30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships

TCMTECH wrote, "Thats why your catalytic carbon and hydrogen, along with most every HHO boosting system that is big enough to a point, sort of works. It's using a physical/chemical manipulation of the intake air charge and exhaust gases to make the computer adjust the engine to a more efficient A/F ratio that has a better chemical energy to mechanical energy conversion efficiency. Or at least until the boosting gets too high then things get worse." REPLY: I suspect that you are aware that hydrogen BOOST mode operation also produces about the same improvements in fuel conversion efficiency (about 30% improvement in MPG) FOR ENGINES THAT HAVE NO COMPUTER; AND NO FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM. Engines with carburators -- both gasoline and diesel -- have shown significant improvements in MPG. It seems that a 30% cost reduction might be possible for LARGE engines -- but nobody has proven it WILL or that it WILL NOT. Kind regards, Howard P.S. Again, at the expense of being repetetive, I want to say that your reviews and your comments have been helpful. The concept paper has been revised accordingly, and for that I remain grateful to you for the time you have given to these exchanges.

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Spam: This post was deleted because it contained advertising outside the Commercial Space forum. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about advertising.

beyond provising everything you need for vacation, a cruise ship also provides transportation to a destination. Indeed, the demands of cruise ship are extraordinary and so is fuel consuption. In college I have a task to write an essay on this topic. Though, I am searching for professional essay writing web site)

Howard, have been following this and I admit I am torn between that you are having a point and that when you say: "this is a valid argument" you are actually not the one to say that.

You have been asking us to comment on the paper. The way the discussion should go is that you provide the arguments and we say it is a valid argument!

When you cement your standpoint by saying it yourself I get the feeling you only use us. You use us for a validation that you make up yourself, piggybacking an international engineering forum with the intend to boost your reputation on the engineering side because your competence is more on the medical side. I think you are a very elaborate sales guy and your idea has merits but be prepared that in the engineering world an idea never makes it into reality however good it might be. Often it simply is not feasible even when the underlaying process is well known and works. It is always the question of money and effort.

From what I read you still have to work on your idea and put more effort in your research. I hope some of the arguments presented here will help you overcome the obstacles in your way. Good luck with the project, never give up but always listen to the facts.

All I think he was after was to get a long and indepth review from what he sees as a creditable engineering forum to use for further investor phishing.

"This concept has been through considerable review by a large group of credible engineers so you should give me your money!"

He just puts a spin on the whole thing by leaving out the parts of who did the reviews and where the reviewing picked it to pieces and determined the whole concept fell between highly sceptical and being an outright scam.

I have followed this and find most of the empirical data on engine size etc well over my head but it has raised a few questions in my mind-

One negative factor appears to be the equipment needed to produce, the materials consumed and waste products-

this is based on the premise these are done on board- my dumb question is if these were done in a land based plant and shipped in Gaseous form these would be negated- and since Hydrogen is lighter than air even with tank weight this could be a even balance factor- only requiring some space- Please comment

Hugh Sutherland wrote, "I have followed this and find most of the empirical data on engine size etc well over my head but it has raised a few questions in my mind- One negative factor appears to be the equipment needed to produce, the materials consumed and waste products- this is based on the premise these are done on board- my dumb question is if these were done in a land based plant and shipped in Gaseous form these would be negated- and since Hydrogen is lighter than air even with tank weight this could be a even balance factor- only requiring some space- Please comment REPLY: I believe your idea COULD work. I see no reason why it would not work. Hydrogen can be shipped in either liquid or gas form. Kind regards, Howard

Just to think in realistic terms:

A full Zeppelin low pressur hydrogen gas could feed the engine for say 1 minute?

Under pressure you can get somewhat 10 normal m3 in a heavy thick walled cylinder that has say, a water volume of 5-6 gallon and weighs 80 lbs or more.

The pressure in that cylinder can be 170 bar. To get it in there you'll need a powerful compressor, unless you take a year to fill it.

Where is the economy in this? The packages in both hypothetical ideas are problematic:

The first one has a volume problem, the second one definitely a weight ( and also for runs of more than 1 hour a volume problem too) + all the logistics.

I am also not convinced that the process produces more hydrogen by the dollar than it can burn on the spot. Technically it probably can be done if Santa supplies the basic materials and the helpers do the work for free.

OK, my numbers might be a little off, but more realistic than the whole concept, anno 2013. Maybe the future technology will take us further but not now with what we have in the OP.

I buy no shares.

I think you put it in exactly those words that he is now going to use in his paper!

At least we are treated as credible!

;-)

TCMTECH wrote, "All I think he was after was to get a long and indepth review from what he sees as a creditable engineering forum to use for further investor phishing." REPLY: REPLY: On this point, you are wrong. Phillips Company operates as a not-for-profit company. We do not accept investment capital of any kind. We have never accepted investment capital and we are not looking for investors for this or for our other business (pharma products). We are only trying to tell the world that a new thing (Catalytic Carbon) has been developed, and that 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). Also, we are saying that 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. In particular, this advantage supports the future development of hydrogen fuel applications, because CC-HOD can be considered as a technology that can eliminate the now-unnecessary requirement for a hydrogen infrastructure involving hydrogen refueling stations. We think those are important things to tell the world about a new technology. Now, back to your claim, ""All I think he was after was to get ... further investor phishing." " Nope. Not correct. Please see our hydrogen business model online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/HBM.pdf What we are trying to do is pass this technology to OTHER company operations and let THEM "sell it." Now, to do that, it seems to us that we should generate a concept paper saying "what might be possible" with this new technology. THAT is the purpose of our concept paper. It seems that a 30% cost reduction might be possible -- but nobody has proven it WILL or that it WILL NOT. Kind regards, Howard P.S. Your review and your comments have been helpful. The concept paper has been revised accordingly, and for that I remain grateful to you for the time you have given to these exchanges.

Howard,

you shoot yourself with this one! Read it again andd you know what folly you are trying to sell:

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

There is not such a thing that can do this. Point! Out! You are talking over-unity!

Bye!

JPool wrote, "I have never said and still do not say your process will not produce enough hydrogen to boost a large ship, I believe it can. My problem with this whole tread starts with your original title, "30% Increase in Fuel Economy for Large Ships". To this I say B.S.!!! You can't even tell us what the initial start up cost will be, let alone the cost to sustain it (hauling Al, etc...) How the hell can you title this a 30% savings when you don't even know the total cost????? I get it is too early, but you are the one who put a savings cost on it, not me. This is a flim-flam show, this is smoke and mirrors, you are trying to sell something that YOU have no idea what it costs! I don't think anybody has said your process (engineering) would not work, everybody is questioning the economics of it. REPLY: Hmmmmmmmmmmm..... Well, James, I think you have a good point. The concept paper takes data (more than 30% fuel cost savings proven for small engines) and scales it up to much larger fuel consumption rates -- and that, I admit, is a 'stretch' and not proven. Second, the maximum hydrogen rate demonstrated and proven is 30 gallons per minute. Third, the hardware (large hydrogen producing cell for a ship) has never been built, installed on a ship and tested, so nobody on earth knows the exact performance characteristics or costs -- so I agree you have raised good points. =================================== JPool wrote: "you are trying to sell something that YOU have no idea what it costs!" REPLY: On this point, James, you may be wrong. We are not trying to sell this (if you mean commercialize it). We are only trying to tell the world that a new thing (Catalytic Carbon) has been developed, and that 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). Also, we are saying that 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. In particular, this advantage supports the future development of hydrogen fuel applications, because CC-HOD can be considered as a technology that can eliminate the now-unnecessary requirement for a hydrogen infrastructure involving hydrogen refueling stations. We think those are important things to tell the world about a new technology. Now, back to your claim, "you are trying to sell something ..." Nope. Not correct. Please see our hydrogen business model online at www.PhillipsCompany.4T.com/HBM.pdf What we are trying to do is pass this technology to OTHER company operations and let THEM "sell it." Now, to do that, it seems to us that we should generate a concept paper saying "what might be possible" with this new technology. THAT is the purpose of our concept paper. It seems that a 30% cost reduction might be possible -- but nobody has proven it WILL or that it WILL NOT. Kind regards, Howard P.S. Your review and your comments have been helpful. The concept paper has been revised accordingly, and for that I remain grateful to you for the time you have given to these exchanges.

To All: This spirited series of exchange has been successful (for me), and I want to thank one and all for your views and time you have spent providing comments on this forum. Many of these inputs are being incorporated into a more-current version of the concept paper. As noted in earlier posts, Phillips Company operates as a not-for-profit company. We are simply trying determine if the fuel saving concepts in this paper can be useful to the world. And, if so, as explained in our public press releases, we expect other company interests to take the CC-HOD technology and commercialize it -- and in so doing, make money for THOSE companies and 'take it to the people." Phillips Company is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, not an alternative fuel company. We will form connections with people in the shipping and energy business sectors, so that people from those sectors can consider whether fuel savings for large ships is desirable and if this new technology and engineering concept should be commercialized. THAT is the purpose of our concept paper. It seems that a 30% cost reduction might be possible -- but nobody has proven it WILL or that it WILL NOT. Kind regards, Howard P.S. To all: Your review and your comments have been helpful. I remain grateful to you for the time you have given to these exchanges.

Wind assisted propelling and advanced technology propellers should increase mileage.

Will a combination with wave power(wave powered ships)become an advantage?.