wrote, "Either that splitting has to be done by electrical means or chemical means and both are just passing the bill for the energy to a different source."

REPLY: You could be wrong about that. The entire field of catalytic chemistry is based on reducing the activation energy, Ea, for chemical reactions so that reactions can proceed at a greater rate but with the same or less input energy needed to drive the reaction.

===============================================

Tomtech wrote, "To me this just comes off as a new way of packaging the same old HHO scam that has been running for far longer than most of us have been alive. Some new chemical sleight of hand a bit of new packaging and new buzz words"

REPLY: I think you are wrong about that. You have not seen our engineering draft; you do not seem to understand our new technology; you are being predjudicial without having the facts.

The CC-HOD technology has been verified. It has been successfully used to produce hydrogen by workers worldwide. The technology verification and the countries where CC-HOD was evaluated are documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/AHA.pdf

================================================

Tomtech wrote, "it's just the same old HHO scam and of which will never be proven or demonstrated in front of real engineers and scientists for any time period long enough to amount to to anything."

REPLY: You are wrong.

The production of hydrogen using the CC-HOD technology has been publicly demonstrated, at a rate of 30 gallons per minute, and the public demonstration (hydrogen production at 30 gallons/minute) is documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/CD.pdf

The CC-HOD technology has been endorsed by the American Hydrogen Association. This endorsement is documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/ROY.pdf

============================================

Solar Eagle wrote, "Hydrogen production from aluminum is not new, we have discussed many different methods on this site"

REPLY: You are correct. The aluminum-water reaction for producing hydrogen has been well known and is published in some basic chemistry books dating back 50 years.

=============================================

Solar Eagle wrote, "The energy you would gain in this process has been added to the aluminum, it is a manufactured product....it's not free."

REPLY: I agree -- aluminum is NOT free. But the fact is, even with current recycling programs, most aluminum scrap is being buried in landfills. For that aluminum, it seems to me that it doesn't matter how much energy was required to make that aluminum, because it is being lost for the benefit of mankind every time soda cans and aluminum foil is buried in a landfill. It seems to me that benefits are to be gained if scrap aluminum is used to produce hydrogen, which can be used for energy and to increase the conversion efficiency of engines.

As noted earlier, we believe we have a new technology that can result in a 30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships. The primary purpose of our engineering draft is to explain this in some technical detail. That is the engineering draft that we offer for review by anyone that is competent, non-prejudicial, and an open-minded skeptic who considers the facts and data before rushing to a conclusion.

===========================================

CBRider wrote, "that's a LOT of aluminum at 3 molecules of water to one of aluminum. Is it recoverable and recyclable?

REPLY: Yes, it is.

The CC-HOD technology produces only TWO products - hydrogen and aluminum hydroxide (AH).

After harvesting the hydrogen, the AH by-product is both environmentally safe, not controlled by EPA, and can be either discarded or recycled. More info online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/AHU.pdf

===========================================

Pnaban wrote, "By adding wind power to ships they have decreased the fuel consumption."

REPLY: Yes, of course you are right. There are many methods that can (and should) be used to decrease fuel consumption and increase fuel efficiency -- thereby reducing the cost of fuel and the cost of energy.

==========================================

Natloz wrote, "I would be more than happy to look over your paper."

REPLY: As noted above, we believe we have a new technology that can result in a 30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships. The primary purpose of our engineering draft is to explain this in some technical detail. That is the engineering draft that we offer for review by anyone that is competent, non-prejudicial, and an open-minded skeptic who considers the facts and data before rushing to a conclusion. If these characteristics are YOUR characteristics, and if you can get your review comments back to me within a week, I will be pleased to send the engineering draft to you for review.

PLEASE PROVIDE AN EMAIL ADDRESS SO I CAN SEND YOU AN ATTACHED PDF FILE. I can't seem to attach files to PMs sent within this (CR4) system.

Respectfully, with kind regards,

Howard, Phillips Company

============================================

Dvmdsc wrote, "Me too, but I have some (too much) stuff in the pipe line, but yes as distraction perhaps. It is week end."

REPLY: Thank you. As noted above, if you can get your review comments back to me within a week, I will be pleased to send the engineering draft to you for review. But, if that can't fit into your schedule, perhaps it is better to wait until you have more time for the review. We are hoping the reviewers can look for calculation errors in the document, so that we can correct any such errors and present a better document at some time in the future.

But, I leave this matter up to you. If you can provide constructive and critical review comments in a timely manner (within one week), PLEASE PROVIDE AN EMAIL ADDRESS SO I CAN SEND YOU AN ATTACHED PDF FILE. I can't seem to attach files to PMs sent within this (CR4) system.

Respectfully, with kind regards,

Howard, Phillips Company

REPLY: I agree -- aluminum is NOT free. But the fact is, even with current recycling programs, most aluminum scrap is being buried in landfills. For that aluminum, it seems to me that it doesn't matter how much energy was required to make that aluminum, because it is being lost for the benefit of mankind every time soda cans and aluminum foil is buried in a landfill. It seems to me that benefits are to be gained if scrap aluminum is used to produce hydrogen, which can be used for energy and to increase the conversion efficiency of engines."

How do you plan to retrieve all that scrap aluminum buried in landfills? You want to discount its original cost of production, fine, but now you have to add the cost of getting it out of the landfill.

Pantaz wrote, "How do you plan to retrieve all that scrap aluminum buried in landfills? You want to discount its original cost of production, fine, but now you have to add the cost of getting it out of the landfill."

REPLY: Other people are more knowledgeable about scrap aluminum recovery and re-use. Even though I am not a recycling expert, here is my limited-knowledge answer:

My answer to your question is simply, Don't put scrap aluminum in a landfill, where it will will be wasted.

Scrap aluminum is in abundance.

This online video shows how scrap aluminum is recovered from the trash you throw away every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sS60ND1FkBI

Pay close attention to the video at the 3 min : 50 second mark in the video. That's where the company says they recover the amount of aluminum required for 1 billion beverage cans -- and they do that every year.

This amount of aluminum is recovered by just this ONE company! This is the kind of aluminum we need for CC-HOD production of hydrogen. We do not need high-purity aluminum.

It's TCM not tom.

You clearly don't seem to be reading the details in the replies that everyone is giving you here.

"Automobiles and many other ICEs have a similar low conversion efficiency. We believe that if the fuel conversion efficiency is in the range of 20% to 25%, there is room for improvement."

You are talking about automobile engines which run on gasoline not giant marine type diesel engines. The two are nowhere close to being the same.

Yes modern automotive gas engines have terrible fuel efficiency numbers and that's largely due to emissions compliance and I agree by adding other fuels to them can reduce their gasoline consumption but it does not make them any more efficient. I for one run propane on my pickup. The engines fuel efficiency is about the same and maybe slightly better on propane as it is gasoline (mostly due to the fact that the pickups computer which is programed for emissions has no control over it) but my cost for propane around here is on average 1/3 of that as gasoline. That in itself does not mean that propane is 75% efficient as compared to gasoline. it's just cheaper to buy.

Now going back to the giant marine diesels they are already at the near theoretical limits of fuel combustion efficiency running at 50 - 55% efficiency as I mentioned earlier in post 13 in the first sentence.

Just by itself, the mention of HHO is a huge blunder.

Hydrogen production from aluminum is not new, we have discussed many different methods on this site....The energy you would gain in this process has been added to the aluminum, it is a manufactured product....it's not free

"I posted anonymously because I am a coward. I am leading one of the techno companies that brought us all where we are. Not always on the good side."

But we can clearly see who you are dvmdsc!

Did you slip up on you posting or did admin finally kill the damned anonymous posting function?

Nope! "the damned anonymous posting function?" is still alive and well.

Alyn.

And that's a LOT of aluminum at 3 molecules of water to one of aluminum.

Is it recoverable and recyclable?

By adding wind power to ships they have decreased the fuel consumption.

I would be more than happy to look over your paper.

Me too, but I have some (too much) stuff in the pipe line, but yes as distraction perhaps. It is week end.

I have made the point before that America is littered with scrap metal. A drive almost anywhere in the country will reveal steel and aluminum from derelict mobile homes, businesses, gas stations, scrapped boats, cars, buses, farming machinery etc. It is so widely spread that the big question is: is it worthwhile collecting it and recycling it? The energy that was spent in the production of these metals is still partly there, particularly in the case of aluminum. I hate to see it go to waste.

If the equivalent amount of energy were lying around as kerosene, diesel or coal, no doubt it would be eagerly taken by locals, since it is easy to use. But aluminum? Would the economics of collecting it and bringing it back to a central point be worthwhile? People collect Al drinks cans for money, but it's probably only worth it in cities where short distances are involved.

So, if scrap aluminum can be made to displace hydrogen from water easily (notice it only liberates 1 atom of hydrogen from water), is it worthwhile doing it? Unless the answer is "yes," then there's no point in pursuing this technology - if it exists.

By recylcing we can preserve minerals for our future generations as well as reduce geological disasters.

We already recycle a huge amount of the aluminum, copper, steel, glass and paper in the country. Getting to be more and more as communities develop a dual garbage collection system for their area, half true garbage and half recyclable items.

Now if you can make styrofoam into diesel fuel we got it made, lol.

I agree ,but its not just metals. One of my concerns is used auto tires. They are composed > 90 % carbon black. Thats energy that is going to waste.

Dear Howard:

I´m a electronic technician. I understood that Large Ships is a Big Vessel, or Transatlantic transport, isn´t? Sorry, my english is poor.

If so, I think that ships could implement large solar panels for electricity and water to economy energy from the fuel motors, and the motors could be implemented with some device that uses the warm motor´s to warm the water the its be used in the ships water systems for wash and shower and so on, like the system that is used in the escape system for cooling the motor as you can see in this link http://www.boatinghowto.com/content/how-boat-cooling-systems-work-240/.

Best Regards,

Arlindo

Thanks.

I can't wait to read the rebuttal novella from the Oklahoma tycoon.

Maybe someday even stupid people like me could understand the world saving concept.

Oh, and maybe explain the difference between endothermic and exothermic reactions.

From: Follow-up Report: "Hydrogen Production Breakthrough ...

"The market price of Al today is US$1.87/kg. According to the table, CC-HOD consumes 1,380 g of Al to make 155 g H2, so for 1 kg H2 we need 8.9 kg of Al. Ignoring other costs, the cost of Al fuel to generate H2 by CC-HOD is thus US$16.65/kg H2. This site http://www.h2carblog.com/?p=461estimates costs of H2 production by various methods. Their most expensive estimate is for H2 from solar at US$10-12/kg, including $1.25 for taxes. So CC-HOD does not appear to be particularly cost-effective at today's Al prices."

Then there's still the matter of the rest of the costs involved.

I'm still not convinced this is viable. Looks too much like HHO to me.

At a $1 a pound he is already too high on the price.

The reason being that large ships doesn't burn the normal $4+ a gallon diesel fuel that we can buy at the local fuel station.

Most of them burn #4, #5, and #6 bunker fuel which is at the moment is running around ~$2.50 a gallon plus packs 10 - 30% more energy per unit of measure than our common #1 and #2 diesel fuels do.

To me this whole endeavor may sort of work in small scale applications to some effect but on the large scale real life applications I a very strong impression that he has not done any honest study and research into the whats whys and hows that his supposed target market deals with.

Now in the reality of saving fuel on large ships the ones transporting liquefied natural gas have it figured out! They just burn the NG that is being vented in order to keep the tanks at cryogenic temperatures during the voyages.

As I see it the future of large container ship fuel is going to be leaning heavy on NG which at the present is so cheap it's not worth the investment to collect and process it in many places.

Try this

REPLY to StandardsGuy: Is your real name Orville or Wilbur?

===========================================

JPool wrote, "So you need to tell me how much energy is required to produce a pound of Aluminum from raw ore"

REPLY: An argument against using aluminum is that it takes a lot of energy to mine, refine and smelt aluminum. That is true, but not a valid argument if scrap aluminum is used to generate hydrogen. Even with the recent growth of aluminum reclamation and recycling programs (a good thing), the fact is that most scrap aluminum is discarded into landfills where it is lost to the benefit of mankind. When it is lost to mankind, the energy-to-make-it argument becomes an argument akin to a bankrupt notion because such an argument actually SUPPORTS the idea of using scrap aluminum for something good, including its use in making hydrogen.

===========================================

JPool wrote, "if this took off, recycled AL might be hard to come by ..."

REPLY: An argument against using aluminum is that there is not enough of it. That is not a valid argument. Scrap aluminum is in abundance. An online video shows how scrap aluminum is recovered from the trash you throw away every day. Pay close attention to the video at the 3 min : 50 second mark in the video. That's where the company says they recover the amount of aluminum required for 1 billion beverage cans -- and they do that every year. This amount of aluminum is recovered by just this ONE company! This is the kind of aluminum we need for CC-HOD production of hydrogen. We do not need high-purity aluminum. Here is the link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sS60ND1FkBI

===========================================

JPool wrote, "Obviously a "savings" of diesel can be had by injecting hydrogen"

REPLY: You are right. I agree with you on this point.

===========================================

JPool wrote, "To date, hydrogen production takes more energy to produce then is received."

REPLY: CC-HOD results in more energy when the hydrogen is used (combusted, burned) than the energy required to generate the hydrogen. CC-HOD is the only technology, worldwide, that can generate hydrogen at any rate desired (high LPM) using less energy than the useful energy released when the hydrogen is used (combusted, burned).

The production of hydrogen using the CC-HOD technology has been publicly demonstrated, at a rate of 30 gallons per minute. The public demonstration (hydrogen production at 30 gallons/minute) is documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/CD.pdf

==========================================

Lyn wrote, "As I see it the future of large container ship fuel is going to be leaning heavy on NG which at the present is so cheap it's not worth the investment to collect and process it in many places."

REPLY: Fuel efficiency tops list of shipping concerns -Fuel efficiency has emerged as the leading strategy for shipping companies to meet the challenges posed by tough market conditions, according to a new survey from law firm Norton Rose. As Lloyd's List reports, 69% of shipping businesses believe that the industry should concentrate on developing more cost-effective means of managing fuel consumption in order to cope with the challenging economic conditions that Norton Rose describes as the "new normal", with 42% identifying increased financial restraint as the most significant change to their business over the past two years.

Ref: http://blog.admiralty.co.uk/tag/fuel-efficiency/

===========================================

Lyn wrote, "I can't wait to read the rebuttal novella from the Oklahoma tycoon. Maybe someday even stupid people like me could understand the world saving concept."

REPLY: Maybe, someday. Skill is forever. Intelligence either is, or it ain't.

==========================================

1 Developed the WORLD'S FIRST poison ivy topical application which stopped itching within

60 seconds following the application of this product. This product was successfully licensed

to another company for commercialization.

2 Developed the WORLD'S FIRST topical anti-venom for snakebite; shown effective for

rattlesnake bites and cobra bites. This product was licensed to another company for commercialization.

3 Developed the WORLD'S FIRST topical anti-venom for jellyfish stings This product was

successfully licensed to another company for commercialization.

4 Developed the WORLD'S FIRST topical anti-venom for spider bites, particularly the brown

recluse (fiddleback spider) which causes loss of tissue if not treated quickly and effectively.

This product was successfully licensed to another company for commercialization.

5 The above products were "ahead of their time," in view of the development of these products

before the FDA allowed OTC products to be sold as anti-venom products.

6 We also developed products for a wide variety of insect bites/stings. These products were

called StingMed. These products were successfully licensed to another company for commercialization.

7 Developed the WORLD'S FIRST non-antibiotic topical application THAT WAS 100%

SUCCESSFUL IN FIELD TRIALS for use in treating staph infections and MRSA infections.

It was called StaphWash. This product was successfully licensed to another company for

commercialization.

8 Developed the WORLD'S FIRST topical application that PREVENTED THE PUSTULE

from forming after a fire ant sting. This product was successfully licensed to another company

for commercialization.

9 Developed the WORLD'S STRONGEST BROAD-SPECTRUM ANTIBIOTIC. This claim

was made worldwide, and there was never a challenge to that claim. We call it TETRACYCLINE-

ABC.

10 Developed the WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for ACNE. This was based

on the use of tetracycline, and the product is a kit called Acneen Kit.

11 Developed the WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for psoriasis. This was based

on the use of Tetracycline, and the product is a kit called Dermoneen Kit.

12 Developed the WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for eczema. This was based

on the use of Tetracycline, and the product is a kit called Acneen Kit.

13 Developed the WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for second-degree burns.

This treatment causes a burn blister to disappear within 24 hours.

14 Developed the WORLD'S MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for diabetics who have

difficult-to-heal sores. This invention has prevented diabetic amputations of toes, feet and

legs, based on clinical data collected internationally and in the USA.

These are some amazing claims, along with your hydrogen making claim. Just one question, why have I never heard of you or your company????

he put it a lot of work to make a webpage that was pure BS you clearly read far more than I did, I went right to the PDF page hunting for real data and came up empty of course, was there anything about turning water into wine? I'm thirsty

NOW THAT is something to be proud of!!!!!

Hello Howard.

Firstly I am gradulating you for the post, it surely attract alot of skeptic but it seem that the open mind is the problem, is it not.

Any way, if you have time, in between replies, drop a copy at this address:(Email Address Removed CR4 Admin) i am interrested to give a look.

Thank you

TripppleP wrote, "Firstly I am gradulating you for the post..."

REPLY: Thank you!

=================================

TripppleP wrote, "Any way, if you have time, in between replies, drop a copy at this address:(Email Address Removed CR4 Admin) i am interrested to give a look. Thank you"

REPLY: I will need your email address. Can you send that to me in a PM/IM? Thanks for offering to take a look at this info. It is about a new hydrogen generation technology; and the calculations here are new. So, a 'sanity check," to look for calculation errors, is needed before this material "sees the light of day" on the internet.

=================================

JPool wrote, "Just one question, why have I never heard of you or your company????"

REPLY: You have now! Same question, Sir, why have I never heard of you?

=================================

Epke wrote, "Oh and Phillips called they want their name back"

Reply: You posted a photo of Philips. :) We are Phillips, but what's an "L" to gentlemen like you and me?

Howard,

You have not heard about me, because I make no outlandish claims to save the world from everything between snake bites to the energy crisis.

Funny I can't find any info on the net of you or your company that was not put out by you or your company...That press release by you for the tetracycline to treat staph and MRSA is on the web hundreds if not 1000's of times. How long did that take?

No conclusive data on any of your claims though. I did find one site, Barrys energy Forum (or something like that) that talked about your CC-HOD. Funny, the replies are similar to the ones here.

Where is the conclusive data Howard? Prove to me that if I get bit by an eastern diamond back rattlesnake, rubbing your zinc acetate solution on the bite mark will prevent my red bloods cells from rupturing and keep my nerve cells firing to control my muscles. (I will not be testing this myself) Your snake handler story talks about how effective it is but he has been bit 100's of times, I wonder if built up immunity has anything to do with it?

Without conclusive data, these are just wild claims.

You have not answered my earlier questions, so I will ask again.

How much capital would I have to spend on equipment if I wanted to save 30% fuel on a large ship?

How much does the CC cost per day? How will the prepared AL cost per day.

Howard, I don't doubt that CC-HOD can work, what I doubt Sir is how cheap you say it is.

I do seriously doubt your anti-venom claims and think this is very dangerous if people actually believe its going to save them.

perhaps once the lithium kicks in and the men in white coats finish taking him on his daily walk today he can respond.

I missed the snake handler bit. Kinda validates my "snake oil" statement.

I'm thinking that because Howard is on a reservation he might not be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

I'd certainly hate to depend on some ointment cooked up out of herbs and dirt to keep me alive if bitten by any venomous snake.

Cheers.

For me, the obvious give away that this is bogus is the 30% claim all by itself.

Given the fuel consumption of a modern container ship say a chinamax or a Maersk triple E I can garauntee you if there was any small, minute, minuscule, possibility that this would work you would find Maersk lined up at the door cash in hand. Hell they would go nuts for say a 5% decrease in fuel cost.

30% yeah right, and I have a little bridge outside of New York City I want to sell you too.

Where is the official Patent?

Oh and Phillips called they want their name back

So is this 'short engineering concept paper' your work?

Or are you one of those business type ?people? that looks to make money off the back of somebody elses intellectual hard work? Because you have the financial backing i.e. you're rich and you want to become richer and, nothing to do with the 'green agender' you're trying to portray. And you've come here trying to offset the cost of hiring a "greener energy" expert, to give you the (FREE) PROS/CONS of this concept and, to help you decide whether it will be profitable to invest in this concept.

There hasn't been much mention of the Aluminium Hydroxide that is produced. What happens to it? Does it drop to the sea floor as a slurry? Does it dissolve and the Aluminium gets into the food chain to increase the risk of Alzheimer's Disease to anyone eating fish? Or what?

I have an interest in this line of research, but just barely. I will email you.

I read the pdf? Sorry, but it did not define any change in known processes. The paper seems to just be a re-hash of what has already been stated in this forum. To produce an adequate amount of H would require a very large reactor and unless you have found a way to more efficiently remove the aluminum oxide i see no earth shattering new results. I assume (i hate that) that the heat from the engine is being used to speed up the process?

HOWARD!

How the hell are you? I figure you must be that kid I grew up with from down the alley who used aluminum foil and Red Devil lye to power his go cart when he didn't have any gas money.

Now that I got that out of my system.

So we figure that carrying two types of fuel is going to be more economical that just one?

I think the Railroads solved that one about 100 years ago.

I am curious why someone of your apparent means would be asking for free consultation/check/validation of a commercial product by total strangers whose technical competence cannot be verified.

This smells funny to me.

I'm also curious why you would engage in mindless debate over an unknown "technology" with people who don't really have any idea what your motivation is, nor what the "technology" is.

You can't possibly think that anything positive can come of this, do you?

I think you should stick to marketing snake oil and liniment and leave the real science to real scientists.

Or, are you just another quack that wants to be stroked by anybody that will pay attention to them?

Could it be that all valid sources have laughed you out of their offices already, and you are left to harvest praise from anonymous forums?

several years ago I worked with a guy and he was telling me how smart he was, like me he had invented a thing or two so we had a common to talk about. his Biggie that was going to make him rich was a co2 cylinder (just like a BB gun uses) to instantly chill down a can of soda or beer, I stroked his ego for a minute and told him I thought sales units could be in the millions if it worked right, he was beaming with pride until I told him I had seen this idea years before and not only did it not work but the idea had already been pitched to soda companies and none of them picked it up. The op here reminds me of that guy, I expect they'll both profit about the same pitching someone else's work as theirs, and how it will make millions using AL to make a little hydrogen gas is an old high school science lab experiment. charlatan's have been around centuries selling everything from therapeutic mud to shares in nonexistent gold mines. I don't see a lot of differenchere

From PWslack: "There hasn't been much mention of the Aluminium Hydroxide that is produced. What happens to it?"

REPLY: Aluminum hydroxide is a valuable and safe industrial material. After harvesting the hydrogen, the AH by-product is both environmentally safe, not controlled by EPA, and can be either discarded or recycled. More info online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/AHU.pdf

=================================

From Ronclarke: "Sorry, but it did not define any change in known processes. The paper seems to just be a re-hash of what has already been stated in this forum. ... I see no earth shattering new results.

REPLY:

Before CC-HOD became available, it was not possible or practical to produce hydrogen on demand (HOD) at the rate needed to obtain a 30% fuel cost savings for cargo ships, diesel-electric generators sometimes called GENSETs, locomotives and trucks, including the common 18-wheeler commercial truck.

Now and for the future, the situation will be different. The new technology, CC-HOD, makes it possible and practical, for the first time on earth, to produce hydrogen on demand (HOD) at the rate needed to obtain a 30% fuel cost savings for large engines

Here are some of the NEW TECHNOLOGY highlights:

We call it Catalytic Carbon, Hydrogen On Demand - CC-HOD. This simple, straightforward hydrogen-generation approach is the only technology, worldwide, that combines all of the following features and advantages:

The process uses a new catalyst, based on carbon, that is low cost and lowers the activation energy, Ea, when used to split water; and harvest hydrogen. Catalytic Carbon is a NEW non-stoichiometric heterogenous surface-activated catalyst.

CC-HOD results in more energy when the hydrogen is used (combusted, burned) than the energy required to generate the hydrogen. CC-HOD is the only technology, worldwide, that can generate hydrogen at any rate desired (high LPM) using less energy than the useful energy released when the hydrogen is used (combusted, burned).

CC-HOD can generate hydrogen at ANY rate (LPM, GPM), limited only by the hardware design.

The production of hydrogen using the CC-HOD technology has been publicly demonstrated, at a rate of 30 gallons per minute. The public demonstration (hydrogen production at 30 gallons/minute) is documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/CD.pdf

The CC-HOD technology has been verified. It has been successfully used to produce hydrogen by workers worldwide. The technology verification and the countries where CC-HOD was evaluated are documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/AHA.pps

The CC-HOD technology has been endorsed by the American Hydrogen Association. This endorsement is documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/ROY.pdf

============================

Lyn bless-his-heart wrote, "I'm ... curious why you would engage in mindless debate over an unknown "technology" with people who don't really have any idea what your motivation is, nor what the "technology" is."

REPLY: "I had to come here, to CR4. Where else can I find the gentlemanly engineering competence that is needed for the review of a new technology? :)

========================

Lyn bless-his-heart wrote, "I'm ... what the "technology" is."

REPLY: Hi Len, a preposition is something you should never end a sentence with. :) P.S. I'm beginning to like you!

===========================

James Stewart wrote, "I have an interest in this line of research, but just barely."

REPLY: Me too.

===========================

Dodgy wrote, "So is this 'short engineering concept paper' your work?"

REPLY: Yes sir.

======================

Rashevarik wrote, "How ... are you? I figure you must be that kid I grew up with..."

REPLY: Fine, thank you. Thank you for the recognition and the endorsement, my friend. :)

Hi Haward,

Why don't you quit speaking in riddles and say something worthwhile. So far, all you've done is tease and offer empty sentences devoid of any technical content.

Snake oil salesmen employ this technique.

PS You're beginning to ware on me.

You produce nothing of value here.

But, if this amuses you, knock yourself out.

Where else can I find the gentlemanly engineering competence
Good luck with that one. Yes theres brains in this here place , but without information as to actual processes there can be little or no feedback. I still stand that without a HUGE reactor there will be little benefit.

Its that BIG HONKIN CALCULATOR!

Yep, and extrapolate those numbers out, how many containers would be left on the dock in order to carry that much aluminum? and that is assuming you could use sea water. If you also had to carry fresh water........

I don't know too many carriers that would go for that deal.

Interesting banter, but I suppose a ship that is drafting less deep in the water (gas lift bags?? just asking) would experience less drag, and would therefore move more easily across the water... however another idea rises to the surface, suppose you use the hydrogen to generate steam and jet that out the back of the ship for added propulsion? More thrust = less demand on the screws.

Now if you really want to increase efficiency and fuel economy here's the basics from the folks building the biggest.

How do you make a ship this efficient?

The simple answer is size. When a ship is built larger the interior volume obviously increases but the portion of the hull exposed to the most friction grows much less.

The friction that causes drag in the water is mostly confined to the bow and stern transitions. Increasing length contributes little to the overall drag of a hull.

Hull shape is also a major contributor to the design. The Maersk Triple-E uses a bulbous bow like most modern ships. This protruding bow below the waterline produces a lower pressure cone of water that allows the ship to slide trough the water with much less resistance.

To understand how this works think of a motorcycle going down a highway with air in place of the water.

A rider and the motorcycle itself have poor aerodynamics. Air piles up and pushes against the bike and rider using more power and fuel to overcome the resistance. Now add a small windshield or fairing and the air hitting these surfaces slips past the obstructions much more efficiently. The air hitting the aerodynamic surfaces also splits the incoming air in such a way that it acts like a much larger surface pushing adjacent air streams away from obstructions.

Naval architects design hulls with similar characteristics.

The bulbous bow splits the water and directs it away from the sides of the hull. This low pressure cone varies in size according to the speed of a vessel. The Triple-E and other ships are designed with an ideal operating speed in mind. This concept is often referred to as hull speed.

At an ideal hull speed the low pressure cone of water is just large enough to accommodate the ship. A perfect hull allows the area of low resistance to collapse just in front of the prop. This configuration allows minimum resistance to the hull while limiting the possibility of cavitation of the props by increasing water flow and pressure.

The Triple-E, which stands for economy of scale, energy efficiency and environmentally improved, does use a very efficient power plant but the hull design is the major factor in making it the most efficient container ship to sail.

By simply reducing the fuel consumption, Maersk designers have made a massive impact on emissions. Many of the hull design techniques are common is modern ship building but they have been combined and optimized to become a set of best practices for large ship design.

Cited from this article: http://maritime.about.com/od/Vessel_Profiles/p/Maersk-Eee-Class-Of-Green-Container-Ships.htm

A MESSAGE WORTH SHARING

From: XXXXXXXX
Sent: 05/13/2013
To: Howard Phillips
Subject: Fuel Economy for large ships

Howard,

I am not qualified to comment on your paper, but would like to express my personal appreciation of your professionalism and elegant use of language in this engagement with the forum.

A number of members have corresponded here for long enough to become a little cynical. eg students posting and hoping to get their homework done for them etc... Other members are just downright cranky!

You get used to it, and it often raises a smile!

Regards,

XXXXXXXX

===================================================

Hi XXXXXXXX -- Thanks so much for your kind and generous input. I really don't mind the cynical and/or harsh inputs on the topic (30% increase in fuel economy for large ships), but I've been amused at the wild comments and (I hope good natured) attacks on our company activity which is "off topic."

The reasons that I have been a bit 'restrained' on this forum are that:

1. I have held out a draft for review; and this is a public forum.

2. I have described it as an engineering concept paper, which it is.

3. Because of (1) and (2), this puts some engineering work up for discussion before the public.

4. I am licensed as a registered professional engineer, which carries the obligation (on me, not others) for professional behavior when functioning as an engineer, in public, whether in person or via communications. This obligation is not self imposed -- This requirement is part of the obligation that comes from the Board of Registration for professional engineers.

Because of the above, I plan to continue as I have been doing on this forum. I will treat all with respect; and respond to the unprofessional inputs only lightly and sparsely, with no more than restrained humor from time to time.

The requested reviews of my concept paper have been mixed -- some "technical depth, high quality" reviews and some others, too. But, the good thing is that I have gotten some really GOOD and competent reviews from some excellent people on this forum. Interestingly, those people, for the most part, don't post frequently and are not part of the group that behaves somewhat unprofessionally. The best reviewers have read my original post and contacted me via PM/IM. So, there seems to be a "self differentiation" of members on this site -- members with competence and professionalism -- and the other chaps, too.

Because I have found a couple of strong, competent, fair and critical reviewers on this site (what I wanted), I will take down the original posting in a couple of days. But, before I do that, I'll keep it active and respond to comments posted in the forum.

Kind regards,

Howard

P.S. Isn't it a nice thing that a site like this can operate where anyone can say (post) anything they want. That's the American way!

======================================

JPool wrote, "How much capital would I have to spend on equipment if I wanted to save 30% fuel on a large ship?"

REPLY: A new hydrogen-generation method exists that, for the first time ever, might make it possible and practical to generate enough pure hydrogen (not HHO) at sufficiently-high rates, on demand (HOD) to do the job. It has never been done before James, so an answer to your question can not be given now; the answer perhaps lies in the future. So, I think you make a good point, and the following excerpts have been added to the concept paper:

MORE WORK NEEDED: An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that there is a growing demand for large, coherent, repeatable data sets to support an underlying theory, regardless of the field of study. It is stretching the proof of technology to use the data from a limited set of conditions and extrapolate it to entirely different vehicles, engines and fuels that are orders of magnitude apart. Going from a 3.8 liter gasoline automobile engine to a marine diesel that displaces 1821 liters per cylinder (6-14 per engine!) requires quite a bit more effort, much more so than simply saying the results are fungible. This is a valid argument. This argument applies to all new technologies -- especially so-called "game changer" technologies. What is new? The ability to generate hydrogen at unlimited high rates, on demand, economically, using CC-HOD. More work, leading to product development and demonstrations will be required. Summary: This is a valid argument.

An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that the current state of the art of hydrogen fuel supplementation is still in its infancy and will require interdisciplinary teams of manufacturers, entrepreneurs, engineers, chemists, and scientists to help it achieve its potential. More work, leading to product development and demonstrations will be required. Summary: This is a valid argument.

An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that cell designs are not available for company operations desiring to develop hydrogen-fueled commercial hardware. That is valid and true. Phillips Company is a pharmaceutical company -- not a hardware company. The commercial hardware designs will be developed by company operations who want to commercialize this technology. Phillips Company will assist any company in the understanding and use of the CC-HOD engineering chemistry needed for various commercial hardware designs.

James, one point made in the concept paper about COST is the following:

17 STORAGE TANKS: Because CC-HOD can be used to generate hydrogen at any required rate (LPM), there is no need for hydrogen storage tanks for most applications. This is a major system-design cost savings.

======================================

JPool wrote, "How much does the CC cost per day? How (much) will the prepared AL cost per day."

REPLY: CC is not consumed in the process. So, there is not a "per day" cost. The CC is a true catalyst. One definition of a catalyst is, "it has to be there to speed up the reaction, but it is not consumed." This applies to almost all catalysts, including the catalysts in your auto's catalytic converter and in the oxygen sensors on your auto.

From the most recent version of the concept paper:

9 The CC-HOD process is based on catalytic chemistry which is well understood. See the online description of CC-HOD at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/CCS.pdf

10 Catalytic Carbon is a non-stoichiometric heterogenous surface-activated catalyst. Complete activation process details are provided to anyone who licenses the CC-HOD technology.

=======================================

JPool wrote, "Howard, I don't doubt that CC-HOD can work, what I doubt Sir is how cheap you say it is."

REPLY: Your question is not completely clear to me. Do you mean costs for equipment (I answered that in the above reply); or do you mean the cost for CC (I answered that in the above reply); or do you mean the cost for fuel? I assume the latter (cost for fuel) is your question. Here is an excerpt from the latest version of the concept paper:

3 CC-HOD uses only two fuels - aluminum and water. All the hydrogen produced comes from water. The process uses about 3 times more water than aluminum. The water does not need to be distilled. Any water will work. Sea water can be used to generate hydrogen. Dirty water can be used to generate hydrogen using the CC-HOD process.

3 An argument against using aluminum is that it costs money. That is a valid argument. We believe the cost of aluminum for making hydrogen is continuing to decrease. When CC-HOD R&D first began, we were paying about $10 per pound for 30-micron aluminum. Now (2013), it can be obtained for $3 per pound, in commercial volumes from suppliers in the USA. From international suppliers, aluminum is available for less than $1 per pound. New business ventures are being considered to provide aluminum for CC-HOD at costs that will continue to decline. For those interested in this activity, ask Phillips Company for the contact information for Butch Coger. He attended the world's first Hydrogen Design Conference, and he is in discussions regarding a possible new business initiative to provide low-cost-aluminum for CC-HOD.

======================================

REPLY to those who posted info on this site from or about our Company and the Company's PHARMACEUTICL PRODUCTS:

1. Thanks for doing that. If I had done that, I would have been accused of advertising, and rightly so!

2A. That information (about our company and our pharmaceutical products) seems to be off topic, and therefore not sanctioned. The original post defined the topic for this thread of posts --"30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships."

2B. From this site's RULES OF CONDUCT: "Please stay on topic. Posts and comments should be of a technical nature..." For this reason, my reply here is brief and to the point.

3. The products are all FDA registered. Phillips Company is an FDA-registered drug manufacturer. Our pharma claims are 100% compliant with FDA monograph guidance. We have never had a warning letter or a recall. If you have complaints about the NON-medical aspects of our products, your complaint can be registered with the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

4. Our company stands behind every claim made for each of our products. Your complaint that you could find no data to support our product claims is without merit; and could be considered false and misleading; and possibly damaging to the business interests of the Company. There is definitely data on our Company web site to support those claims.

5. Your OPINIONS about our Company and our products are fair game. But, please be advised that if you use public communications, including the WWW, to spread harmful and unsupported matter without justification, you could find yourself liable for your actions -- if your actions are found to have been harmful to the business. Our Company is a "develop and license" company, and I believe, even as a small company, we have successfully developed and licensed (to other companies) more world-class products than any other company in the world, during the past 5 years. Our accomplishments and our Company reputation is important to us, and we have no choice but to defend our Company if/when it becomes appropriate and necessary to do so.

6. Please do not over-react to the above. I am not upset with you. The above information is advisiory only; and not an implied threat of legal action. Your OPINIONS about our company and our products are fair game.

Respectfully, and with kind regards,

Howard

"Our Company is a "develop and license" company". Interesting that.

So is your disclaimer. Not sure that'll stand up in court.

www.PhillipsCompany.4t.com/Disclaimer.pdf

Howard, I still maintain that you have not offered one shred of technical data that says this HHO scheme is economically viable, and you seem to be asking for endorsement and validation where none exists.

Ome, chi pisa la chike.

Yea but I managed to get him to all out ignore me since he posted #28!

what do you got going for you?

"what do you got going for you"

Only my rugged good looks.

Oh, and my attitude.

Now, see what you did?

All you have to do is accept the good doctor's assurance that everything will be OK. It will all work, just as soon as we get out of that pesky conceptual stage.

I'm tired, bye.

pesky conceptual stage
Theres one hell of a distance between a concept and a product.

Rashavarek wrote, "By simply reducing the fuel consumption, Maersk designers have made a massive impact on emissions."

REPLY: Good comment. I liked your other comments in that post too. Thanks for making a constructive comment with relevant ideas.

========================================

Lyn wrote, "Howard, I still maintain that you have not offered one shred of technical data that says this HHO scheme is ..."

REPLY: Len, this is not an HHO scheme. The gas produced is not HHO. From the latest version of the concept paper:

6 CC-HOD produces hydrogen, with no oxygen. This is done with no filters and no separator cell design requirements.
7 CC-HOD produces hydrogen that is 93% pure, based on independent test laboratory results, available online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/PUR.pdf

Len, The nature of the gas generated from CC-HOD is clearly illustrated and described online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/AHA.pps

Summary: This is not an HHO scheme. The gas produced is not HHO. Len, If you continue to ignore this fact, then I can only conclude that you are being intentionally misleading. If you continue to do that in a public forum such as this, I will conclude that you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

==============================================

Lyn wrote, "Howard, ... you seem to be asking for endorsement and validation where none exists."

REPLY: Lyn, I have not asked for endorsement, and I have said that in previous posts. Have you not read that? For clarity, and for the record, please read and understand this: I am not asking for endorsement and validation. What I have asked for is the review of an engineering concept paper by a reviewer(s) who can provide a skeptical, non-prejudiced, critical, technically-competent review. In previous posts, you and I agreed that you were not an acceptable reviewer for this engineering concept paper.

==============================================

Lyn wrote, "Howard, I still maintain that you have not offered one shred of technical data that says this HHO scheme is economically viable."

REPLY: On this point, I feel I need to provide a more gentle reply, and give you the benefit of the doubt. I sense that you might not be an engineer and that is OK, but it also suggests that you do not understand the purpose and implications of a concept paper. Here is an example....Venture Concepts Paper; Introduction; The conceptual venture that I am going to start when I get all the resources that I need is Wyatt's Liquor and Tobacco Store. At my store, customers will be able to purchase varieties of liquor, beer, wine, and tobacco products. The Wyatt's Liquor and Tobacco Store will be the cheapest store around that customers will be able to purchase liquor and tobacco products all the time. ... ... http://www.studymode.com/essays/Venture-Concepts-Paper-1117948.html

(Continuing, with apologies to other readers who already know this...) Len, the point here is that most new things start with an idea, then a development of that idea and what might be done with it, and then many steps before the idea is commercialized, if ever.

A concept paper (example above) may have calculations, hypotheses, and plans. Seldom does a concept paper have a great deal of technical data or proof. "Proof of concept" is important but almost always occurs at a later time, and the "proof of concept" work is usually guided by the ideas initially described in the concept paper.

Len, in the field of engineering, a concept paper with a lack of extensive technical data does NOT mean that the concept is flawed (although it may be). Please read this paragraph again, because it is the nub of the reply to your seemingly-irrational demand for "technical data" for fuel cost reduction for large ships using hydrogen as a fuel additive to improve combustion and fuel efficiency. I hope this explanation helps you.

From the latest version of the concept paper:

16 MORE WORK NEEDED: An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that there is a growing demand for large, coherent, repeatable data sets to support an underlying theory, regardless of the field of study. It is stretching the proof of technology to use the data from a limited set of conditions and extrapolate it to entirely different vehicles, engines and fuels that are orders of magnitude apart. Going from a 3.8 liter gasoline automobile engine to a marine diesel that displaces 1821 liters per cylinder (6-14 per engine!) requires quite a bit more effort, much more so than simply saying the results are fungible. This is a valid argument. This argument applies to all new technologies -- especially so-called "game changer" technologies. What is new? The ability to generate hydrogen at unlimited high rates, on demand, economically, using CC-HOD. More work, leading to product development and demonstrations will be required. Summary: This is a valid argument.

17 TECHNOLOGISTS NEEDED: An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that the current state of the art of hydrogen fuel supplementation is still in its infancy and will require interdisciplinary teams of manufacturers, entrepreneurs, engineers, chemists, and scientists to help it achieve its potential. More work, leading to product development and demonstrations will be required. Summary: This is a valid argument.

18 CELL DESIGNS NEEDED: An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that cell designs are not available for company operations desiring to develop hydrogen-fueled commercial hardware. That is valid and true. Phillips Company is a pharmaceutical company -- not a hardware company. The commercial hardware designs will be developed by company operations who want to commercialize this technology. Phillips Company will assist any company in the understanding and use of the CC-HOD engineering chemistry needed for various commercial hardware designs.

=============================================

Jpool wrote, "I think it's too early to say "30% Increase in Fuel Economy".

REPLY: You might be right. Too early to tell. This is currently being viewed (by me) as an engineering concept. Please see my comments above to Len. A concept paper with a lack of extensive technical data does NOT mean that the concept is flawed (although it may be). Please keep in mind that this is being discussed in the NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND RESEARCH section of CR4.

Kind regards,
Howard

Easy, maybe, but crooked. Reported.

CR4 Admin: Removed Spam

Howard, what I mean by how cheap it is, is the whole process. This includes the initial equipment cost and the cost associated with sustaining this process. I understand now it's to early to say what the cost will be on hydrogen generating equipment large enough for the volume needed in a large ship. But then, I think it's too early to say "30% Increase in Fuel Economy". If the process including the equipment cost more then the diesel fuel itself, then there is no increase in economy.

I purchase new equipment for my company as part of my job, one of the things I have to do is calculate the R.O.I. With us, if its more then 4 years, its not worth it. That is why I was so curious on what the initial equipment cost will be.

I also truly believe that if this is in wide scale use not only is the price of scrap AL going to go up, but may also be hard to come by. We are talking about alot of ships out there.

Tcmtech wrote, "I hope that everyone of your prospective investors comes across this thread and sees what was covered here and why."

REPLY: I hope so, too!

==============================================

Tcmtech wrote, "An argument against using aluminum is that it costs money. That is a valid

argument. We believe the cost of aluminum for making hydrogen is continuing to decrease..."

...

Cripes man! given a rational ROI analysis like Jpool is talking about for your system and

not including any operating costs installation or engine modifications while assuming a 100%

perfect operating and conversion rate for your system you are still coming out at just over

a 3:1 operating cost ratio against your system opposed to doing nothing at all for any

period of time!

REPLY: You and JPool are either wrong or your are confused. Probably both. Your cost analysis is totally flawed and does not relate to the concept for fuel cost reduction that is described in the concept paper. Here is why:

1. Your cost analysis seems to be based on the substitution or partial substitution of hydrogen for bunker fuel or diesel. That is not the concept discussed in the concept paper. JPool has read the concept paper and I think he should know this.

2. The concept paper provides a cost-saving analysis based on using hydrogen in what is called the BOOST mode. If you are commenting on the concept paper and its contents, your cost analyses will remain flawed until you understand what is meant by BOOST mode; and until your cost analysis addresses that mode of hydrogen use to improve combustion and fuel efficiency.

I am being gentle here and giving YOU the benefit of the doubt, since I believe you have not read the concept paper. To explain in detail, here is info from the most recent version of the concept paper:

7 Hydrogen used as the ONLY fuel -- An argument against using aluminum is that it may be too expensive to make the aluminum-water reaction cost competetive vis-a-vis conventional hydrocarbon fuels for applications where ONLY hydrogen is contemplated as a fuel. Cost analyses regarding this matter were first carried out by Russel Phillips (American Hydrogen Association) and later by Jim Chatterly (Consultant). These analyses established and confirmed that aluminum may be too expensive to make the aluminum-water reactions cost competetive vis-a-vis conventional hydrocarbon fuels for applications where ONLY hydrogen is contemplated as a fuel for some applications currently. Hydrogen fuel enjoys no government subsidity (such as has been the case for ethanol and petroleum). But the cost for aluminum (low purity, low cost) is decreasing because of the initiative regarding low-cost-aluminum new business venture, described above. This argument does not apply to the use of hydrogen for "BOOST mode" operation of existing gasoline and diesel engines.

8 Hydrogen used as a BOOST fuel -- It has been firmly established that hydrogen can be used to boost MPG in vehicles using internal combustion engines. Fuel reduction of 30% or more has been experimentally proven by many workers, including individual experimenters. A web site devoted to hydrogen used in this manner has a growing membership. www.HODinfo.com now has a membership exceeging 3000 members. An argument against using aluminum is that it may be too expensive to make the aluminum-water reactions cost competetive vis-a-vis conventional hydrocarbon fuels for applications where hydrogen is contemplated as a fuel supplement used in BOOST mode. This argument seems to have no merit, primarily because hydrogen consumption rates are much lower when BOOST mode is used to increase MPG for automobiles and trucks. The requirement for hydrogen is about 6 LPM for large 18-wheeler trucks, and less than 1 LPM for typical automobile engines.

9 Hydrogen used as a BOOST fuel -- We believe a bankrupt notion is the best way to describe the argument against using aluminum because it is too expensive to make the aluminum-water reactions cost competetive vis-a-vis conventional hydrocarbon fuels for applications where hydrogen is contemplated as a fuel supplement used in BOOST mode. As noted above, test vehicle results have shown a mileage improvement of 32%. These test results are documented online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/CT.pdf

Actually I have read all of the links you have supplied so far and to be honest none of this looks any different than any other HHO scam or proof of concept results relative to any typical emissions compliant spark ignition type gasoline fueled vehicle.

Your Buick you linked to here, http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/CT.pdf , went from 26 - 30 MPG to 37 MPG levles with a little hydrogen being injected into the intake from your system.

I would say that gain you had would be a rather typical fuel efficiency increase that can be had with most every emissions compliant fuel injected engine. The extra hydrogen changes the intake air charge just enough to fool the computer into running closer to the engines most fuel efficient running A/F ratio (~12.9:1) opposed to the stoichiometric ratio (~14.7:1 )that give the least NOX production.

For me gains like this and how they are got are old news and old knowledge. I have been modifying my vehicles for better fuel mileage since I went to tech college some 20 years ago and learned that emissions compliant is not efficiency compliant by any means.

Back then a few buddies and I took my stock 1984 Mercury Topaz four door from mid 20's MPG numbers too low to mid 30's, even with aggressive driving habits, with nothing more than getting rid of the emissions systems and rejetting the carburetor to a richer setting. Plus it wasn't uncommon to see near 40 MPG numbers on long trips when driven more conservatively.

Going back to your Buick to be honest with a bit of computer programming and emission systems mods I would be so bold as to say that you could still get the same 37 MPG numbers without your system and maybe a bit more!

Right now I have a 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis which is also a full sized four door V8 powered sedan that I have gutted bypassed and tweaked the emissions systems on it to gain fuel mileage numbers.

On our last trip a few weeks ago to Chicago it averaged 29 MPG for a 1900 mile trip that was done running an average speed of 75 MPH with a fair amount of 80+ and stop and go heavy city driving as well all done by my wife and I whom neither one of us is anywhere close to a conservative driver.

The thing is those are not new numbers for that car either. I have had it for about 8 years now, of which when I first got it I did the work, and since then it has always consistently ran that and better highway numbers since. In good conservative highway driving it has stepped into the 30 - 34 MPG range countless times.

Now how all of this relates to your system you are comparing what you got with a common emissions compliant gasoline burning spark ignition engine and saying that your system will do the same on a completely different type of engine using different fuel, ignition, and overall entirely different mechanical drive application without having ever tested it.

The point is that the giant marine diesel engines are not emissions regulated or detuned to meet politically imposed exhaust standards like our common vehicle engines are. They are built to be the most fuel efficient that they can be and by design injecting hydrogen into them will not fool any computer into running the engine in any more fuel efficient mode than they already are already running at.

The big cargo ships are owned by companies that are similar to the American railroads. That is they are too important to our survival and too well organized in what they do to be shut down due to EPA regulations and they know it! They literally have the combined corporate physical size power and group organization to give the EPA the finger over petty emissions standards which means they can and already do build their engines to run at their peak efficiency as is!

TCMTECH wrote, "Actually I have read all of the links you have supplied so far and to be honest none of this looks any different than any other HHO scam or proof of concept results relative to any typical emissions compliant spark ignition type gasoline fueled vehicle." REPLY: Perhaps you might like to look at http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/BMO.pdf That document has pictures. ***************************************** TCMTECH wrote, "I went to tech college some 20 years ago and learned that emissions compliant is not efficiency compliant by any means." REPLY: I agree with you on that point. ****************************************** TCMTECH wrote, "Going back to your Buick to be honest with a bit of computer programming and emission systems mods I would be so bold as to say that you could still get the same 37 MPG numbers without your system and maybe a bit more!" REPLY: Perhaps so. But, no adjustments were made on the Buick test vehicle. The only modification was the delivery of hydrogen into the air-intake manifold. We believe the improvement in MPG was due solely to the small amount of hydrogen and the attendant increase in fuel conversion efficiency. Again, see the combustion-chamber figure in http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/BMO.pdf ****************************************** TCMTECH wrote, "you are comparing what you got with a common emissions compliant gasoline burning spark ignition engine and saying that your system will do the same on a completely different type of engine using different fuel, ignition, and overall entirely different mechanical drive application without having ever tested it." REPLy: Woah! That is NOT what I am saying, or have said. The document with the calculations is an ENGINEERING CONCEPT document. The most recent version of that document clearly says... 15 MORE WORK NEEDED: An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that there is a growing demand for large, coherent, repeatable data sets to support an underlying theory, regardless of the field of study. It is stretching the proof of technology to use the data from a limited set of conditions and extrapolate it to entirely different vehicles, engines and fuels that are orders of magnitude apart. Going from a 3.8 liter gasoline automobile engine to a marine diesel that displaces 1821 liters per cylinder (6-14 per engine!) requires quite a bit more effort, much more so than simply saying the results are fungible. This is a valid argument. This argument applies to all new technologies -- especially so-called "game changer" technologies. What is new? The ability to generate hydrogen at unlimited high rates, on demand, economically, using CC-HOD. More work, leading to product development and demonstrations will be required. Summary: This is a valid argument. ********************************************* Jpool wrote, "I have tried to be less cynical then some of my counterparts ... ..." REPLY: I appreciate that. Thank you for that. ********************************************** Jpool wrote, "I ask for data, that is not on your paper, and I am wrong and confused ... ..." REPLY: It seemed to me that your assessment of the concept (in the concept paper) was based somehow on your belief that the cost saving calculation was based on using hydrogen to replace part of the primary fuel (bunker fuel and/or diesel fuel). That is what is called FUEL SUBSTITUTION operation of an engine. If I am correct about that, then your belief and assumptions were both incorrect and flawed. Now, if that might be the case, whose fault is that? I am thinking that the fault might lie with me, because I did not provide a detailed explanation of the differences between BOOST MODE and FUEL REPLACEMENT mode of engine operation and fuel conversion efficiency. The entire thrust of the cost-saving calculations in the concept paper are based on hydrogen BOOST MODE operation of a large engine. That is strongly different than using hydrogen to replace part of the primary fuel (bunker fuel and/or diesel fuel). If you have not already seen it, perhaps you might like to look at http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/BMO.pdf Another reason why I believed you may have been a bit confused is your comment, "This is a flim-flam show, smoke and mirrors if you will." If you distinguished between BOOST MODE operation and FUEL SUBSTITUTION operation, I am thinking that surely you would not think the concept (BOOST MODE) discussed in the concept paper is a "flim-flam show." After taking a look at the "BMO.pdf" document, do you still hold the belief that hydrogen BOOST MODE is a "flim-flam show?" ******************************************** Jpool wrote, "I have tried to be less cynical then some of my counterparts, but that has gotten me nowhere. I ask for data, that is not on your paper, and I am wrong and confused, and you go on the defensive." REPLY: The draft that you kindly reviewed was (is) an enginering concept paper (example provided in an earlier post). As you know, a concept paper may have calculations, hypotheses, and plans. Seldom does a concept paper have a great deal of technical data or proof. "Proof of concept" is important but almost always occurs at a later time, and the "proof of concept" work is usually guided by the ideas initially described in the concept paper. A concept paper with a lack of extensive technical data does NOT mean that the concept is flawed (although it may be). I acknowledge and understand your demand for "technical data" for fuel cost reduction for large ships using hydrogen as a fuel additive to improve combustion and fuel efficiency. The most recent version of that document says... 15 MORE WORK NEEDED: An argument against using CC-HOD to generate hydrogen is that there is a growing demand for large, coherent, repeatable data sets to support an underlying theory, regardless of the field of study. It is stretching the proof of technology to use the data from a limited set of conditions and extrapolate it to entirely different vehicles, engines and fuels that are orders of magnitude apart. Going from a 3.8 liter gasoline automobile engine to a marine diesel that displaces 1821 liters per cylinder (6-14 per engine!) requires quite a bit more effort, much more so than simply saying the results are fungible. This is a valid argument. This argument applies to all new technologies -- especially so-called "game changer" technologies. What is new? The ability to generate hydrogen at unlimited high rates, on demand, economically, using CC-HOD. More work, leading to product development and demonstrations will be required. Summary: This is a valid argument. I hope this explanation helps you. **************************************** RASHAVAREK wrote, "Thanks Howard, no thought involved it was simply cut and paste." REPLY: ALL you wrote is significant and of interest. It turns our that the concept paper has MOST (but not all) of the calculations you requested/suggested. Might you be interested in looking over the concept paper? If you IM/PM me, I will give you my email address -- or you can give me yours, and I'll be pleased to send it to you if you have time/interest in taking a peek at it. Please let me know. Kind regards, Howard