The Hull Effect - Page 10 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-09-2010, 04:12 AM   #91
Site Team
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 656
Country: United States
Robert-

Please treat other forum members with the respect that you would expect to receive. Asking for patent numbers is a simple question.

This is a discussion forum, and if you do not wish to discuss your gas-saving methods then there is no need for you to participate. It is not appropriate to say "do your own research" when people ask you a simple question. It is also not appropriate to just use this forum as a marketing arena for another forum - if you would like to participate HERE, then please feel free.

If you cannot (or will not) share the technology itself, then you are still welcome to share other aspects of bringing this technology to public - discussions you've had with PhD's, oil-industry experts, chemists, patent attorneys, results of your experiments, or whatever - this way we can still all be hopeful that your new technology will help us save gas somehow in the long run.

It is appropriate to treat others' skepticism as logical. We all know that the ICE is highly inefficient, and we all struggle with that to a huge extent. We all see how much energy is wasted as heat, and if your engine runs as cool as you claim then that is a good indicator that you are on to something. However to speak in a condescending manner towards any other forum member is inappropriate, especially when you will not present the operational details of your system.

I would love to see your technology come to full fruition, and I would love to see the US cut it's oil dependency on foreign countries. But you also have to understand that you are making some pretty fantastic claims, and without the real support to back them up you will always be treated with skepticism.

So please continue to use our forums, but please treat the questions you receive with the proper respect. We would all love to see a 500% improvement in ICE efficiency, and would be happy to offer our assistance and input in a variety of ways, but only when the conversation remains civil and productive.

-Bob C.
__________________

__________________
Think you are saving gas? Prove it by starting a Gas Log, then conduct a proper experiment.
bobc455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 03:09 PM   #92
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_goldie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 53
Country: United States
Bob455 - Thank You!!
Goldie
__________________

GasSavers_goldie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 07:18 PM   #93
Registered Member
 
Dr. Jerryrigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 196
Country: United States
Umm.. is this spam yet? he is here because of the great google search hits this page gets.
Dr. Jerryrigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 08:50 PM   #94
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 0
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobc455 View Post
Robert-

Please treat other forum members with the respect that you would expect to receive. Asking for patent numbers is a simple question.

This is a discussion forum, and if you do not wish to discuss your gas-saving methods then there is no need for you to participate. It is not appropriate to say "do your own research" when people ask you a simple question. It is also not appropriate to just use this forum as a marketing arena for another forum - if you would like to participate HERE, then please feel free.

If you cannot (or will not) share the technology itself, then you are still welcome to share other aspects of bringing this technology to public - discussions you've had with PhD's, oil-industry experts, chemists, patent attorneys, results of your experiments, or whatever - this way we can still all be hopeful that your new technology will help us save gas somehow in the long run.

It is appropriate to treat others' skepticism as logical. We all know that the ICE is highly inefficient, and we all struggle with that to a huge extent. We all see how much energy is wasted as heat, and if your engine runs as cool as you claim then that is a good indicator that you are on to something. However to speak in a condescending manner towards any other forum member is inappropriate, especially when you will not present the operational details of your system.

I would love to see your technology come to full fruition, and I would love to see the US cut it's oil dependency on foreign countries. But you also have to understand that you are making some pretty fantastic claims, and without the real support to back them up you will always be treated with skepticism.

So please continue to use our forums, but please treat the questions you receive with the proper respect. We would all love to see a 500% improvement in ICE efficiency, and would be happy to offer our assistance and input in a variety of ways, but only when the conversation remains civil and productive.

-Bob C.
bobcat455,
I suppose you are correct with my attitude.
using the California Standard Emissions Test Facilities...
at idle...0.01...loaded 3.0...(300 allowed)
no mpg at this time as longer road tests are being performed.
Yes, it passed...and it is documented.
That was last week.
This proves the idling smog issues...which are the most difficult to overcome have been solved.
This is an EFI gasoline powered V-8....2002 Ford
Do any of the hypermilers operate this clean?
and do you have documentation to support the claims?
The further testing will require a gas spectrometer for more precise analysis.

In all my years...no gasoline engine has ever operated with such low numbers...since emission testing began.
If anyone can correct my assumptions...I will gladly concede to ignorance.

I am notifying... this exists now.

Does anyone recall the Stealth that got 60+ mpg...and how he was crucified on this forum?...2008?
he used copper tubing and the radiator coolant heat to get huge improvements.
Had he know the unique properties of the nickel content of the copper he was using...on a quatum physics level...he would have been able to defend his results.
I wish I had been in touch with him at the time...just to tell him there are physics that explain the results.
Another missed oppurtunity.

Not one forum member could explain why it worked...just why it would not/could not work.

Much the same as Jack Talbert( The man who worked with Tom Ogle)(100mpg in ford 4 door 351 V-8) ...accidentally discovered unique properties of this unique copper/nickel alloy when heat is applied at different temperatures.


I e-mail with Jack Talbert Jr. and got his personal permission to develope his fathers technology.
His attempt with 2 throttle plates distanced of 18 inches... and a propane style diffusser....under the carburetor.. did operate a 350 V-8 in a full sized Delta 88 4 door... 70 mpg at 60 mph but had slow accelleration as it was not developed.

That was 20 years or more ago.
That was two hypermilers to recall...or follow up on that work.
everything went EFI?
Everything started OVER AGAIN?

Rest assured that more vehicles tested to have 0.01 emissions at idle...it will become a mandated retro-fit.

Robert
Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 12:10 AM   #95
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Do any of the hypermilers operate this clean?
and do you have documentation to support the claims?
1986 Chevy C-10 pickup, 305 V-8, 4 speed auto, 4bbl carb, 188,000 miles. Carb has NEVER been rebuilt. Looks pretty clean to me.





Yes, my rusty beater pickup runs that clean...
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 06:12 AM   #96
Site Team
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 656
Country: United States
That looks clean? Looks pretty ugly to me! (J/K)

By the way, Robert, I'm sure you are inundated with offers for test-mules, but I'd be happy to throw my vehicle into the mix.

Right now my car has a 455 which has been converted to EFI, however it would take only about 90 minutes to convert back to a carbureted arrangement. I already have a complete low-pressure fuel system (set to 5.5 PSI right now - used for my nitrous system), and all I'd have to do is unplug my injectors, remove my throttle body, bolt on a carb, and reconnect a few fuel lines. The car has a very tall rearend ratio (2.56), which seems like it would be good for your system.

The car is also set up to make it very easy to put in all kinds of modifications, so for example if I wanted to add water injection or something it could be done very quickly. There is plenty of room to mount electronics or other gizmos.

And the nice thing is that the engine is on its last legs so even if something destroys my engine I'm not gonna be all that upset. And the rest of the drivetrain is very beefy, so it can handle lots and lots of torque (probably limited to about 900 ft-lbs right now, due to my current torque converter).

The only downsides are that there is a bit more blowby than I'd like (hence the need for a rebuild soon), and the cam is not optimized for EFI (although this might be okay for you, I'm not sure). And my ignition is computer programmed, which although it adds a lot of versatility to the timing, does mean that I can't conveniently switch back to a points distributor. I probably could do that if required, however, I'm sure I could go purchase a points distributor.

I would also be happy to keep a confidentiality agreement and let you do all of the marketing / publicity.

-BC
__________________
Think you are saving gas? Prove it by starting a Gas Log, then conduct a proper experiment.
bobc455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 06:52 AM   #97
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 0
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue View Post
1986 Chevy C-10 pickup, 305 V-8, 4 speed auto, 4bbl carb, 188,000 miles. Carb has NEVER been rebuilt. Looks pretty clean to me.





Yes, my rusty beater pickup runs that clean...

Jay2The Rescue,
Thank you for the response.
Yes, it does appear very clean.
This is a different readout than california style.
That is an HEI system...with frequency modulater inside the dizzy.
Does the exhaust smell clean at idle?
That will have the Q-jet...which has many options of where it was put together...depending on camshaft and timing gears installed.
the 305's that came out of Canada...were made for low end torque...and the torque maxed at 2800 rpm.
The first engine I played with is a 305 out of Canada...made for buses.
I found a rear end out of a 1976 Chevy...2.76(?) changed from 3.07 and it performed quite well with 350 turbo and lock out converter.
I averaged 21 mpg at 60 mph...with A/C on and 700 pound payload of tools.
After the research of Canada bus motors set-up...I found that the intake was unique...eldelbrock was contacted and after I described it...sent in the numbers...they had discontinued the design...as it was specifically made for low end torque... not racing.
It was designed to have a very fast warm-up time and maintain that heat with Canadian weather.
Comparabel to all this talk of WAI with EFI.
If that is true vortec engine...the low-end torque was never fully appreciated.
I found it pulled best at 1200- 1400 rpm's and test drove it at that rpm's and got 27 mpg...passed California emissions.
That was at 42 miles per hour...200 mile test run.
That was 10 years ago.

As a load test...I pulled a 30 foot TT weighed 6800 pounds...and pulled it for quite a distance...even with that wind resistance/load resistance... the 305 never ran out of power...dropped the mpg to 10...pulled that loaded trailer going east over Hoover Dam...up the incline...never overheated.

This is one scenario that higher gearing will improve mpg.
Look up maximum torque is developed at 2800 rpm's.. but what they fail to tell you...is that 70-75 percent of torque is developed at 1400 rpm's.

Hope you can use this info.
Robert
Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 07:18 AM   #98
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,027
Country: United States
Robert,

It would be great if you would be willing to scan and post your official CA emissions test report from last week. Some ppl may be interested in the NOX etc. values as well.

Was the inspector concerned about any of the visible modifications under the hood?
GasSavers_Erik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 07:30 AM   #99
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
The exhaust smells alright. It doesn't choke you, but its not as "clean" smelling as my 98 K1500, but the 98 K1500 has EFI. I don't have detailed numbers on the 98 K1500 because since its OBD II all they do is read the computer to determine if it passes.
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 10:10 AM   #100
Senior Member
 
FrugalFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 383
Country: United States
Location: Bay Area, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
using the California Standard Emissions Test Facilities...
at idle...0.01...loaded 3.0...(300 allowed)
Huh? 0.01 what? Hydrocarbons? NOX? C0? Numbers without specifications are meaningless. As someone trying to convert others, the burden of proof is on you. Obviously we need a full battery of test results. A car that passes hydrocarbons might fail NOX. A car that passes at idle might fail at 2500 rpm.
__________________

FrugalFloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hypermiling. Save gas or money? ChiGray08crv General Fuel Topics 7 03-21-2013 10:28 PM
Suggestion SummitSonata Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 09-29-2010 03:19 AM
DIY Arriva Headphones GasSavers_maximilian Experiments, Modifications and DIY 13 08-12-2009 02:20 PM
Which tranny should I use next? & motor? 90accord General Fuel Topics 4 05-21-2008 06:34 AM
2007 Monte Carlo SS rh77 Car Reviews 2 10-25-2007 08:09 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.