Gary Hammond

Hi russwr,

I'm very familiar with the Briggs dual alternator set up, having spent several prior years as an outdoor power equipment dealer. The 35 watt headlamps will pull about 3 amps AC each for a total of approximately 6 amps AC. The battery charging coil has to supply enough current to keep the battery charged while also supplying current to the electric clutch. This will require it to provide a minimum of 6 amps.

If the two outputs are connected in parallel and then run thru a full wave bridge rectifier, I have no doubt they could produce 14.9 amps at somewhere near 12 volts. I don't think this is any different than any other multi-wound alternator and would have very little transformer effect in my opinion.

There is, however, the transforming generator designed and built by Jim Murray that utilizes a transformer effect that is revealed in this link. http://dynafluxalternator.com/

And as for the Alexander US Patent 3913004 Increasing Electrical Power, I looked this up here http://rexresearch.com/alxandr/alexandr.htm I have an old ONAN generator, model 4UF-3N/60A that is identical to what is shown in the link. I have experimented with powering it from a 12 volt battery, and it does output AC voltage. The speed is below the 1800 RPM required for 60 cycle, and the voltage was well below it's 120/240 rating. The current draw was pretty high, so I quit doing the experiment for fear of burning out some windings. It's been a few years since I did this. I may have to revisit this experiment under more controlled conditions!

Gary Hammond,

Hi Jules,

Yes. He's had a lot of suppression and his website has been attacked several times. But he is still moving forward in spite of all the attacks.

Sorry to hear about Patrick Kelly.

Gary Hammond,

Hi Jules,

Are you familiar with Walt Jenkins' discoveries as revealed at H2 Global? He studied Stan Myers' work very closely, and then went way beyond what Stan was doing. His process doesn't involve electrolysis at all, but rather it mimics what takes place in a thunder cloud. He has presented lectures at two different Energy Science and Technology Conferences which are both available from Emediapress. But for the latest info you can go on his web page at http://h2ge.com He's getting close to launching this technology into the international market.

Gary Hammond,

That's obsolete. H2 Global has a better way. Check out their website here. http://h2ge.com

Gary Hammond,

Hi Tree,

Walt Jenkins has found and patented a better way than electrolysis. Check out the thread on his presentation here. I personally saw this demonstrated and it actually works! Included is a short video clip of this demonstration that I took and posted. http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=3987

Question for Tom or Peter

Peter used about 1000' of AWG 16 for the generator coil in his demo. Would using AWG 18 instead reduce the output significantly?

I plan to make this modification and have the AWG 18 wire on hand, but would have to order the #16 especially for this coil.

Hi Joster,

When charging a badly sulfated battery and it hits a voltage plateau, it's telling you it's done. There is no more lead sulfate available to be converted back into sulfuric acid. Any further charging will only gass off from electrolysis and maybe create heat. ...............Time to start the slow discharge (R20 or less) to around 11 volts under load. Then slowly recharge to the new plateau.

Keep doing this over and over going progressively lower (about 1/10 volt) on each discharge. It takes a lot of time to avoid further damaging the battery.

Peter Lindemann lectured on this at the 2013 convention. You can get the video of his lecture here. Battery Rejunevation It's well worth the money!

Hi ckurtz,

The animated gif you posted shows a normal third port induction two-stroke engine cylinder, as used in many two-stroke engines, but with a closed bottom end and linear reciprocating connecting rod rather than the usual crankshaft and nonlinear oscillating connecting rod. This type of connecting rod results in simple harmonic motion, which has several advantages in some applications. It is used in many very large engines and also in free piston designs which drive hydraulic pumps or those engines that only drive a turbine from the exhaust. (And of course this rod design is also used in double acting steam engines.)

Thanks for your encouragement! And I must confess that one of my all time favorite vehicles was the '55 Studebaker President Speedster. Awesome machine and precursor to the supercharged Golden Hawk ............another one of my favorites.

Hi Jonnychooch,

Thanks for you interest!

I never was able to keep it running long enough to measure it. Theoretically it will pick up internal heat from the hot engine parts as well as heat from being compressed.

Correct. No open block design for this to work. In line engines would require main bearings and their supporting web between each adjacent cylinder. This is desirable anyway for a high performance engine. Opposed engines would require a main bearing and web between adjacent opposed pairs. And v type engines could use a different crankshaft with overlaping rod journals, so that both pistons (across from each other) traveled up and down at the same time. This is already done in 90deg v6 engines.

None of this would be difficult to do in an engine designed from the ground up. However, modifying most existing engines would be more problematic.

The problem isn't oil pressure and oil flow to the bearings. That can be increased a small amount to compensate for the slight pressure (2 psi to max 15 psi) in the crankcase. The problem is all the oil that escapes into the airstream and has to later be separated from the induction air! A sealed lubrication system could be used to totally eliminate oil entering the air stream along the lines you sugested.

I have several ideas for solving these issues with a sealed lube system. And these issues are not a problem with a conventional lube system that requires air/oil separation.

This is what I started to do when I tore down the engine and found bearing damage. I was only able to run the engine for a few minutes before all the oil would get trapped in the separator and I would have to shut it down. Was never able to drive it this way, so I blocked off the intake reeds and unhooked the boost plumbing from the carb and drove the car that way for a couple of years or so. Because the oil sump I made was not properly baffled, it would starve the engine for oil during hard cornering. And some of the epoxy I used to "stuff" the crankcase and seal the intake reed valves came loose and wound up in the oil supply! Not good! This is what caused the bearing damage, along with high oil temps caused by elimination of the factory oil cooler. .......IF induction air had been flowing through the crankcase all the time, it would have cooled the oil and heated the air as per my design.

Only with a sealed lube system. Not a problem with the conventional lube system and air/oil separation.

Again, not a problem except with the completely sealed lube system. I have incorporated all the required lube points in a totally sealed system idea I have. Never built it!

The main failure was the inability to separate out the oil, and then running it in normally aspirated mode for two years while the epoxy was letting loose inside the engine! And yes, I have contemplated building a complete engine from the ground up. Decided the cost and time required are beyond my present means.

Hi Tom.

Yes, it can be used with diesel, LP, gasoline, or whatever! It can be direct injection, indirect injection, or carburetion!

The problem is separating the lube oil from the induction air. There are several ways to do this, but I ran out of resources (aka time & money) to actually make an engine with an effective separator. I still think the best way is to use a sealed lubrication system and eliminate the oil entrainment and the need for a separator.

Hi Ken,

Yes, it made about 2 or 3 psi boost in the manifold. But it would only run a few minutes untill all the oil was in the separator instead of the oil sump! NOT GOOD! As a result, I was never able to drive it that way.

Theoretically, this idea would produce 14.7 psi boost if it had an infinite compression ratio in the crankcase and there were no pumping losses. Mayby a little more due to the heat of compression. Of course in the real world a well designed, from the ground up, engine would probably only attain a 5 or 6 psi boost which would still give a good power increase. And a proper redesign of the lube system and oil separator would solve the oil entrainment problem. As would never allowing the oil to mix with the air in the first place by using a sealed lubrication system.

Another neat little trick would be to install automatic intake valves in the piston top with only cam operated exhaust valves in the head. This would be a uniflow design with high breathing capacity, internal cooling, and better heat managment in the engine.

Hi Ken,

Thanks.

The crankcase has one way inlet valves and one way outlet valves to pump a full cylinder volume of air every revolution into a common reservior. In a four cycle engine the intake into the combustion side of the cylinder occurs only every other revolution. So the underside of the piston is really pumping two cylinder volumes of air into the combustion chamber on each intake event. This translates into a positive displacement, internally supercharged engine with the crankcase becoming the supercharger. No external drive or exhaust back pressure is involved. All the power robbed from the back side of the piston goes directly into compressing the charge with no further losses!

Other benefits include the capture and reuse of piston blowby, and preheating of the intake charge for better fuel vaporization. Everthing worked as planned in my prototype engine, except for the air/oil separator I made. I ran out of time and money before I was able to come up with an effective separator that didn't produce excessive restriction to the air flow. I have several ideas on how to overcome this obstacle, and other people in other countries, have also come up with effective separators in similar engine designs.

I also have some other "radical" ideas that could be incorporated into this design to make the separator unnecessary!

Hi Danny,

Thanks. The first exhaust I had on the current engine popped some on deceleration which I didn't like, so I changed to a different design which just gives a nice sounding down rack. It was a little to loud on both acceleration and deceleration, so I added more baffling and heat wrapped it as shown in the last photo. It sounds pretty good now, especially between 3000 and 6000 RPM!

And yes, I did quite a bit of tigging on both the prototype exhaust and intake (shown in the first post), and also the exhaust shown in the last post.

The 308 you're working on .........is that a Dino Ferrari?

My ride weighs around 1600lbs, and I estimate puts out around 100HP at the flywheel in its current configuration.

I too joined this forum because of the Bedini monopole I've been experimenting with.

Hi Dane,

Thanks for the response, The car is basically a modified 1967 VW chassis with a modified air cooled VW engine and Bradley GT body kit. I built the engine from mostly after market parts, and made some parts for it in my shop. It has a counterweighted crank, reground camshaft, 9 to 1 compression, heavy duty valve train, dry sump oiling, batch fired fuel injection, MSD ignition box and coil, lightened flywheel, heavy duty clutch, custom made exhaust, hand balanced piston and rod assemblies, 88mm pistons, and 69mm stroke. I built it for reliability as well as more power.

It started out as a test bed for my patented internally supercharged engine. Everything worked as planned on that prototype except for the air/oil separator. I was never able to get the entrained oil removed from the air stream, so I tore it down to make several modifications and discovered it was about ready to blow! It had starved for oil too many times.

At that point, I built up the present engine and decided to just enjoy the fun little car. I never have gotten back to the prototype engine, but I did get a two-cycle engine modified and running according to my patent. It works well!

And even more photos

More photos

Hi all,

My name is Gary Hammond and I live in Macomb, IL. I've been working with IC engines since my grade school days and am now 70 years old! My formal education took me through college with a BS in Agricltural Mechanization. Then I enlisted in the Air National Guard and attended Aircraft Maintenance Officer school after which I was employed full time as Assistant Chief of Aircraft Maintance in my local ANG unit. It was during this time that I applied for, and later received, U.S. patent #3,672,172 entitled "Simplified Supercharged Internal Combustion Engine With Emissions Control".

After that, I started my own retail business selling portable buildings and after a couple of years added several outdoor power equipment dealerships to my business. I have lots of experience with a large variety of engines in a large variety of applications. Then in 1994 I went to work for Caterpillar as a lathe operator and then as a research machinist at their "Tech Center" where I became involved in several inovative new engine technologies. I retired from Cat the end of 2005 and now only work in my own shop doing mostly custom machining, welding, fabricating, prototyping, and also experimenting with electro-mechanical devices. I also have a Bradley GT kit car that I have modified and personalized that requires some of my time.

I have several ideas for engines that I haven't had a chance to explore due to time and money constraints, but would be willing to share in an open forum like this with other like minded people.