the apparent magic of detonation
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... |
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. |
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 |
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... |
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 ;) |
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. |
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 .! |
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 |
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... |
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. https://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." https://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. https://www.frank.germano.com/images/radiantenergy2.gif 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?. https://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. |
My Final Comment
|
so you have so much to say about other people and your opinion of their life...
what is so factual in this life that you are so sure of...? what is life onegammyleg...? in your personal opinion... or is it truely shared by the highest order of beings and cant be spoken of in public...??? everyone thought teslas idea of ac power was crazy... but ****...he did it...and it was just ONE of his childhood visions... you owe that mofo it all... clearly his deathray was the cause of the great siberian explosion 1908 (or 1907)... and CLEARLY the implementation of the StarWars program was based on this technology... look at this pic on hastings website you are gonna tell me that the power in fuel struck like lightning thru this piston...? you are going to tell me that stress over time caused this...? look at that metal...its friggin fused...FUSED...completely altered https://www.hastingsmfg.com/Service%2...mages/p25b.gif |
even pre-ignition couldn't create pressure high enough to do this damage on a d-series block...
oh nevermind...this is hydrolock...cool website none the less... https://www.prepsparkplugs.com/pics/hydrobroke.jpg |
tesla ran an electric car on pure energy from the ether...
it was a modified Pierce Arrow... and was privately funded for development... he immigrated his younger brother who recounts of driving around with tesla in and around buffalo where they were able to reach speeds of 90mph... it was in his last years...had to be after 1930... his earthquake machine didn't produce results in his room... resonant waves increase in magnitude by distance its a good thing the police knew where to go and that teslas was known to be the source... he smashed it after he found out what it was doing... much the same as his deathray...he tore it down after the report came back of the siberian explosion... only later did he try and sell the technology...nobody bought it... they killed him and stole his papers (thats my story and i'm sticking to it) the siberian explosion is still the largest recorded catastrophic event... many times bigger than any atom bomb explosion i think it affected some 680,000 acres...unbelievably nobody was killed... |
My brother-in-law made a big Tesler coil in the garage at this house and when that thing was tuned right it sucked a lot of amps from the grid through the spark gap and the corona was intense - sparks all over the place then the insulation started breaking down between the coil windings. A great deal of Teslers work was about resonance of things and the earth.
Electricity is supposed to be the movement of electrons in a conductor and I think it pretty much holds up to exactly that from all the results that it causes by the (chemical) reactions with the materials involved in it use. Oh yeah and the speed of combustion - in pre-ignition the entire air/fuel charge is ignited at the same instance vs the more controlled, timed, TRAVELING flame front of a spark igniton. This is why dual plugs are often used in a BMW boxer engine - getting you quicker ignition of a large displacement engine combustion chamber at a later timing point in engine rotation. If you have a flame front that travels as a certain fixed speed and you ignite the chamber at two different points then you have two flame fronts traveling at the same speed but they only have to travel half the distance so you get it all burnt "faster". |
honda also uses dual spark technology in the iDSI (dual spark ignition) honda fit...
the us government rejected the iDSI fit from import... because it gets over 50mpg and everyone would have bought one... the honda fit was the first car to outsell the toyota corrolla since its inception in japan 1967... also note that the collision of the flame fronts in dual spark tech doesn't create adverse effects...like engines blowing up... another fact most people run from... prescott bush made his millions from hitlers holocaust war machine look up United Bank Company, Harriman 15,Brown Brothers Harriman,Consolidated Solesian Steel ... etc |
Quote:
Haha, this thread is full of awesome conspiracy theory stuff. |
Quote:
I'm sorry, molecule, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept. Detonation in an engine is explained quite handily by conventional science, as has been explained by several people. I'm done here, and I'll let someone else explain the Tunguska event. And for the kids in the audience, say no to drugs! |
Drugs Are Bad
|
well then how come the whole pistons didn't melt...
why do the rings (different metal different resonant frequency) appear to not be affected AT ALL...? certainly a "HEAT" that could melt the piston would melt those darn rings too...NO...??? even the weave of the oil ring insert is completely unaffected... hmm...must be that damn collision of the flame fronts... |
so your theory on life is merely
"DRUGS ARE BAD" you sure you dont want to include any further information like why the american government would bother to be the largest distributor and producer oh and i'm the one who doesn't understand yet you guys cannot provide substantial written evidence without getting pissed off you just say...others have proven...i will blindly follow... even though i have no f'ing clue...they told me how it is... well how is it...? i think you are a fool to believe that heat or even fuel 'solely' caused that damage damn strait you are done here |
prove me wrong...dont you want the truth...?
i know i do |
molecule
It has already been clearly explained the causes and effect of detonation are well known and are no mystery. In fact I have seen much worse condition pistons than that example you showed. Detonation is triggered by presure and heat , it causes an extremely fast uncontrolled combustion that is locallised putting extreme pressure on one spot rather than across the whole crown of the piston. If you are thinking that it is magically amazing high presure to do this you are wrong. Get a piston , eveen a good one , put it on the ground and chop it with a sharp axe and you will cut it in half. Turn the axe head over and strike a piston with the blunt end and it will most likely not break. Same forces but spread over more area. Your insistance that detonation has some connection with unknown forces is way out of the ball park. You may wish to believe such things and thats your right but its not backed by science in anyway , more likely just backed by your wishing it was true. I am not contributing to this thread anything else. |
how did they get the axe in the combustion chamber...???
i think you are on to something... but YOU still dont know what it is... i dont care how much pressure and heat you put in a chamber...it cannot form fuel into a sharp edge... even if that piece missing from the crown broke off first and impaled the piston creating that hole it would have taken the rings with it... there is a different energy that causes detonation at this level say it ... say it... say it |
Quote:
|
The piston made from aluminum and the rings from tempered chromium steel totally different melting points. As soon there is a hot spot on the piston or a bad seal on a ring you get blowby which acts like a cutting torch forcing hot plasma gasses through the opening and burning away the metal. The same can happen in a valve or valve seat made from high temperature alloy metal - as soon as enough high pressure burning gasses pass over the valve leak it starts to burn away metal with each stroke. In normal combustion the flame stays in the center of the combustion chamber pushing evenly against all sides and against the downwardly moving piston.
|
alright....
so we have aluminum with a fairly low melting point of 1200°F and that explains that... but that doesn't explain what detonation is to me clear enough to be fully convinced that destructive energy spikes could be contained in fossil fuel... high heat melting aluminum would then be fairly easily achieved in a combustion motor. perhaps i dumped too much faith on that one piston... you guys will never let me recover from that i'm sure... before this thread im sure you would easily have believed anyone that uses terms like 'flamefront collisions' as a detonation truth... well clearly its not a truth... so lets see if any more misconceptions can be fully irradicated.... in fact...i dont see any evidence in this thread for any source of energy spikes technically speaking high heat in the engine to melt a piston is not an energy spike |
The compression of an engine without ignition is from 120-200psi depending upon the compression ratio of the engine. The ignition of fuel produces a burn time of many degrees in fact my xB timing is advanced as much as 38 degrees BTDC under light loads and I am sure that it continues to burn as the piston is moving downwards or else they would not ignite it so soon because they would want the peak pressure to occure after TDC or else the engine would want to run backwards. That is an example of slow burning. Under heavy loads the timing is retarded to just a few degrees BTDC (Before Top Dead Center) and since the piston is confining the gasses to such a small volume it can burn more quickly (less distance for the flame to travel) with less of the heat energy being absorbed by the engine cylinder walls because less of the walls are exposed to the flame because the piston is covering it almost completely - actually a few degrees BTDC the piston is essentially all the way up in its travel. Now you have all the air and fuel charge compressed into a small space and then ignition occurs further increasing the pressure even more. But because it burns somewhat slowly (in terms of crank rotation) the piston is moving downwards reducting the pressure as it is rising from the thermal expansion and production of gasses from the complex hydrocarbon fuel breakdown from combustion. This produces a smooth increase in pressure and transfer of energy to the crank. If fuel ignited really quickly there would be no need for timing changes / advancing.
|
hastings confidently believes all detonation and pre-ignition is caused by colliding flamefronts
https://www.hastingsmfg.com/Service%2...reignition.htm [gameshowbuzzer]bbbbbzzzzznnnnntttttt[/gameshowbuzzer] the only other significant theories i'm seeing is spontaneous combustion of unburnt fuel/air are you people seriously going to just put faith in spontaneous combustion and merely discredit such a notion as teslas...? and even go further to say that teslas idea is crazy...? wow...i mean...to me...its nearly the same thing... but at least tesla has scientific support...where as spontaneous combustion has none... fuel just MAGICALLY spontaneously combusts..??? and this is technical enough for you to lean back in your chair satisfactorally...??? well at least i got you to admit its magic...lol ALLEN W. CLINE (AEE: Aeronautics Education Enterprises) "Unburned end gas, under increasing pressure and heat (from the normal progressive burning process and hot combustion chamber metals) spontaneously combusts, ignited solely by the intense heat and pressure. The remaining fuel in the end gas simply lacks sufficient octane rating to withstand this combination of heat and pressure." |
here's the full text...and i find it fairly sufficient...
i think we can lay this thread to rest... great article https://users.adelphia.net/~digitalco...reignition.txt |
If you have a chance to visit the materials labs of a good college they usually have an octane tester which is a piston that tests the combustion of by compressing it UNTIL IT IGNITES. And how do you think diesel engines operate?? They can start without glow plugs if the engine temperature is above 60-70 degrees easily.
I'm not saying that other things are not happening in this process that Tesla writes about. |
Assuming a correct fuel ratio the higher the pressure the faster the flame front travels. So to make this simple lets say that you have a sealed cylinder with gas/air uniformly mixed and you ignite it. The point of ignition starts burning and expanding due to heat and combustion, increasing pressure. This increase in pressure makes the flame front travel faster. This increases exponentially, I am not going to bother with the equations because they are hard to solve in text format. Usually the result is the sealed container will explode once it gets to the point it can't contain the pressure anymore and ruptures. The flame front will not travel evenly because the pressure is increasing up to the point the container ruptures. This is how a pipe bomb explodes so violently, when you could just ignite the same amount of powder in the open and it will just make lots of smoke.
Now put this into a moving piston. The pre ignition happens sometime before the spark plug fires, or the plug fires early. The piston is going upward still increasing the pressure. The flame starts and as it burns it is also increasing pressure. Since it happened early the pressure gets very high and the fuel burns almost instantly Since remember the flame front speed exponentially increases with pressure. The increasing pressure from the piston moving upward and the already started combustion means the fuel is totally burned before the piston reaches top dead center. The engine has enough rotating mass to force the piston up to TDC anyway. From basic chemistry you know that increasing the pressure of a sealed container increases it's temperature so now instead of the normal combustion temperature and pressure you greatly increase the pressure because you are compressing the entire burned air/fuel mix at TDC which increases temperature as much as 5-10x normal. So if you don't break a piston or lift the heads from the excessive pressure which will cause an instant failure of the engine you will over time melt stuff starting with the metals with the lowest melting point showing damage first. It also causes metal fatigue from the stress that over time can cause stuff to break. You don't get that kind of temperature with normal combustion because as the fuel burns the piston is moving downward increasing the volume of the chamber which also means the temperatures and pressures are more controlled and you don't get a runaway flame front speed. Nice and simple even though I simplified things a bit and left out all the math it should still be fairly easy to follow the logic. But then what do I know I only have degrees in physics and chemistry. |
What everyone is talking about what initially causes pre ignition is typically something like a lot of carbon buildup on the combustion chamber. This carbon can hold a lot of heat so as the piston is going up compressing the air/fuel the pressure is increasing and the temperature. This carbon is already hot so once the fuel gets hot enough that the activation energy required is less than the amount of energy in the carbon deposit the fuel will ignite. This is can be anywhere like 20-40 degrees or so to early and causes what I said in the last post.
Another thing is if the octane is low/compression ratio too high. The temperature and pressure of the piston working normally will either exceed the activation energy and the fuel will ignite early or the normal ignition timing will spark and ignite the mixture. The lower the octane the faster the flame front can travel so the fuel burns faster than the engine expects, This increases pressure rapidly as the engine is still before TDC with the piston moving upwards and you get the same runaway combustion as already described. The engine might be tuned for 93 octane so it expects the fuel to burn at a certain rate, increasing the burn rate by using 87 octane means the engine will have to be retuned. Typically you shape the combustion chamber with a certain flame front speed in mind so if you retard the ignition because of bad gas or whatever reason you do not get efficent combustion. Same thing with running 93 in a car tuned for 87 the fuel burns slower than expected so you don't get the full energy from it. Not considering newer cars that can adjust their timing to suit the current conditions. Even the new cars can not advance the ignition past the table in their memory so if they are not tuned for 93 they won't need it unless the car has problems. |
alot of what you said is fine
alot of what you said is false the difference between high octane fuels is that they are further reduced in their complexity of structure... basically 87 octane has roughly 3 stages of burn...because fossil fuel is composed of many different densities...it generally contains a few even after refinery in the towers... spark can only ignite part of the fuel...the flame front propogation is required to burn the rest higher octane fuels are refined yet even more so that they actually burn quicker...they have less total difference in deviance of their structure and density...and the spark energy can induce a higher percentage of the total burn... as mentioned earlier...additives are added to higher octane fuels to ward off detonation...to total burn cycle is kept fairly constant in that the fuel now requires less burn time as it is more refined... however higher octane fuels contain less energy per unit... lower octane fuels simply have more in them...a part of which burns hotter... performance motors can produce more hp on high octane because: they are less likely to detonate and can handle more timing they are more stable at higher rpms as they burn quicker being able to rev your motor to 9500 instead of 7200... well...you lose a percentage of power per cycle on the high octane... but you gain the repetition....and more power is produced in the same amount of time at higher rpms... if you downloaded that text...it describes detonation and pre-ignition the best i have heard... and puts all of the thread posters (including myself) to shame...lol clearly pre-ignition is most dangerous... the text describes detonation as potentially not disasterous... i would like to see more pictures of damaged internals... maybe there is more evidence out there for the Radiant Energy taking place for now...that texts description is most complete... however...the blocks resonating at a 6200hz or whatever frequency it is... that just doesn't seem like something fuel could produce outside of pre-igniton... i just dont see sudden combustion of unburnt fuel ATDC as being a viable source for that kind of energy and pinging... if in fact it can be produced ATDC...i would say it can...though i dont have enough experience tuning motors... something still rings true that there is something else happening in certain conditions i have heard it...and my first reaction and present thought is that fuel could not do that... |
molecule
Ok , whatever , radiant energy , fairy dust , we dont care.(and ime not going to debate this topic any more) https://disney.videos.go.com/bvhe/mov...tinkerbell.gif Many if not the vast majority of visitors to this forum back up their ideas with scientific experimentation and use thier own cash to finance their thoughts. So how about this for an idea. If you think radiant energy is the key to this amazing power , how about you , out of your own pocket , build a radiant power engine. Go get a loan from the bank , sell your house (if u have one) and all that you have to finance this project. If you are SO convinced that radiant energy is the source of unlimited power then there should be no reservation on your part to take up this challenge and make a car run on it. When you get it working , present it to two , independant , 3rd party qualified observers and I will gladly drop my shorts so you can give me a good kick in the kaboose. So there you have it , prove me wrong. Prove to everyone here that I am ignorant person. (as you have challenged) But you know what , I believe that you , just like Tesla and all the others , will come up with some reason why you don't come up with the goods. Ime expecting , you to reply with some comment like , ¨why should I prove it to you¨ , ,, or , you will tell us to ¨prove it to you that it doesnt work¨., or some other lame exscuse not to develope anything. |
On a lighter note...
I just switched back to 87-octane because of the colder weather :o
More $$$ saved... RH77 |
you have heightened the claim of my belief beyond...
i merely stated what i have read about tesla and his accomplishments... i believe 100% in the radiant energy... do i believe that the E.V. Gray motor and the Tesla motor work...??? i'm skeptical... you must understand something though...Teslas alleged discovery of radiant energy has nothing to do with a motor... it was not internal...it was in open air...a circuit board of sorts...and a spark gap his motor circuit had an antennae about 6 feet long... i'm not in the least suggesting running a motor on alleged radiant energy from spark energy in an internal combustion engine... ALL I AM SAYING is that maybe we can eliminate the possibility of detonation that is all i have been saying from the beginning you need to reread my first post i am not talking about harnessing radiant energy to power a motor though who wouldn't if we can...??? stop being such a weeny...you think i give a rats *** about you...??? honestly...be a little more forthright with your nobility... oh watery being...with no theory of life... the thing that i believe makes you ignorant is your willingness to jump to conclusions... to take someone elses work and make it your own for plight or quarry to stand as a judge who cannot be judged you sound like i made this thread just to invoke your reply you could have just watched... someone with the confidence of their beliefs surely would not need to display them just to sound smart....???? or would they...??? **** man...you wont even engage in conversation all you do is bark orders ignorance is not being able to find common ground to rule out another being for difference you have no concept of energy and what constitutes your being you THINK you know...but you fail to display respect for it here you have segregated me into a space in your mind where all bad things go i'm not saying you cant disagree... but nobility finds a way to understand where i understand you...but you do not understand me you look down on me...where i do not look down on you... i shun you....when you cannot look past the difference... respect is earned my friend take a look who made the decision to open fire in a personal way my mistake was to feed that fire with response you cannot (or have not shown the ability to) differentiate the practical use and necessity to direct energy towards a positive outcome... you will just end up a sour bastard if you do and this i speak from experience and can back up with experimentation energy is life...and altitude is life insurance... how high are you...??? |
Molecule -¨take a look who made the decision to open fire in a personal way¨
Umm , take a look dude. You responded to my first post on this subject at post number 5 with ¨your a fool and a liar.¨ On post 6 you said ¨**** man¨ Post 6 ¨oh and i dont care how much f'in¨ Post 13 ¨but ****¨ Post 22 ¨i think you are a fool¨ Post 39 ¨you think i give a rats *** about you.¨ Post 39 ¨**** man.¨ Post 39 ¨sour bastard¨ So I did take a look , and your the agressor. And like I said , prove what you say with verifiable proof or just B quiet. |
I think it might be best if you leave Molecule, or atleast realize that if you come on here asking questions, you shoudln't call people liars, fools, and bastard's when they try to help you...
I really don't understand your purpose here, we already all know what detonation is and how to avoid it. Exactly what is it your wondering? BTW all that philisophical stuff really has no use here. |
Wow!!!!!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.