the apparent magic of detonation

[molecule]

i was up all night and had an epiphany at sunrise...
at just what detonation is...
this is dismissing pre-ignition issues due to hotspots...etc...
in order to understand this...you would have to be a little electrically savvy...
have a decent understanding of how basic circuits work...
and a healthy open mind to the workings of people like E.V. Gray and people like Nikola Tesla who basically invented the 20th Century...

in particular...Teslas discovery of Radiant Energy (tapping the ether)...
and the exact circuit that was used in his discovery...
he was actually trying to prove hertzian waves existed...and stumbled into it...
using pulsed dc he transferred energy in his circuit across a spark gap...
when he disrupted the spark all hell broke loose...
at lower frequencies the energy released would actually cause physical pain to the body...if you were say in the same room...
at higher frequencies it could effect all materials...
he reported all kinds of phenomena similiar to, if not the same as, the hutchison effect...
maybe this will bring up things you have heard about the philadelphia project...

now i know that fuel will burn at pretty much the same temperature...
no matter what you do it...
so in my mind there was no way that detonation was anything (directly) related to the flamefront or an 'acceleration' of that flamefront...
i knew there was something else going on...
i am reading as many scientific articles as i can find on detonation...
and they all lead me to the same place...nobody seems to know what kind of energy it really is...
its one explosive...it can melt,disform,crack all kinds of metals...
it can be alot of energy...more than schoolbook physics can determine the source of
it appears exactly as described in results of teslas circuit...
and also that of E.V. Grays motor driver circuit...(basically the same thing)
only gray was effectively USING the energy to power his motor

if you can see what this potentially means...its huge...
first a huge step at understanding the source of this energy...
second the opportunity to control it...
perhaps altering the frequency of the spark energy at different rpms
to basically eliminate its possible effect in the spark moment

teslas speaks of dartlets...tiny particles that shoot out of the vibrant energy produced...
perhaps this is the 'ping' commonly referred to...
also in most of the detonation science the word resonate,resonance comes up alot...
this is exactly what tesla was working with...the resonant frequencies of all matter...

study up *****es...and dont forget...
TESLA TESLA TESLA...you owe your life...

[onegammyleg]

Thats strange , I dont have any missunderstandigns about the causes of detonation as its widely understood.

?Deflagration is, believe it or not, a relatively gentle process which is simply the rapid burning the fuel. When we cause an air/fuel mixture to deflagrate in a semi-enclosed space (such as a pulsejet or auto-engine) then pressure is generated and that pressure can be harnessed to perform some work -- eg: create thrust or turn a crankshaft.?

?Detonation however is a far more powerful reaction of the air/fuel mixture and results in such a rapid reaction that the pressure-wave created travels at super-sonic speeds.
In effect, detonation is a violent explosion and as such it produces vastly higher pressures than the simple burning process of deflagration. ?

?Detonation causes a very high, very sharp pressure spike in the combustion chamber but it is of a very short duration.?

When you put this all together , Detonation does cause higher cylinder pressures than the normal Deflagration method ...BUT... Its duration is far shorter.
Which means , that the total power output is the same.

To get more power you will be needing to burn more fuel.

There is no magic about this at all and there is no secret unknown power sources , , its well known science and is in experimental stages for high altitude pulse jet engines.

[molecule]

what exactly you stated there is just more evidence for my theory...
"in effect" is wording used to describe an analogy...
analogy to a different type of energy you cant describe perhaps...
you clearly have misconceptions of what this energy is...
and if you dont...your a fool and a liar...
because the truth is...that nobody understands what electricity really is...
that all of life is just a theory...including our ability to communicate with each other...
and hence the problem when people are confronted with new (old) ideas...
they cannot handle the truth that there is possibility they everything you think you know...is in fact not so...and that every day deserves a new opportunity to share and learn...
dismissal of my theory is pure ignorance...
you dont know what detonation is...its beyond your ability...
remember...all words are merely theory...
to take them as fact at any point in time...is your fundamental problem...

so instead of me trying to shut you down...
let me say this...
what you said is nearly exactly the same thing as i did...
only you have chosen to say that somehow what i said is wrong...
take another look...maybe theres a chance you dont understand fully the amount of power that can be released by detonation...
this same power achieved with no presence of fossil fuels...
but tesla did blow hot air over the spark gap...
go head and build on my theory...but its just going to be redundant...
i'm sorry but you cannot burn fuel any quicker under the combustion chambers minor deviation of operation between cycles...
i would believe that hotter intake temperatures are significant induction of the onset of detonation...
but detonation itself has nothing or very little to do with ability of the fuels burn properties....
the only thing i would be willing to allow the fuel in as changing the equation of the onset of detonation is its effect on the temperature of the air...
and if you want to throw in the wildcard of high compression engines would detonate immediatly on low octane fuel...
keep in mind...that is changing cylinder pressure...the burn time remains the same...
pressure may very well induce the radiant energy effect...
but it isn't the fuel doing the 'damage'
I"LL SAY THAT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY


i bet you think higher octane fuels take longer to burn...
i bet you think higher octane fuels burn hotter...
it is exactly opposite

[molecule]

super sonic speeds are not attainable by a fossil fuel flamefront...
**** man...you said it yourself...you just need to go study some key words in my original post....
and come back in a week with a big smile on your face at all you have learned...

oh and i dont care how much f'in fuel you add to the cylinder...its not going to change the temperature of the burn....
same goes for the twin towers...
jet fuel could not have melted that metal...i dont care who you are and what you say...
jet fuel burns at 2000° and that metal melts at over 3500°
it could have burned for over 10 hours before any joints would be compromised...
and even at that point...it would not mean catastrophic failure...
another insurance scam...like your belief that all you read is true...
or even the selective choice you make of what you are going to read as being true...

[GasSavers_brick]

Alright, don't get me wrong here. I very much enjoy wondering about the crazy stuff we haven't discovered yet, or may have discovered but nobody knows about.

but

Detonation is an extremely well understood, very simple phenomenon. All you have to do to get gasoline to ignite is add energy. The ignition energy requirement, (the amount of energy it takes to start the raction), is relatively low. But it is possible to initiate bulk ignition...detonation...by adding thermal energy in other ways. Start with simple heat, especially in an engine that is running at too high of a temperature. The intake charge of air and fuel gets hot as it moves past and through a hot intake manifold and even hotter head and combustion chamber. The other source of thermal energy comes from the piston itself. As you compress that intake charge, you add energy. Not only does pressure increase, but the temperature of the mixture increases from that compression. It's the same thing that happens when you turbocharge or supercharge an engine, and why intercoolers are used to bring that intake air temperature closer to ambient. (Detonation can be a major problem at high levels of boost.) If you cross the threshold at which you add enough energy to set off that air/fuel mixture, you have detonation. It's just an extremely rapid combustion event.

Ok, so I've explained what causes the reaction. That doesn't explain how that reaction can be so violent that it blows a hole right through the top of your piston. It happens! Well, that's about timing. An engine operating nominally uses an ignition timing aimed to put the peak pressure at, IIRC, 12-14 degrees after top dead center (ATDC). That way you have the greatest cylinder pressure as the piston is travelling downard, and the gas is doing work on that piston. But detonation is not that controlled, and generally happens when the piston is still travelling upward to compress the mixture. At that point it's about energy flow, and particuly the fact that it needs a place to go. Rather than doing work, it just builds up as pressure, far exceeding that which the engine can tolerate. And as Greg said, this happens very quickly. Now consider that happening over and over and over again in a short period of time and it's no wonder the metal fails. It is stressed, heated, fatigued, and fails in a very short period of time.

All of the energy comes from the gasoline, nothing external to the engine. Higher octane fuels take longer to burn? No, but I know that higher octane fuels take more energy to ignite, and thus are more resistant to the forces that cause detonation.

If you want something to do while you're up at night, research what it takes to make this phenomenon into something useful: Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI). You may also be interested in Stratified Charge Spark Ignition engines as well, as they may be the answer to a viable and clean lean-burn gasoline powerplant.

I don't know circuits, but I know my engines

[Sludgy]

To be accurate, let's all get the correct definitions:

Deflagration: Rapid combustion that occurs at less then the speed of sound.
Detonation: Rapid combustion that occurs at greater than the speed of sound.
Explosion: Rupture of a vessel (e.g., a bomb casing) due to an internal deflagration or detonation.

[onegammyleg]

Hi molecule -Re- ?your a fool and a liar...
because the truth is...that nobody understands what electricity really is...
that all of life is just a theory...including our ability to communicate with each other...?

All of life is just a theory ? ? ..no offense , but your completely cracked in the head .!

[molecule]

so what do you think life is...?
if its not a theory...how can your mind come up with an idea...?
what is an idea if its not a theory...?
how is it that you think you could know what life is before you percieve it...?
if life is perceived before you think of it...then what is thought...?
would thought then not be life because it wasn't already part of it....?
if thought is life...then whats your f'ing problem with that theory...?
and who says it is right....?
lol

and to the general audience...(brick)
you are saying that somehow the fuel burns more quickly than normal under detonation...
its physically impossible (ruling out pre-ignition as stated in my first post)
you cannot burn fuel faster under the same circumstance of a combustion engine...
a higher pressure wave from heat is a gradual process over many cycles of the engine...
i think it needs to be clear that detonation can easily have many forms...
and clearly fatigue can set in from less than desirable engine conditions...
and that detonation itself may or may not be the one cataclysmic event...

i would also like to withdraw my statement about fuel not being related to my theory...
E.V. Gray uses carbon to separate his copper node prior to his spark gap...
perhaps unburnt fuel is the missing link to sudden release of teslas radiant energy...
i am definately not even slightly convinced the replys remotely come close to explaining how detonation might not be related to the energy i speak of...
all your claims support this theory...
enjoy

[molecule]

like collision of two flame fronts....
well that is just admitting that pre-ignition happened somewhere else besides the spark plug...
sure its a form of detonation...
but i am absolutely convinced that teslas radiant energy can be produced in a combustion engine under certain circumstances that can resonate the entire engine...ping...what not what have you....and create immediate and critical damage...

[onegammyleg]

Hi brick -?don't get me wrong here. I very much enjoy wondering about the crazy stuff we haven't discovered yet,?

Yeah , me too 100% , but especially when Tesla is involved I am not interested.
True much of his work was ground breaking and he has had an impact on all modern life , but really , can we take seriously a guy that claimed to get his revelations when speaking to beings from another planet ?

That and that fact that many of his devices have not been successfully reproduced even after many years must account for something.
A couple of his most noteworthy ?inventions? was his earthquake machine.
Imagine this a machien , not bigger than a radio that caused such a violent earthquack that when the police arived they found him smashing his invention.
suposedly he had tapped amazing sources of energy , which normally would encourage further refinement but he didnt , he smashed it and gave up.
http://www.frank.germano.com/earthquake.htm


Also Tesla believed he could make a flying machine , without wings or propellors , just , floating allong by energy.

He said -"I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds" -, "You should not be at all surprised, if some day you see me fly from New York to Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble a gas stove and weigh as much. ... and could, if necessary, enter and depart through a window."
http://www.frank.germano.com/flying_machine.htm

Enter and depart through open windows in something that looks like an oven , RIIIITE...

And then theres another machine that he claimed to have invented that got free energy from the cosmos.
Just hoist up the antenna and it would supply energy to run an electric motor , an dafter developement it would power cars and airplanes that would never need to stop.


If he was getting unlimited power from the cosmos , why would he even bother working on a new internal combustion engine ?US Patent # 514,169 - Reciprocating Engine - Nikola Tesla? ??

Of course , like this and almost ALL of his amazing claims never were even seen by independant scientific examiners that could prove his theories.

And we just wont go into making warships dissapear , time travel and his belief in mind traveling.

Umm , if he could travel just with his mind power , why would he need any of his machines. ???

This is what Tesla wrote -?At twelve, Tesla could override his visions by act of will and change them to other visions. However, as he noted, he couldn?t override the light flashes. Usually these flashes appeared in certain dangerous situations or when he was greatly excited. He wrote: ?In some certain moments I noticed that all air around me was full of tongues of real flame. Intensity of these tongues grew after a number of years instead of falling and reached maximum at the age of Twenty-five. Once I had a feeling that my brain was enveloped in flames and a little Sun shines in my head?.
http://www.frank.germano.com/the_complete_tesla.htm

This really doesnt sound like the thoughts of someone with all their cogs in gear does it ?

So yeah , I think I know a little about Tesla , enough not to take seriously anyone that thinks half of his ideas were plausable.