Rational explainations...that is a good one.
It cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics...as rational as it gets.

Robert

hypermilers... compared to what is existing/known.
My angle?
I got personal permissions from previuos patent holders of hypermilers you don't even know about...to progress as I see fit.
You are doing the work for the major power players to keep you in check everytime you make a post.
I hope I do get on your very last nerve.
Usually, then, you will do something or put me on ignore.
The latest Presidential mandate is for utility grade vehicles to get 28 mpg by 2016...what a crock of BS.
Passenger vehicles get 35 mpg by 2016...at a cost of 50 billion dollars to the consumers.
That is to control the taxation revenue stream.
That should get on you last nerve before I do.

Robert

So when will be able to Hullify our cars? I am interested to hear more.

Realistically, no auto mfr can meet emissions requirements with carbureted engines. That means we'll never see Hull effect engines in general transportation vehicles, unless I'm missing the elephant in the room.

Robert, what emissions results do you have to share? For that matter, what horsepower and fuel economy test results? Any hard factual numbers from ABA testing?

Part 1: Part 2: Part 3:Robert's reply:
OK, which part of my post are you agreeing with?

DRW,
YUPPER...the ability to teach is dependent upon the student.
As a quadruple blind test...my best student and I only communicated via the internet...until he needed fine tuning hands on training.
I met him in person...then fine tuned him and his vehicles.
Our agreement...the third time he ignored/defied my exact instuctions....we would no longer communicate.
Thus, together, we proved the Hull effect is teachable...to some of the people...not all.
With the results of his carbed test vehicle...he spent his own monies to remove the EFI and install carbed...and in his case...traveling as he did...recovered the cost within 6 months.
To quote him " This is easy, mechanically speaking, the actual work, but the re-tuning is very hard to accept"
That man did a 1000 mile test run, pulling a 7000 pound load behind his 5800 pound truck...at 65-75 mph...various terrains of desert to mountains.
At the 750 mile mark...he noticed he had a leaking fuel line...so he didn't get the especially high mpg...but it was more than twice as much as Ford stated it was capable of.
The mpg he achieved was impressive... if he had been running empty.
I measure fuel consumption by the fluid ounce...so if he lost 1/2 gallon...64 ounces...that is a huge amount in mpg.
We will never know.

This particular man proved it can be taught...he as much of my story as I am...as he has been able to "almost" duplicate my work...until then, I was the only one...who could do the re-tuning.
and after, that I was approached by investment group people...who had been monitoring my efforts( unknown to me) for three years...on the internet.

The investment group people, insist the fuel injection has to be compatible...made compatible...when from the beginning I told them..it is very limited with EFI systems.
EFI exists because we were wrongly led to believe that is better...when in fact it is only a better way to CONTROL efficiencies; without the general population being able to make adjustments...to improve efficiencies.

That game is history.

Robert W Hull

Lots of motorcycles on the road that still have carburetors. Why not focus on that area.

regards
Gary

Jay2The Rescue,
Very good of you to agree with me.
"We don't claim to know everything,.." allows me hope.

one of the first persons to test my system...had been doing this sort of thing for 50 years.
He is up in years...and after the first round of results...he withdrew his expertise.."I hope you live to tell the story. I am too old and frail to try to fight the powers that be. You have found a stability scenario noone knew existed."
No, you don't know of him by name...private invitation only to get an audience with him.
When I was physiaclly threatened, the first time...he offered a hide-away.
I got angry at the whole idea of anyone thinking I could be threatened into silence.
prior to getting into fuel efficiencies...
I was once, robbed, pistol whipped, and left for dead by 3 individuals...lost so much blood, the doctors told the police officers...he should be not be alive, much less walking...his "will to live" is extremely strong.
I had been compliant...giving them my billfold and valuable watch...and they just got animalistic/visciously mean...and "enjoyed" beating me.
I got to see first hand, up front and personal, humanities dark side.
I survived, I recovered, the 3 men are in prison.
Only battle proven soldiers know what I mean...that have survived hand to hand combat....all ALONE !!!
That whole experience changed my way of thinking about life, and people.
I lost the fear...and look to the battle... worthy of my efforts.

This is the energy game...the battle ground...where the animalistic attitudes exists in patents and attornies, major corporations, that have lied to me for decades.

New rules apply...not to be hidden out...from people that can actually use it.

Robert

What patent number is this filed under? My contacts can not find anything by Robert hull or any hull effect.

phillip1,
I am not going to be bothered with such BS questions when the forum is available.

Robert

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.

Bob455 - Thank You!!
Goldie

Umm.. is this spam yet? he is here because of the great google search hits this page gets.

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

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.

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...5d0da2d44a.jpg

https://www.gassavers.org/garage_imag...lsq6j7r7jc.jpg

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

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

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,

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?

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.
https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...9a1c8f3290.jpg

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.

Yupper
..I also wonder why those "real numbers" are not listed by California any longer.
All the hassle of defining gases...and now the readout is a point system?
What are they hiding?
More blinding paperwork.
It appears that we are no longer allowed to know as much as we once did.
Odd censorship, isn't it.
Burden of proof? R U a lawyer?
convert? just pointing where to look.

Robert

bobc455,
I appreciate the offer.
I think you are sincere.
I will decline, as I am full at the moment.

Robert

Jay2The Rescue,
Thank you for making that post.
A perfect example of "What is it good for?"

I will put this to you, before the emissions test, just to satisfy people close to me, I decided to exceed EPA standards.
This was accomplished by using reverse osmosis water...in a plastic bucket...3 gallon capacity.
I ran the exhaust pipe into the water...for 60 minutes...then sent samples to a lab for testing...if the water was clean enough to dispose of in city sewer systems.
I know that can bite you in the butt....as an experiementer.
I specifically had it tested for any reasons it was unsafe.
The lab results concluded nothing hazardous.
Their comment was...looks like pool water that needs a minimal chlorine shock....in 60 days.
I was quite surprised that when I told my methodology of testing to a PHD he smiled and was quite impressed I had been so thorough.
The facts that it was not acidic...to some degree...surprised my self as well.
I can't say every vehicle's exhaust will test alkaline...rather than acidic...but those tested did.
The simple ph strips used for fish tanks...is a very good indicator using this methodology of testing the exhaust....at idle....or any speed.
I could not trust my sense of smell...as a constant...noone can.

What about alkaline water that is so special?
more concentrated/denser negative ion content.
This is scientific facts....pure physics.

Why would I trust the EPA anyway?

Robert

gary,
I do want you to know that I did read your posts about the regeneraion capture using the hydralic oil and KUDO's to your acheivements.
I noticed most of all you were very surprised with your initial testing parts...that they are reversible.
As a person who at one time was certified 30 ton Hydralic cranes with Exxon,
the concept is astoundingly efficient.
with compressing oil...heat accumulation and removal of that heat is a constant source of concern.
I suggest you google "SMART OIL" to further refine your capabilites of control of these heat issues.
It is another way to manipulaite oil...that is just emerging.
This is used on several models for adjusting the oil viscocity properties of the oil ...eliminating much of the valving production costs...that abosrb shock and give us the smooth stable rides of more luxurious cars.
What is not posted...in those articles...is that by using these techniques of adjusting viscosities of the oil...the heat absorbtion qualities are also highly affected...
so the deterioration aspects...of the oil...can be adjusted to not absorb any foreign materials...or heat.
That system you designed/patented eliminates many brake parts...rotor assemblies and bearing issues ...along the same line of thinking.
The oil reserves lower the center of gravity if placed correctly and could ..in sophisticated 'ballast systems' could improve so many aspects of road control.

I would promote this design as it will eliminate the asbestos brake linings issues...cost of recyling all those worn out brake shoes and drums....should open your developers to carbon credits directions.
What we have in common...NOONE WOULD BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE...
The slurred comment about the EPA...as an organization...has a long history of not supporting exhaust emmission improvements...and that is a lot to overcome...aligning yourself with all that 'baggage" will take some PR work.
Consider this post as a favor from one innovator to another.
The efficiency of my system...combined with your system would make this hybird system...last about ??? years with very little or no mantainance.
The oil contamination issues would be "solved" ???
HMMM???

Robert

Re: The Hull Effect
 

Re: The Hull Effect
 

Rats. Sounds like the world will now never reap the benefits of this technology.

Re: The Hull Effect
 

"By improving the thermodynamic heat exchange by several times, greatly reducing the "drag" of all fluids, improving the viscocities of all fluids, decreasing the aero-dynamic drag by creating and maintaining a "static electrical field"... via the manipulations of the frequencies created by the alternator."

HAHAHAHAAAHAHAAAHA!

Tool.