Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[Christ]

Originally Posted by elhigh

You've lost credibility.
Sorry.

In what sense? Considering that everything I've said in that "quote" is in text form, and has been cited in several books, several times, I believe the burden of proof is in your court, my friend.

Aside from that, my credibility (or apparent lack thereof) in your eyes, means less than nothing. Why is it that you would believe I care enough about what you think of me, be it good or bad, to post it in such a reactive form, then immediately apologize for it?

You were either attempting to intentionally be an ass, and just posting that to annoy me, which I believe is the case, based on the methodology, or you sincerely are sorry for posting it, in which case you didn't actually mean what you said initially, but for some odd reason, wouldn't repeal it.

Since the post is not edited, that would mean that you posted both the "insult" as it were, and the apology at the same time, which speaks to the fact that you are apologizing for posting at all. I believe you're confused.

In case you didn't get that, I basically just asked "Why would you be so juvenile as to post something in a public sense that you knew would cause an inflammatory reaction?"

You've lost respect.
Sorry.
(Note the sarcasm.)

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by Christ

I believe you're confused.

I sure am.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by whitevette

Did you ever fly in a plane? A perfect landing is the beginning of a stall, just as the wheels touch the runway. The control is still there. The plane begins to stop flying, not crash!
Controlled crash, my burro.

If Boeing designers didn't know the plane would fly...they wouldn't have been given the go-ahead to spend millions and millions of Boeing's money to build the sucker!

Dude... you people are entirely too uptight about stupid phrases... Yes, I said "you people" Take offense if you must.

The airplane was designed to do what? Fly. Was it designed to fall? No. Therefore, landing could be construed as a controlled crash. Feel smart yet?

The 747 happens to have been an experimental craft in terms of size. Although the airfoil design had been proven several times to be effective in generating MORE than enough lift, the overall mass and size of the plane led many to believe that it wouldn't actually lift off. "Many" being people whose opinions didn't actually count as far as those involved were concerned.

The idea that noone contested conventional knowledge is ludicrous at best. It happens all the time. There are always those who don't believe something, no matter how many times you tell them, or spell it out, or describe it, or provide even the most scientific of evidence toward it's eventual proof. They want to nitpick the smallest things, never grasping the big picture, so they're never proven "wrong".

The only people I consider stupid are the people who refuse to listen to anything, because they "know what they're talking about." The second you begin believing that noone can teach you anything, is the same second you begin being stupid. How many of you are "that guy"?

Kind of like your opinion on my sarcasm. Stop being so critical of everything... you just might learn something.

And by the way, the spark happens before TDC, making the full combustion event fulminate JUST posterior to TDC. If it fulminated AT TDC, the result could cause the piston to attempt to fight it's direction reversal, bending a connecting rod. Best case scenario is that the combustion event fulminates somewhat ATDC, while the spark event occurs somewhat BTDC.

[guudasitgets]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ
747 is "technically" too heavy, the "steel birds" where never supposed to be able to fly, according to the "knowledgable" among those interested at the time.

Interestingly, no airplane throughout history has ever landed... that is not to say that they don't hit the ground, they just were never designed to "land"... they were designed to fly, so in essence, when they land, they're performing a "systematic, controlled-crash situation"


Did you ever fly in a plane? A perfect landing is the beginning of a stall, just as the wheels touch the runway. The control is still there. The plane begins to stop flying, not crash!
Controlled crash, my burro.

If Boeing designers didn't know the plane would fly...they wouldn't have been given the go-ahead to spend millions and millions of Boeing's money to build the sucker!

Stole my thunder whitevette, no I can tell he never flew a plane, to date the only controlled crashes are Carrier landings. the others just get set down after flareout.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by guudasitgets

Stole my thunder whitevette, no I can tell he never flew a plane, to date the only controlled crashes are Carrier landings. the others just get set down after flareout.

I read an account of short-field landings putting C-130s into hot LZs but I don't remember the conflict. That pilot described it as a controlled crash. I read a lot about flying in general and never heard of any other pilot describing landing as a controlled crash, but if any other landing were to fit that description, hooking the wire would certainly be right there.

I do recall one Navy pilot describing a carrier landing as being "yanked out of the air," which is one reason why I wouldn't be a Navy pilot. That and lousy eyesight.

[Coyote X]

To try and bring this back on track a little bit, Anyone who is currently in college or a well equipped high school will have access to a bomb calorimeter. They are very good at measuring how many calories a fuel puts out. So if anyone has some free time and wants to settle the hydrogen generator question as well as lots of other fuel additive questions. You can set up a rigorous scientific test of the various fuel mixtures and publish their results.

So a basic experiment would be something like normal 87 octane and 93 octane or whatever is highest in your area as the control and to verify it is reading properly. Then bubble hydrogen through some fuel to add hydrogen to it then try the test again and see if there is any change. There are lots of other variations that could be tried once the apparatus has been figured out and working consistently for the test.

Anyone can put it in a car and say it improved their mileage or had no change but that doesn't prove it worked. The only real way to prove it is to do a repeatable experiment anyone would be able to duplicate. So far there is a lot of junk science floating around on this and other subjects and things wont really improve until things start getting scientifically proven or disproved.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by Coyote X

So far there is a lot of junk science floating around on this and other subjects and things wont really improve until things start getting scientifically proven or disproved.

Amen.

Geez, I need to get some sleep. I've been busy all day inserting Tornadoes into the intake plenum and magnets on the fuel lines and a sonic transducer below the throttle body. Whew!

It strikes me that a lot of people - who really want to believe in a magic bullet solution, something cheap that just makes the bad problems stop - can be snowed by wild promises but once they're taken in, it seems to be hard to convince them they were wrong.

[Christ]

The way I subverted my friends from believing that the "tornado" was worth anything more than it's weight in scrap:

"Have you ever seen a real tornado, even on TV?"
"Yes"
"Have you ever seen or heard of a tornado turning into a right angle that has a radius of less than 3 inches while maintaining no conical shape and having a velocity over 200 CFM constantly?"
"No..."
"So why in god's name would you think that something like this, that is advertised to "spin the air" in your intake, work?"


Later, we proved it on several people's cars by imitating the product with pepsi can alternatives... of course, there were several arguments afterward (similar to the HHO debates right now) about how each one had a different angle on the fins, or used a different number of diffusers, etc.

But, the vast majority of people I knew, or that knew me, or listened to anything I said at the time, never bought into the scam. They gradually woke up to the fact that the best that "thing" was doing was slowing down the intake because of it's mass blocking the intake flow.. then the "spinning" vortex of air it claimed to create would actually create a vacuum in the center that would further destroy airflow... had it worked to begin with.

Thanks to my science teacher showing us what a real vortex generator does, else I'd have never had the evidence to prove that stupid thing incorrect... and there are still people in the area where I used to live that use them, and SWEAR BY THEM, saying that they, on top of a weekly regimen of about $15 worth of additives, give them another 4 MPG.


I can honestly say I've never heard the "sonic transducer" theory... have any links? That might be interesting reading.

[guudasitgets]

I read an account of short-field landings putting C-130s into hot LZs but I don't remember the conflict. That pilot described it as a controlled crash. I read a lot about flying in general and never heard of any other pilot describing landing as a controlled crash, but if any other landing were to fit that description, hooking the wire would certainly be right there.

I do recall one Navy pilot describing a carrier landing as being "yanked out of the air," which is one reason why I wouldn't be a Navy pilot. That and lousy eyesight.

Look at the plane on Google map in these coordinates; 42.993881, -90.145869
Thats a KC-97 Tanker, look up at the small airport he landed it at. This is next to Lands End headquarters in Dodgeville Wisconsin. Story goes they wanted this for a exibit and a resturant, the retired Air Force pilot (Nam expeirianced) said after he looked at the place "I'll get in in here, but if you want to get it out you'll have to take it apart". Now THAT'S a pilot!!!

[Christ]

Those coordinates put google maps into a densely wooded area with a small (airstrip?) just north east of it.

I don't see any plane off-hand.

EDIT: Wow, I'm blind... just southeast of the actual coordinates, I see the huge white bird... I'm guessing he landed that on the strip that I saw? Seems a little difficult.. the plane is wider than the strip. LOL.