From the wiki:
:thumbup: My kinda guy.

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.

Electricity rules???
 

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

DC rules
 

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

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.

https://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....

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.:eek:

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.;)

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

Wierd numbers no doubt
 

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

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.

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

smokin the tires have little to do with HP... all about gearing. also back then cars had pretty narrow tires compared to nowadays cars of equal sizes.

Hello,
Make no doubt, I will enjoy money.
It must be moved from one stream in the economic structure to another stream to get that done.
That is the way things work.
How many hours...blood sweat and tears have people invested in the existing operating parameters after buying the vehicles? for decades?
Many improvements have been made...but never mainstreamed.
Ergo my freedom ofchoices have been taken away from me.
Always in the control of the huge corporations.
The same, or less, efforts put forth by the tinkerers/backyard scientists/etc etc etc ...will only speed up the transition get to mainstream.
AT THE BEGINNING STAGES !!!

I was given 6 months to live, by 6 competent doctors, and until "an accidental intervention" they were correct.
I know how to reverse carpal tunnel syndrome...no surgery...medical fact... documented by a surgeon of 25 years standing...medical history.
I defined the reverse points of 10 previously thought "irreversible medical conditions"...so far they are reversible.
The information did not exist for them to use until that moment in time.
I have defied odds that would make the bookies in Las Vegas cringe !!
That was 3 years ago...
this system is to be my legacy.
It was designed when I was convinced I did not have many tommorrows...I do not know if I will have many tommorrows?
a peculiar mindset; of loss of fears; normally people would cater to those fears.
After what I have been through...survived...time has a different set of values for me...not based on the monetary exchange system.
Am I a wealthy man? No.
Will I be a wealthy man...hope to be.
I used up most of my wealth to stay alive...got to look at my money and knew it was useless for me at the time...
I had excellent medical insurance at the time of my sufferage.
When this technology gets into mainstream...it will extend the known fossil fuel reserves by some 3000 years...maybe more....tommorrows for my decendants.
Please appreciate, when I give of my time, it is a very generous thing.

Robert

What type of tractor engine was it? Case S or D? Farmall H or M? Ford 8n?

With lower coolant temps, do the engines experience accelerated cylinder bore wear? Accelerated bearing wear from not as much water not cooked out of the oil (and thus acids being formed)?

the Ford 8N used the model A engine, poured babbat main bearings, flat tappets, flat head, updraft carb, about a 4:1 compression ratio, ford advertised at 40 hp (modern dyno tests one built exactly to ford specs of back then to 38 but whatever lol) if i remember right has a 2800 rpm rev limit before it blows itself up because the crank is not counter balanced. idle is supposed to be 60 rpm (huge 60 lb flywheel helps that lol)

not sure what the engine is supposed to run at (they never had thermostats) as long as it was under the boiling point of water 212* it was happy.

the oil pump makes 1 MAYBE 2 psi, its just designed to pump it up into the valve chamber and then run down to lube the timing gears, valves, and crank mains. the rods were splash oiled from a pan that filled with the oil that ran down from above.

my engine that has been sitting from the prolly mid 50's when i cracked it open it had about 3 qts outa 5 left in the pan (among a 1/2 inch to an inch of sludge but id assume that) it would have and still could be run (still cheaper to find a good used block lol) because mice had made a nest on top the piston, completely corroded a few valves off from thier piss. the main and rods are still great (i have pics if anyone would like to see i can make a separate post lol)

Erick,
Decent question.
water only gets into oil at higher temps when the vicosity is at its lowest, or molecular structure is at it weakess....emulsion.
Low operating temps extend oil changes...haven't found metal particulates yet...in oil I sent to labs.
This was after being set up right as can be....cleaned up and all that.
Of course that cannot be "possible" ...everything has wear points???
Wait.... that is excessive heat and/or electrolysis when there are wear points...some form of oxidation.

You might look up "Smart OIL " on google...it will have articles about shock absorbers that change oil viscocities with electrical pulses.

Robert

...so what tractor engine did you use?:confused:

ideal cycles
 

Hello,
It ain't about the oil companies...totally.
It is more about nuke energy staying in the market place...coal energy...to produce electricity.
Ford did not create it....they bought it and shelved it...'it' being several designs.
So did GM and Chrysler.
Almost every design bought up with intimidation tactics.
You use gasoline because they tell you to.
You should google about wet "hydrous ethanol" and read some of the results that have been found out.
State of Louisiana got a waiver from EPA to fleet test wet ethanol.
They have to make thier own...for control issues.
Just so you might keep up, that is ethanol/gas/water blended for better performance

Robert

Mr. Hull,
I find this topic interesting, but something just doesn't ad up.
Why on earth are you posting this.

You seen to be scared of people ripping off your idea, maybe overly so, but understandable. So why would you tell us about it, and don't you have meetings with Toyota to get to?
I see the ICE as a very dated technology that is coming to an end soon. If your thing, whatever it is, works you would be wise to get it to market as quickly as possible. Getting approval from some wankers, like myself, in not a necessary step.

If you where posting because you wanted to share HOW you did this, well that would be great, but you don't seem to be doing that.

I just don't get your motivation. Which leads me to believe you a 16 year old in your mothers basement with far too much free time.

I heard of people doing this with different oil weights too.. Humidity from what I have seen, can affect gasoline mpg by increasing it, after driving in many rainstorms, I think someone should be trying the vaporizer mounted on your exhaust headers, but I would be worried about water spilling... ugh

People ad water in many ways, and with many different benefits. I think the reason more people don't, and it's not in production cars, is that people don't want to fill up a water tank. It's seem like most people today don't know how to open there hoods.

yea im callin shenanigans too. cant seem to answer a straight question always words it all weird, goes off on a tangent, or doesn't answer it at all.:(

Dr.Jerryrigger,
A resonable amount of assumptions.
#1) I am not afraid of people ripping off my idea...that is secured.
#2) I had meetings with such people that set the land speed record with a hydrogen powered vehicle(that is a clue of where I have been last year)
Before that was international /catapillar, after that, cummins diesel research and developement...the top dogs.
#3) How it is achieved is posted on my forum...no cover charge
#4) wankers...as you call yourself...are just like me...backyard scientists...I like to say.
wankers can get 'er done.
#5) 5 years ago I, also, believed, totally, that the ICE was way past its useful designs...then I proved it to myself it was not even close to known potentials.
My research of patents start in 1900...to now.
#6) Getting to market...if the big companies have their say...it will take years to "integrate into their systems"
#7) it is totally reversible...from known technology....to my technology in a matter of hours... and back to known technology...why I was able keep it hid out so completely.

Make no doubt...this is the biggest energy chess game in history.

I retained all my publishing rights; book deals. appearances, lectures. movie deals....etc etc etc as part of the agreement....a highly qualified. respected electrical engineer gauranteed that I would get credited for this technology...regardless of who owns the intellectual property rights...in the world of electrical engineering...as did the retired NASA scientist who printed a retraction on the internet that "it did work, contrary to what he stated in previous posts, just not sure why it works"

I like to give this scenario....just like a computer...most people use them but could not tell you how it works moment to moment.

To explain, with some details of how and why it works, so well, would take 26 PHD's from different fields...with unlimited funding to staff, test and record the results...and AGREE as to the "why it works" .... books that will be comparable to the encyclopedia sets before digital information age.
That would include all the astro-physicists alive today.

Do you really want to do all that reading?
Most of it would be in jargon so boring it would give you a headache.
What is exciting? fun?
DIY and be fascinated to the point of sleeplessness night after night after night.
My co-inventor went fo 30 days of cat-napping and running a buisness full time as he and I made adjustment after adjustment.
I went for 3 months...before I calmed down....back to reality.
It is so radical...noone would believe it when they saw it....always accused of having someting internal...like magicians that make illusions.
The exact thing Papp was accused of.

Here is what we did...took a dodge 4 door truck...cummins diesel...no touching the turbo...no head work...no pistons changes...no adjusting the computer...no cam changes...no changes to the injectors...etc etc etc
weight 10,600 pounds...cat certified scales.
No slipping/spinning of tires...do a consistant 14 second quater mile run...plus or minus 100 feet.
And never get the coolant temp over 130 F.
And reduce the black smoke out the exhaust to ashen grey.

#8) I am not seeking approvals...don't need them.
My research test lab is being built to MY specs...I had to design it.

I could not resist "tempting the GURUS of FUEL EFFICIENCY" as posted for this website.

My offical company title...Chief Technology Officer.

This is here...now...and the ICE as we know it... will have another revival.
As I told the PHD's at OHIO STATE...just wanted you to know it exists...and has for a few years...and will always exist.

Robert W Hull

Okay so that's some smoke for my a-hole, don't much like how that feels.

So what you did was; nothing? You are only saying what you didn't do, WHAT DID YOU DO??? I don't need an explanation of why it works, I just want to know WHAT is changed from stock. I can make my own assessments (& i'm sure I will not need 26 PHD's ;) )

I would have given up on this, but I am very interested in electromagnetic engineering. So please in the most basic of terms (apparently no human will understand it anyway) what is done to the ICE to cause the "Hull Effect"?

Blowing smoke up a**holes is not my style.
like you can make better assessments than all those PHD's.:D
You see, making comments like "no human will understand it anyway"
and then state "I am very interested in electromagnetic engineering"
"I don't need an explanation of why it works"
I have heard it all....you sound confused to me

We agree on something, I think you should give up on this...stay clear of it.

Robert

Will a technology that only works with carbed cars with no electronics in them really make a difference? Is everyone going to switch back to old carbed cars with no radio? How long does it take those high magnetic fields to cook the driver?

in other words "trolling"

gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=11119

here's an old post about THE HULL EFFECT to check out.

We don't claim to know everything, but there are a lot of highly intelligent (both "book smart", and "street smart") people here who know a lot about getting better mileage.

Thanks, a informative post!

A wiseman once told me, "You don't truely know something until you can teach it".

This forum contains many capable free thinkers and fabricators. If anyone can understand and implement this purported 'Hull effect' it's us. But there's one more hurdle to overcome in order for us to understand the 'Hull effect': someone needs to make an effort to explain it.

Is there such a person? Who will champion the cause and spread the word to this willing audience? I'd think that someone would step forward and take the challenge after 70 (!) posts already. The person who makes this attempt needs to have the capacity to understand it, as well as a mastery of the English language, both written as well as spoken.

The era of Tesla and Edison were mysterious times. Not because there was any 'lost' technology, but because the phenomena and effects they created and observed were not defined properly yet. It was a very new field. They simply hadn't come up with the language and terminology to describe what they saw. So the language used to describe new phenomena tended to use mysterious terms, which can be misleading. Those old mysterious terms gradually faded from use and were replaced by a more precise language, which helped people communicate more effectively. Fortunately the electronic/magnetic effects that the mysterious language described were not lost or forgotten as time went by. It was just a change of terminology over time.

So tell us Mr. Hull.

Whats your angle? you come here bragging about a major brake through and then pull a side step that any politician would be proud of. Just get to the point. What are you selling and get on with it already. We are Hypermilers not congress double talk and speaking in riddles will get on nerves here.

From the readers viewpoint I have probably been on both sides of this one.

Innovation is not generally accepted without reservation, and the threshold of legitimacy is always going to be high, because for every real improvement there are 10,000 snake oil schemes that generally don't get past first base when subjected to reasonable scrutiny.

After pursuing a patent for 6 years before actually having one issued, I have learned, the hard way, what it takes to actually accomplish patenting your idea.

I am not sure an "effect" is patentable, since it would seem to be a naturally occurring phenomenon, which definitely is not patentable.

A process that created an "effect" that was heretofore unobserved would probably be patentable, but only the process, not the effect.

Maybe the is why Robert has such great reservations concerning specifics, since it is never possible to presumptively protect yourself from every potentially novel process that might also create the "effect".

It could also be that the patent examiner finds a similar process developed long ago that has enough similarity to the point of our topic that he would have to add further refinements or developments to accomplish the "novelty and not obvious to someone educated in the art" threshold of patent ability.

regards
Gary

If you can't patent it, look into trademarking it instead. Come up with a unique term that describes your innovation, such as 'Hull Effect'. Trademark other descriptive terms to discourage competition.

OK...after some reading, let me see if I have this correct...you are taking the DC output of the alternator (alternator=three phase AC generator run through diode rectifiers to produce DC), running this DC backwards through another diode (a device which allows AC to only flow in one direction, or block DC from flowing when diode is reversed), passing the line through a ceiling fan controller (an SCR and variable resistor, plus perhaps some rapid switching circuitry to control the SCR...not a "frequency modulator"), and attaching this to either the oil pump or replacing the dipstick? Oh, and there is no ground return?

Either I am missing something here (possible?), or there is something here that spending over 40 years building, repairing, tinkering with cars and electronics (rebuilt several engines, have held an Advanced Class amateur radio license since 1972, currently restore vintage amateur radio gear, have built, tested and inspected various portions of utility scale wind turbines) hasn't shown me?

Or......could it be that the mileage increases seen here are due to other factors, e.g. advancing the timing, driving more conservatively, etc.?

Where has Robert gone to? I would like to know if sticking his special dipstick in my vx will quadruple my mileage. Forty dollars of parts to get 200mpg, lets go!
I would like to believe it, but i would need to see more proof.

I like to see testable theories, and rational explanations, before I put my money on the table. Haven't seen anything interesting in this thread yet, sorry to say.

JoeBob,
In essence...YES.

Robert

jmf,
No it would not...have to re-tune.
Robert

Gary,
Thank you for offering an overview
It is uniquely identifiable...measure the existing ambient earth magnetic field and meausre the magnetic field surrounding the vehicle...with a compass and there is a defined difference.
That makes it impossible to steal.
To EXPLAINATION of the term "The Hull Effect"...
is the impact this will have on humanity.
That is not a vain statement....a public release of sorts.
As recognition developes...which will take time...I will be building units...doing pilot programs ...etc etc etc.
To remove the puter controls that have been installed and prove we do not need puters to control fuel efficiencies...well that reduces a lot of components being manufactured...jobs that are redundant...current patents
(about 80,000) that become worthless...to continue applying....paying royalties that increase the true cost to the consumers.
I have been produing my own electricity at 3 cents a kilowatt...what are you paying?
That is part of my agenda...reverse the grid...micro-manage our energy useage.
Nothing needed above 220V.... to make the transition...more 12V-24V DC items will become familliar.
12V LED lighting...works because the DC batteries keep constant ...whereas grid power is constantly fluctuating.
Just a small example...but LED lighting in home use application...with backup batteries is a very viable soluiton... 3 years ago it was not.

Yes, the 'snake-oil items' do cause a lot of problems.
And like most every one here, had I not personally, did the operating and measuring of the fuel, I would turn a deaf ear also.

Robert