On engines, fuel, energy, and a reality check
04-14-2011, 02:05 AM
#1
On engines, fuel, energy, and a reality check
Or; an exposé which concerns itself mainly with unusual methods of producing, harnessing, and putting to good use, all the forms and variations of energy. With some special attention given to marine craft.
I’ve been toying with the idea of posting something like this for quite awhile, but always imagined that it would be rather limited in its appeal as regards the general readership of this discussion forum due in large part to the great volumes of material that would be required to really get everyone on the same page. I think I have found an acceptable compromise.
In fact, if I may be so bold as to ask: would the first Moderator who sees this discussion thread please make it sticky? I believe it should be read by as many people as possible, but as always, that is up to you to decide.
What with the way things are going lately with inflation, fuel prices, and the recent disaster in Japan, I believe that the following will be found worthy of anyone's interest. It may even give some folks cause to do a little of their own research on the subject. Something I would heartily encourage.
Please note: the nature of this thread is so broad in its scope that I will likely have to break it into several posts in order to adequately address all that I wish to include. For this reason, I would advise you to read the following in chunks. It is well-written, and flows smoothly. I will be including hyperlinks to other articles that are decidedly thorough in detail which will also take a bit of time to assimilate. There will also be some full-length videos that are quite interesting.
If you like engines and all things related (what boat owner doesn't?), then this is worth your time to digest.
To preface, I claim absolutely no expertise in any of the following subjects, and am merely offering that which I have learned in my attempts to further enlighten myself in those areas which garner my unbridled fascination. In other words; I’m just passing my findings along for others to consider in hopes that they might benefit from, or, at the very least, find the material offered herein to be mildly informative.
I suppose what prompted me to finally put this up was the recent “gas prices” threads that are popping up at fairly regular intervals. And with good reason. If gas hits north of $5.00/gal, a great many performance boaters will find themselves gingerly cruising out to that favorite spot, dropping anchor, and cracking a cold one straight away. Nothing wrong with that by any stretch, but a far cry from all the fun runs and extended cruises that were once commonplace. Yes, there are those who remain largely unaffected by the fluctuations in price, but the vast majority will always feel it to varying degrees.
First, a little about my boating and mechanical background:
Before the boat was sold (F-311 SR-1) last year, the above was pretty much the plan. Every once in a while we’d take a quick blast up to 65 MPH for a few seconds, but it was a rare treat (I know, real exciting). Mostly it was just a quick hobble over to that favorite beach for the duration of the outing, then home again.
The boat was configured for conservative performance with 454 Magnums warmed over a bit with custom-ground roller camshafts at 114 degrees LSA, roller lifters, roller rockers, Edlebrock RPM Air-Gap intake manifolds, Revolution Marine aluminum exhaust manifolds (converted from wet to dry because of the camshaft's tendency to cause reversion), marinized 1970’s Rochester Q-Jet 800 CFM Pontiac carbs, and what made the whole package really sing: 1970’s Chevrolet 780 series large oval-port heads with hardened exhaust seats, lovingly ported and polished, of course.
Engines were estimated at 525 HP a side conservatively. A truly remarkable combination that achieved exceedingly impressive performance in a reliable, economic fashion. Being that the boat spent most of its time at mid-range speeds, the oval-port heads made all the difference and the torque was simply astounding with a marked increase over the stock configuration of rectangular-ports. The Q-Jet, which has never found favor because of its highly adjustable nature, is quite precise in metering the fuel which does help at the pumps. Throttle response was also very good.
While the boat was never run wide open, it did kiss 75 MPH on the GPS at just a few clicks under full throttle (taching 5200 RPM), but was slightly under-propped at 24" pitch Hydromotive Q-IV Intimidators. With 25 pitch props, the boat would likely have approached 78, on a cold day, maybe even 80 with 1/8th of a tankfull.
It was approximately estimated that at 3000 RPM, total fuel burn was between 8.75 to 9.25 gallons an hour. Not too shabby.
With all that, though, it still drank plenty as any boat of this type will, but not remotely as much as a stock Magnum 365 HP setup with restrictive exhaust would. The performance was really what it should have been directly from Formula. The 365 HP Magnum engine was such a poor choice for these heavy boats. The 311 needs at least 500 HP a side, and the 357 needs 650-700 HP to get nimble. The 420 was the better option for sure with its Gil exhaust manifolds.
I’ve been toying with the idea of posting something like this for quite awhile, but always imagined that it would be rather limited in its appeal as regards the general readership of this discussion forum due in large part to the great volumes of material that would be required to really get everyone on the same page. I think I have found an acceptable compromise.
In fact, if I may be so bold as to ask: would the first Moderator who sees this discussion thread please make it sticky? I believe it should be read by as many people as possible, but as always, that is up to you to decide.
What with the way things are going lately with inflation, fuel prices, and the recent disaster in Japan, I believe that the following will be found worthy of anyone's interest. It may even give some folks cause to do a little of their own research on the subject. Something I would heartily encourage.
Please note: the nature of this thread is so broad in its scope that I will likely have to break it into several posts in order to adequately address all that I wish to include. For this reason, I would advise you to read the following in chunks. It is well-written, and flows smoothly. I will be including hyperlinks to other articles that are decidedly thorough in detail which will also take a bit of time to assimilate. There will also be some full-length videos that are quite interesting.
If you like engines and all things related (what boat owner doesn't?), then this is worth your time to digest.
To preface, I claim absolutely no expertise in any of the following subjects, and am merely offering that which I have learned in my attempts to further enlighten myself in those areas which garner my unbridled fascination. In other words; I’m just passing my findings along for others to consider in hopes that they might benefit from, or, at the very least, find the material offered herein to be mildly informative.
I suppose what prompted me to finally put this up was the recent “gas prices” threads that are popping up at fairly regular intervals. And with good reason. If gas hits north of $5.00/gal, a great many performance boaters will find themselves gingerly cruising out to that favorite spot, dropping anchor, and cracking a cold one straight away. Nothing wrong with that by any stretch, but a far cry from all the fun runs and extended cruises that were once commonplace. Yes, there are those who remain largely unaffected by the fluctuations in price, but the vast majority will always feel it to varying degrees.
First, a little about my boating and mechanical background:
Before the boat was sold (F-311 SR-1) last year, the above was pretty much the plan. Every once in a while we’d take a quick blast up to 65 MPH for a few seconds, but it was a rare treat (I know, real exciting). Mostly it was just a quick hobble over to that favorite beach for the duration of the outing, then home again.
The boat was configured for conservative performance with 454 Magnums warmed over a bit with custom-ground roller camshafts at 114 degrees LSA, roller lifters, roller rockers, Edlebrock RPM Air-Gap intake manifolds, Revolution Marine aluminum exhaust manifolds (converted from wet to dry because of the camshaft's tendency to cause reversion), marinized 1970’s Rochester Q-Jet 800 CFM Pontiac carbs, and what made the whole package really sing: 1970’s Chevrolet 780 series large oval-port heads with hardened exhaust seats, lovingly ported and polished, of course.
Engines were estimated at 525 HP a side conservatively. A truly remarkable combination that achieved exceedingly impressive performance in a reliable, economic fashion. Being that the boat spent most of its time at mid-range speeds, the oval-port heads made all the difference and the torque was simply astounding with a marked increase over the stock configuration of rectangular-ports. The Q-Jet, which has never found favor because of its highly adjustable nature, is quite precise in metering the fuel which does help at the pumps. Throttle response was also very good.
While the boat was never run wide open, it did kiss 75 MPH on the GPS at just a few clicks under full throttle (taching 5200 RPM), but was slightly under-propped at 24" pitch Hydromotive Q-IV Intimidators. With 25 pitch props, the boat would likely have approached 78, on a cold day, maybe even 80 with 1/8th of a tankfull.
It was approximately estimated that at 3000 RPM, total fuel burn was between 8.75 to 9.25 gallons an hour. Not too shabby.
With all that, though, it still drank plenty as any boat of this type will, but not remotely as much as a stock Magnum 365 HP setup with restrictive exhaust would. The performance was really what it should have been directly from Formula. The 365 HP Magnum engine was such a poor choice for these heavy boats. The 311 needs at least 500 HP a side, and the 357 needs 650-700 HP to get nimble. The 420 was the better option for sure with its Gil exhaust manifolds.
04-14-2011, 02:07 AM
#2
When all was said and done, it was a non-essential expense that wasn't getting used as much as desired. So it was bid a heart-wrenching farewell with the intent to downsize in the future.
All well and good with many fond memories made during the time that my family and I were the stewards of such a fine craft. It was quite an education (albeit an expensive one).
Along the way, I learned a great deal about the internal combustion engine, and even noted some characteristics of its operation that I hadn’t considered before. (which later would lead me to find things about engines and energy that I would never have dreamed possible)
Chief among these odd characteristics was the fact that the push rod assembly in a typical V-style engine is incredibly inefficient in accomplishing its intended operation. Surely a belt or chain driven overhead camshaft arrangement would be far superior (Ford had the right idea with their famous 427 SOHC). A hemi–head design should be used on every engine. It has proven itself to be the best arrangement, and yet it still remains a mopar-exclusive in most cases. An inline engine is a vast improvement for a marine application (gas or diesel), as it is torque that makes the boat move out, not horsepower.
However, these are relatively immaterial annoyances in comparison to the fact that the reciprocating motion of the crankshaft, with the resultant side to side motion of the connecting rods, severely limits the potential energy (and efficiency) of any engine made in the last 150 years. Never mind the fact that the reciprocating design is so harmonically unsound that a balancing apparatus is often essential to its function.
It would appear that this trend was started in the steam engines of the industrial revolution, and was adhered to almost universally for both external and internal combustion engines right up to the present.
Aside from the Wankel rotary engine, there didn't seem to be anything else that rivaled the traditional reciprocating crankshaft v-style and inline engines of modern times.
I did an internet search on the subject and found a most interesting solution.
A brilliant engineer/inventor by the name of Russel Bourke devised what can only be described as one of the finest internal combustion engines in history (there is one other - see below). Unfortunately for the world, this remarkable engine and its inventor were lost to the pages of history. And what hurts the most is that the inventor had his engine all worked out by the year 1932, and built an outboard marine variation that was so powerful, it snapped the lower unit in half. That was in 1938.
A small table-top model of the engine, totaling 30 cubic inches, produced 76 horsepower @ 10,000 RPM.
Here are a series of links to a website that delves deeply into the design philosophy, and fascinating history of this engine. While the articles (some written by Bourke himself) are a tad long, they do not ramble, and are a real treat for any gearhead to read.
http://www.bourke-engine.com/history/index.htm
http://www.bourke-engine.com/history/simple_terms.htm
http://www.bourke-engine.com/history/animation.htm
This engine should be mainstream. Its uses are greater than the engines we now use. It is without doubt, the ultimate marine engine. The fuel mileage would be remarkable in any vehicle.
Another brilliant internal combustion engine was invented by Harry H. Elmer. It was able to achieve the unfathomable efficiency of 300 miles per 1 gallon of fuel consumed (you read that correctly).
Here are some excerpts from an August, 1922 issue of Popular Science Magazine. Included also are excerpts from the actual patent granted to Mr. Elmer in 1924.
http://www.rexresearch.com/elmerngn/0elmer.htm#psci22
There were so many advances in carburetors, it is almost impossible to keep track.
The Fish carburetor is certainly one that stands out, and can still be purchased today.
http://www.rexresearch.com/fishcarb/fish.htm
http://www.boni.com/fish/
http://www.roaring-twenties.com/the_fish_carburetor.htm
This is an old and extremely rare book on carburetors that rendered 200 MPG or greater:
http://www.injusticexposed.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/secrets.pdf
Finding these inventions (and many others of their kind subsequently) prompted the inevitable question: why haven't these clearly superior designs been implemented on a mass scale?
This article from a 1918 volume of Electrical Experimenter details an amazing method of producing high-quality gasoline synthetically:
http://www.rexresearch.com/cherry/cherry.htm
I don't think it can be argued with any degree of efficacy, that the above three items completely solve the current energy crisis.
What if, however, an internal combustion engine could be run on fuels which were not petroleum based?
Well, what else is there?
Ideally, it would be an element of which we already have an abundant supply of, and which can never be completely exhausted.
Watch these videos: They all take place from about 1988 to 1990.
[YOUTUBE] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5afwEcZ3Ok
[/YOUTUBE]
Here is one of the patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lLc...page&q&f=false
What is going on here? What am I not getting? Why doesn't my boat actually run on water instead of just planing over the surface of it?
Why do automobiles today only get 40 or so miles per gallon at best?
I didn't get it at first, but further investigation revealed that 2+2 certainly doesn't equal 4 when it comes to the politics of energy, and who ultimately benefits.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRsQZx6zWA[/YOUTUBE]
Now then, what is a person supposed to make of all this?
Just a little food....well... more like a three course meal...for thought.
What I have presented in this thread is the tip of an enormous iceberg that, despite its size, is cleverly and conveniently hidden from the view of the masses. And what you have just read and seen is a severely condensed rendering of the many volumes that exist on this and other subjects of similar nature. Though there is more where this came from, there is even more yet to be discovered.
I would be interested in reading those thoughts and opinions that the above may bring about, and wish everyone a pleasurable, safe season of boating.
All well and good with many fond memories made during the time that my family and I were the stewards of such a fine craft. It was quite an education (albeit an expensive one).
Along the way, I learned a great deal about the internal combustion engine, and even noted some characteristics of its operation that I hadn’t considered before. (which later would lead me to find things about engines and energy that I would never have dreamed possible)
Chief among these odd characteristics was the fact that the push rod assembly in a typical V-style engine is incredibly inefficient in accomplishing its intended operation. Surely a belt or chain driven overhead camshaft arrangement would be far superior (Ford had the right idea with their famous 427 SOHC). A hemi–head design should be used on every engine. It has proven itself to be the best arrangement, and yet it still remains a mopar-exclusive in most cases. An inline engine is a vast improvement for a marine application (gas or diesel), as it is torque that makes the boat move out, not horsepower.
However, these are relatively immaterial annoyances in comparison to the fact that the reciprocating motion of the crankshaft, with the resultant side to side motion of the connecting rods, severely limits the potential energy (and efficiency) of any engine made in the last 150 years. Never mind the fact that the reciprocating design is so harmonically unsound that a balancing apparatus is often essential to its function.
It would appear that this trend was started in the steam engines of the industrial revolution, and was adhered to almost universally for both external and internal combustion engines right up to the present.
Aside from the Wankel rotary engine, there didn't seem to be anything else that rivaled the traditional reciprocating crankshaft v-style and inline engines of modern times.
I did an internet search on the subject and found a most interesting solution.
A brilliant engineer/inventor by the name of Russel Bourke devised what can only be described as one of the finest internal combustion engines in history (there is one other - see below). Unfortunately for the world, this remarkable engine and its inventor were lost to the pages of history. And what hurts the most is that the inventor had his engine all worked out by the year 1932, and built an outboard marine variation that was so powerful, it snapped the lower unit in half. That was in 1938.
A small table-top model of the engine, totaling 30 cubic inches, produced 76 horsepower @ 10,000 RPM.
Here are a series of links to a website that delves deeply into the design philosophy, and fascinating history of this engine. While the articles (some written by Bourke himself) are a tad long, they do not ramble, and are a real treat for any gearhead to read.
http://www.bourke-engine.com/history/index.htm
http://www.bourke-engine.com/history/simple_terms.htm
http://www.bourke-engine.com/history/animation.htm
This engine should be mainstream. Its uses are greater than the engines we now use. It is without doubt, the ultimate marine engine. The fuel mileage would be remarkable in any vehicle.
Another brilliant internal combustion engine was invented by Harry H. Elmer. It was able to achieve the unfathomable efficiency of 300 miles per 1 gallon of fuel consumed (you read that correctly).
Here are some excerpts from an August, 1922 issue of Popular Science Magazine. Included also are excerpts from the actual patent granted to Mr. Elmer in 1924.
http://www.rexresearch.com/elmerngn/0elmer.htm#psci22
There were so many advances in carburetors, it is almost impossible to keep track.
The Fish carburetor is certainly one that stands out, and can still be purchased today.
http://www.rexresearch.com/fishcarb/fish.htm
http://www.boni.com/fish/
http://www.roaring-twenties.com/the_fish_carburetor.htm
This is an old and extremely rare book on carburetors that rendered 200 MPG or greater:
http://www.injusticexposed.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/secrets.pdf
Finding these inventions (and many others of their kind subsequently) prompted the inevitable question: why haven't these clearly superior designs been implemented on a mass scale?
This article from a 1918 volume of Electrical Experimenter details an amazing method of producing high-quality gasoline synthetically:
http://www.rexresearch.com/cherry/cherry.htm
I don't think it can be argued with any degree of efficacy, that the above three items completely solve the current energy crisis.
What if, however, an internal combustion engine could be run on fuels which were not petroleum based?
Well, what else is there?
Ideally, it would be an element of which we already have an abundant supply of, and which can never be completely exhausted.
Watch these videos: They all take place from about 1988 to 1990.
[YOUTUBE] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5afwEcZ3Ok
[/YOUTUBE]
Here is one of the patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lLc...page&q&f=false
What is going on here? What am I not getting? Why doesn't my boat actually run on water instead of just planing over the surface of it?
Why do automobiles today only get 40 or so miles per gallon at best?
I didn't get it at first, but further investigation revealed that 2+2 certainly doesn't equal 4 when it comes to the politics of energy, and who ultimately benefits.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRsQZx6zWA[/YOUTUBE]
Now then, what is a person supposed to make of all this?
Just a little food....well... more like a three course meal...for thought.
What I have presented in this thread is the tip of an enormous iceberg that, despite its size, is cleverly and conveniently hidden from the view of the masses. And what you have just read and seen is a severely condensed rendering of the many volumes that exist on this and other subjects of similar nature. Though there is more where this came from, there is even more yet to be discovered.
I would be interested in reading those thoughts and opinions that the above may bring about, and wish everyone a pleasurable, safe season of boating.
Last edited by JP-8; 04-14-2011 at 03:31 AM. Reason: Fixed broken link.
04-15-2011, 06:40 AM
#7
Registered
I dont buy the majority of that nonsense. You really expect me to believe, that if GM had bought up some carb or water powered engine that got phenomenol mpg that we wouldnt see it right now? You realize the amount of units they would move? Even if the water car cost $100k, it would still sell like crazy because you would never have to buy gasoline again. I just dont buy the coverups.
And the synthetic gasoline link.... Cherry was using Kerosene to make it, which is a hydrocarbon, so it isnt really synthetic. A true synthetic gasoline would be more like what they are trying now with algea byproducts.
And the synthetic gasoline link.... Cherry was using Kerosene to make it, which is a hydrocarbon, so it isnt really synthetic. A true synthetic gasoline would be more like what they are trying now with algea byproducts.
04-15-2011, 07:14 AM
#8
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Decatur, Mi
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say this about carbs.
A buddy I went to high school with had a 1984 Camero Experimental (yes it actually said that on the car). Car had a 350 in it. Thing was very powerful for the time, and got unreal gas mileage. Somewhere in the range of 50 miles to the gallon.
after about 1.5 years of owning it, the car began to run a bit poorly compared to what it had been. So he took it into the dealer, thinking it just needed an adjustment. Both of us being 18 at the time knew nothing about engines. Anyway they take the car in the bay and open the hood.
After a couple of minutes every mechanic in the place is looking at the engine of this car. They all seemed to have a baffled look on their faces. The manager comes back and says it is gonna be a couple days before his car will be fixed, so we called his dad for a ride home. Never really thinking anything about it.
A couple of days go by and the dealer calls him to say his car is fixed. When he goes to pick it up they tell him that it had some experimental fuel dilivery system on it, that was not supposed to go to the general public. They had to change his engine over to a standard system, and it would be no cost to him for the repair.
From that day forward the car was never the same. No where near the power it had before, and fuel milage of less than 15 MPG. True story!
A buddy I went to high school with had a 1984 Camero Experimental (yes it actually said that on the car). Car had a 350 in it. Thing was very powerful for the time, and got unreal gas mileage. Somewhere in the range of 50 miles to the gallon.
after about 1.5 years of owning it, the car began to run a bit poorly compared to what it had been. So he took it into the dealer, thinking it just needed an adjustment. Both of us being 18 at the time knew nothing about engines. Anyway they take the car in the bay and open the hood.
After a couple of minutes every mechanic in the place is looking at the engine of this car. They all seemed to have a baffled look on their faces. The manager comes back and says it is gonna be a couple days before his car will be fixed, so we called his dad for a ride home. Never really thinking anything about it.
A couple of days go by and the dealer calls him to say his car is fixed. When he goes to pick it up they tell him that it had some experimental fuel dilivery system on it, that was not supposed to go to the general public. They had to change his engine over to a standard system, and it would be no cost to him for the repair.
From that day forward the car was never the same. No where near the power it had before, and fuel milage of less than 15 MPG. True story!
04-15-2011, 09:29 AM
#9
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Slidell,La
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Nightlife1970;3377363]I will say this about carbs.
A buddy I went to high school with had a 1984 Camero Experimental (yes it actually said that on the car). Car had a 350 in it. Thing was very powerful for the time, and got unreal gas mileage. Somewhere in the range of 50 miles to the gallon.
after about 1.5 years of owning it, the car began to run a bit poorly compared to what it had been. So he took it into the dealer, thinking it just needed an adjustment. Both of us being 18 at the time knew nothing about engines. Anyway they take the car in the bay and open the hood.
After a couple of minutes every mechanic in the place is looking at the engine of this car. They all seemed to have a baffled look on their faces. The manager comes back and says it is gonna be a couple days before his car will be fixed, so we called his dad for a ride home. Never really thinking anything about it.
A couple of days go by and the dealer calls him to say his car is fixed. When he goes to pick it up they tell him that it had some experimental fuel dilivery system on it, that was not supposed to go to the general public. They had to change his engine over to a standard system, and it would be no cost to him for the repair.
From that day forward the car was never the same. No where near the power it had before, and fuel milage of less than 15 MPG. True story
