The Hull Effect

[theholycow]

From the wiki:

Edison was a brute-force experimenter, but was no mathematician.

My kinda guy.

[GasSavers_JoeBob]

There's a lot to be said for both the brute-force experimenter and the mathematician. The good thing about Edison was while he may or may not have been a mathematician himself, he had some working for him...that way he could prove the theories behind what he was doing.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

it technically is...all the way to the bores... since the engine is grounded and last i checked electricity flows thru all the metal in a conductor not just the outside. kinda how the whole ignition system works....

so your saying somehow your directing the energy to the piston chambers and somehow affecting the fuel? even tho that goes against all laws of electricity...

you say the temp dropped how long did you let the engine run? your sure it didnt drop when the thermostat opened? (its supposed to) V8's take longer to heat up than a 4 banger (more coolant, more time to reach said temp)

You must be used to talking with people who are not so qualified.
I am an industrial pipe/steamfitter/welder/alloy metal specialist... by trade...till my health would not allow me to continue.
Thermal heat exchange is how I made my living.
I have worked with people that can weld aluminum cans together using a lincoln 200 pipeliner portable welder....the edges.
I also was on crews that built and rebuilt refineries, chemical plants, food processing plants, smelting refineries, resort casinos, hydralic crane operator, etc etc etc
I did electrical re-fits for Best Buy Stores...all over the USA...from the main panels to the display cases.
Began my construction career by building free span bridges over rivers....before hardhats and safety harnesses were an OSHA requirement.
I put myself through college.
had a very active social life as well.
I did vehicle mechanics as a hobby.
I am one of the few people still alive that witnessed the Papp noble/inert gas engine demonstrated in Oklahoma in early 1980's...private invitation only.

I came to this forum to notify.

Best to you,
Robert

[Robert]

Originally Posted by JoeBob

Actually, there is no difference in safety between AC and DC. Get the right amount of current going through your body, and either will kill you. Both have a good kick...one of my hobbies is restoring vintage radios, and I've been bitten more times than I care to remember...both by AC and DC.

AC was adopted because it can be fed through a transformer to raise or lower the voltage...higher voltages for power distribution (250 and 500 kv lines, for example). Voltage might be 575 volts or 690 volts coming out of a generator (e.g. a wind turbine), pass through a transformer to take it to, say, 2200 volts to go to a substation, then to a higher voltage for distribution, back to another substation, down to maybe 2200 volts to the power pole in the backyard, through the pole transformer to your house at 240 volts (divided in your breaker box to a couple 120 volt lines). Then, using my 1937 GE living room radio as an example, through another transformer to get 6.3 volts for the tube heaters, and around 300 volts for the plates of the tubes.

DC can be used for residential power, but since you can't raise the voltage, there is more loss in transmission from the power company to the consumer. It also is less convenient to design equipment to use it. DC was used many places in this country until around WWII, (and in a very few places until relatively recently) but was eventually replaced by AC.

Here is an interesting article on AC and DC:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

Joebob,
pure dc does not go positive to negative during the cycling...if you ever "got bit by a dc component" it had AC voltage capabilities.
But then, you can argue that with my friend, a retired proffessor of electrical design and engineering....I sure won't.
The electricity produced during those times still had some AC involved at the end product... as the filtering was not as advanced as today.
The only way 300V traveled through those tubes is because they are vacuumed sealed and some have exotic gases and metal hydrides to stabilize/reduce the heat generation of the electron flow.

NUFF SAID!!!
Robert

[drifttec101]

This is a strange post....

I've done some simple B.S. catcher number crunching:

given: 200 ft-lb torque, 134 cubic inches, @1300 RPM

HP=(torque*RPM)/(5252) HP=(200*1300)/(5252) = 49.505 HP

Specific Power = HP/Displacement 49.505 HP ~ 36915.87 W and 134 cubic inches ~ 2.195867 Liters

SP = 36.91587/2.195867 = 16 kW/L

What's important about specific power? Well, it shows B.S.... 16 kW/L is really low actually, race cars are upwards 80 kw/L. So I suppose this is well within the realm of possibility, but makes me wonder at what engine loading was this found. All engines make very little power at cruising speed/loading. This engine seems as if it was tested while at cruising speed... we need to see real dyno curves for the entire power band.

Furthermore, 6. something compression ratio is extremely low. Sounds like a tractor engine from the 1950's. The higher the compression ratio the more efficient the engine.

http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels...4/28340011.htm

There's a graph to show that (very common graph, Google it if the link fails).

So, considering how low the compression ratio is the low specific power isn't really a surprise. But why would this indicate an extremely efficient revolutionary new engine design? What kind of fuel are you burning? What is the brake specific fuel consumption? What engine loading was tested at the dyno?

This all seems very fishy to me....

[pgfpro]

This is why I ask the question if its generating a whole different source of energy other then the gasoline. Maybe the gasoline is just enough to keep the energy moving in a rotational manner?

The numbers I crunch into my home brew spreadsheet say that this thing is running at a BSFC of .05 lbs/hr(<thats not a mis-print thats .05 not .5) or 30.41 g/kWh in which is way beyond the fuel itself. Plus what I'm getting with these numbers of 48oz per/hr is a fuel mileage of 155mpg @ 60mph.

All this sounds out of this world. But I'm all for trying to keep an open mind and learn anything new to me. Magnetic fields are pretty french to me so I have to go with i don't know on this one. Heck i would put a fork through a toaster and tie it to my car antenna if i knew it could some how help with efficiency.

[bobc455]

Originally Posted by Robert

I want my peers/ decendants to judge me for what I did...not for the amount of money I accumulated.

If you are truly in a position where money is not your motivation whatsoever, it can help you properly develop (from a technical and marketing perspective) your invention/discovery.

-BC

[Robert]

Originally Posted by drifttec101

This is a strange post....

I've done some simple B.S. catcher number crunching:

given: 200 ft-lb torque, 134 cubic inches, @1300 RPM

HP=(torque*RPM)/(5252) HP=(200*1300)/(5252) = 49.505 HP

Specific Power = HP/Displacement 49.505 HP ~ 36915.87 W and 134 cubic inches ~ 2.195867 Liters

SP = 36.91587/2.195867 = 16 kW/L

What's important about specific power? Well, it shows B.S.... 16 kW/L is really low actually, race cars are upwards 80 kw/L. So I suppose this is well within the realm of possibility, but makes me wonder at what engine loading was this found. All engines make very little power at cruising speed/loading. This engine seems as if it was tested while at cruising speed... we need to see real dyno curves for the entire power band.

Furthermore, 6. something compression ratio is extremely low. Sounds like a tractor engine from the 1950's. The higher the compression ratio the more efficient the engine.

http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels...4/28340011.htm

There's a graph to show that (very common graph, Google it if the link fails).

So, considering how low the compression ratio is the low specific power isn't really a surprise. But why would this indicate an extremely efficient revolutionary new engine design? What kind of fuel are you burning? What is the brake specific fuel consumption? What engine loading was tested at the dyno?

This all seems very fishy to me....

Hello,
Good work you posting.
I repeat...no new engine design !!!
YUPPER...the numbers do come out wierd.
The engine is rated at 28-30 hsp...when made in 1957.
The best it did was at 2200 rpm's when the torque began to fall off quickly.
The engine never has been over hauled....compression tests at 110-115 psi
How am I able to get the same torque with less fuel at lower rpm's
Reduce fuel consumption at the same time???
Why would I ever want to rev past 2000 rpm much less to 5252 rpm?
the engine has never been tested at 5252 rpm...never will be.
The higher the compression ratio the more efficient the engine... rule of thumb...applies only if at each compression ratio the fuel has specifically controlled octane values...that is how they get the higher kw/l in "racing engines"

Are you aware that in the late 70's a couple of guys designed an atomizing mixer below the carburator...and found that fuel with 72 octane worked very well up...better than 87-92 octane... to 4000 rpm's...improved fuel efficienies ...which was about 45 mpg...almost eliminated the bad exhaust gases...and Ford did the testing...and improved the low rpm torque so that the gutless inline 6 cylinders would actually smoke the tires just with hard accelleration... no popping the clutch.
Had they changed the driveline slighly...they would have gotten better mpg.
After 4000 rpm's the A/F and thermodynamics got all wrong...and fell flat.
That was an 8.0-1 compression ratio engine.(?)
No turbo invloved either.
When you want to state compression ratios and efficiencies and include exhaust emissions with octane numbers...then the BS numbers matter.

Ford proved it to themselves it worked very well indeed...
then refused to put it into market because the oil refineries make mega bucks making you believe that the higher octane gasolines are what you have to have.
Higher octane rating equals slower burn times....that simple.
Lower compression equals lower cylinder temperatures...which do not make the harmful exhaust gases...in such quanities....that simple.

Robert

[drifttec101]

5252 is a conversion factor you need when using English values for calculating horsepower.

Thermodynamic efficiency refers to (how much you get)/(how much you put in). The graph is for an ideal Otto cycle, fuel has nothing to do with it... only the ideal cycle.

Remember that's an ideal cycle, the real cycle doesn't get that efficiency. Then on top of that there are losses from friction, heat transfer, etc... real cars actually get 30% efficiency if they are really nice engines.

I really don't buy into the oil company conspiracy theory stuff. Here's why... when the U.S. economy took a dive recently so did the oil prices. Supply and Demand wasn't violated. I really don't think the oil companies have us by the balls as many people think. We use gasoline because it's cheap and there's plenty of it. If Ford could SUCCESFULLY create a 45 MPG carbureted car, market it to the public, and make money from it they would. The oil companies will sell crap on a stick to us if it burnes well and makes them money.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

This is why I ask the question if its generating a whole different source of energy other then the gasoline. Maybe the gasoline is just enough to keep the energy moving in a rotational manner?

The numbers I crunch into my home brew spreadsheet say that this thing is running at a BSFC of .05 lbs/hr(<thats not a mis-print thats .05 not .5) or 30.41 g/kWh in which is way beyond the fuel itself. Plus what I'm getting with these numbers of 48oz per/hr is a fuel mileage of 155mpg @ 60mph.

All this sounds out of this world. But I'm all for trying to keep an open mind and learn anything new to me. Magnetic fields are pretty french to me so I have to go with i don't know on this one. Heck i would put a fork through a toaster and tie it to my car antenna if i knew it could some how help with efficiency.

Hello,
What a good starting point...magnetic fields...as I posted earlier...I manipulate the strength of the magnetic fields of the ICE.
magnets you buy have a static gauss value...constant...limited reactions.
Not to be insulting...heat will lower the gauss measurement of any magnet made...pure physics.
Everything we know that is measurable has a guass value...in relationship to our constant earth magnetic field and maintains its shape.
Simplistic overview???
Why noone has ever approached the efficienices of the ICE from this viewpoint was a puzzle to me.
Then I had the lightbulb moment.
Magnetic field strengths change over a much slower time frame.
The expectations of reaction times is quite different.
noone took the time...as I have.
A required discipline of patient observations...combined with the ability to re-tune...changing A/F ..tuning by ear???...by feel???
Had I been trying to win races...I would have simply passed by all the good information.
The gurus of ICE designs have never done as I have done.
They are not authorities..so all their rules and data do not exactly apply.
Noone had operated engines at 100 F coolant temps and improved efficiencies...when in reality...the coolant temps are a very poor measurement/guide of the inner cylinder tempratures...until long after the fact.
Technology to go to space and back...and we do not drive 100+ mpg vehicles?
That is going to change..more quickly than the powers that be want.

Ain't that a shame?
Robert