I like how you mentioned that

Ethan Lamoureux thank you! Saved me much time. I keep forgetting that I can speed up videos

That would work decently well if you were using uncompressed, 24bit audio. However, in my experience, attempting to subtract tracks that have been compressed in any way usually results in artifacts. (Have you ever tried to make an a capella by subtracting the instrumental from the full mix when you only have mp3s? I have, it sounds bad.) Also, by adding a base tone, you're essentially "squashing" the bit depth of everything else in the mix between that tone's level and the peak level. Once you subtract it, and correct the volume, you could lose quality. Far easier to just record on a separate device where you can control the gain yourself, and sync it up later.

By putting a trist in the belt you would be spinning the generator backwards. It doesn't work that way.

zalmaflash yes, can’t just put in a belt twist in the existing setup. When I set up a demo, I orient the engine and implement so it will turn the correct way when operating with a twisted belt. The longer the belt, the greater the necessity to run a twist. A short belt, not so much.

To get at least part of the twist effect without reversing direction, turn one end of the belt inside out. This breaks the lateral stiffness of the belt, and it will run truer.

One major advantage of Hit and Miss, is that there is only minimal pumping losses. It doesn't try to suck air past a throttle plate, when running with little or no load. Much more efficient, at 20% rated torque then an engine with governed throttle.(Briggs and Stratton lawnmower)

i think its because the hit and miss probably has far more tq than the 212cc predator.

Because the hit and miss has 2hp and 8374748284747 foot pounds of torque lol.

We had an old 11hp Wisconsin my brother found in a barn, it had a clapping magneto and it produced about 30hp of power. Never ran above 800rpm and never needed to, it'd collapse rubber fire truck siphon hoses when we were pulling ditches dry around town. Hit and miss engines are rated by the number of horses they can pull backwards, not this new fangled bullshit math.

@warmfreeze very true I have 5 or 6 hit and miss engines only have had 1 going before but at shows it seems like they always do the task they are set to with ease

Torque = HP x 5252/RPM: 6.5 x 5252/3600 = 9.5ft/lb and 2 x 5252/600 = 17.5ft/lb. Even if it’s wheezy it will out-pump the original. But it probably weighs 2-300 lbs so it can’t exactly be mounted to a push mower lol.

Go away

standing you gotta boyfriend?

@@apimpnamedslickback2748 😂😂

@@apimpnamedslickback2748 no just broke up last night 😓

DAMNIT I JUST SAID THAT

I've played with old and new engines for years and for your application I would recommend a newer and oversized engine set to run around 1/2 - 1/3 it peak speed to get maximum service life out of it if you are planning to have this rig running for 1000's of hours in it expected service life. Beyond that for peak fuel efficiency I would recommend replacing the stock fixed jet (emissions compliant ) carburetor with a older style adjustable one or at minimal drilling out your main jet a tiny bit to get the A/F ratio richer. That alone can pick you up 10 - 20% on fuel efficiency and power on a engine which at a light load means using even less fuel to matian the same power output. Also beyond fuel efficiency is simple cost per hour which with the old adjustable jet carbs you could easily tune them to run on sme pretty low grade cheap fuel (E30 - E85) which is where the real savings that matter come into play. My rough math for a 150 amp load at ~29 volts says you need 8 Hp continuous which I would set up to have a at least 24 - 30 HP engine running at just under half its peak rated RPM to put out if it has to pull it for hours on end.

You won't get the same fuel economy with a modern engine. These old hit and miss engine's are the most fuel efficient engine's ever made. When i was a kid we had a Bamford engine powering a water pump to keep the water troffs full and also pump water to the farm house water tank and we would use around 5 litres of fuel per week. We replaced it with a Robbin engine with the same pump and used around 10 - 15 litres a week.

he didnt say anything about thermal efficiency which might be as low as 12 percent...he did say it got really warm

Ballsout means no misses. I think this engine will produce it's rated horsepower, if the governor was adjusted back up to 600 RPM. The engine is rated at about 13 foot pounds of torque. If you load it that hard, stalling is eminent. The lightbulbs, are a good load, because as the engine slows down, the current, thus the torque would roll back, preventing the engine from stalling. I'm with you: it's nice to see one of these loaded, just to see what it does. I wonder how fuel efficient this is, compared to the modern high speed engines we have now.

@@vincentrobinette1507 ya know ive been wondering about the efficiency also you could take a modern engine.... add a MASSIVE flywheel...... and then only trigger injector pulses when you need to idk..... this emissions crap...... what comes out the tail pipe is cleaner..... but you burn more fuel when does the cost of mining, making, transporting, ETC the fuel out-weigh the shit that comes out the exhaust???? my dads 72 Plymouth satellite got 24 to 34 mph (depending on how much my dad put his foot into it) 360 small block with like 2.45 rear end gears...... aint nothing new under the sun

and i think these "miss" because the exhaust valve is held open..... which means you are still using fuel even if the intake was held open..... their would be fuel coming into the motor..... and fuel coming out of the carb (depending on if the piston is making pressure.....up stroke..... or making vacuum.... down stroke) thats why i say..... hold the valves open....... but still use modern electronic injection no fuel wasted ya just have the engine run at 1500 rpm or so...... and use its massive torque from the fly wheel and a good selection of gearing to get the car up to 70mph or maybe a CVT transmission i dont like CVT's on normal cars...... but i think it would fit right in with a hit and miss

@@kainhall You're still getting past the throttling losses when you do that, so the engine actually turns freely, bouncing on its compression, like a diesel. If you have a car with a manual transmission, try going down a hill with the key off(make sure you don't lock your steering wheel). You will find that the car will coast easier with the gas pedal floored, than when it's held part throttle. At idle, the high manifold vacuum causes it to bounce on the intake, and it turns more freely. That easy coasting would make hit and miss more efficient, than part throttle, but it won't be smooth.

@@kainhall I think you're right, it works by holding the exhaust open. But, doing that, means that there is no suction to pull the intake valve open, which is not cam driven. since the air comes back in from the exhaust, no air is drawn through the carburetor. If it did, you would correct that by increasing the seat pressure of the intake valve spring, to make sure it doesn't open with exhaust restriction. When the exhaust valve is allowed to close, then the intake vacuum is sufficient to overcome the intake valve spring, the engine gets a gulp of fuel and air, and BANG! Another hit. If the intake spring it too stiff, then the engine doesn't get a good charge, and you don't get as much power. It's a fine adjustment.

Don't run gasoline engines indoors. It will impair the process of living.

@@randymagnum143 it didnt kill the guy in the video.

@@JonnyRocketfuelawesome! Feel free to run gasoline engines indoors! (Kids, don't run gasoline engines indoors!)

@@randymagnum143 the sarcasm in my original comment is way over your head I guess....

If RPM is constant friction is constant. You're getting confused by thinking about it like modern ICE where the revs increase.

The generator is a treadmill motor. treadmill motors are permanent magnet DC therefore will operate either as a generator or as a motor. Therefore it does not regulate the voltages much higher unloaded than when I turn the light bulbs on. to compute the power I just have to look at the voltage and the current at the time.

It might be from the brand Black Label Beer

St. Pauli Girl

@@Greg-jo1ft I was not sure what one it is.

I noticed her too.

If its smoking its rich . you want to adjust the mixer till it cuts out then open very slitely till it fires then let it run.

1 hp at 550rpm is about 10lb-ft

HP = Torque X RPM / 5252, so Torque = HP X 5252 / RPM If we're at the rated 1.5hp and 600rpm, 1.5 X 5252 / 600 = 13 ft*lb

Steve next weekend the 9th and 10th of February you could see to or three dozen of them running at Sahara Ranch in Glendale. That's right next to Glendale Community College. A month later the 9th and 10th of March even more of them will be running at the Apache Junction Road do grounds. And both cases there will be lots of engines turning various loads as well as antique tractors pulling a sled as well as Garden tractors etc

These things where stronger than most think. My grandfather's shop had a 6hp from 1934 that I'm pretty sure was a international harvester to run the line shaft if water was low. It originally was a mill that he turned into a machine shop. Anyway the flywheel on the thing had to weigh 80lbs alone. I wish I could dyno it but when my dad replaced it, he used a 14hp 3 phase motor and it was nowhere near enough power and he ended up powering each machine on its own except for a band saw and drill press. We're actually rebuilding it now but it ran for 8-10 hours a day 6 days a week for over 20 years and still had more power than a modern electric motor rated for twice the power. So I'm not sure how they measured them then but its not how we do it these days. The only thing I can come up with is maybe they used something like a Clydesdale and now we use a little pony lol.

@@southjerseysound7340 They used a Belgian draft horse and now we use a miniature horse foal the second it's born.

Not if you have an inverter generator.

@@1marcelfilms Good point. I didn't think of that. Maybe an inverter generator would be a better contest, for this low speed, all or nothing hit and miss engine. Both the inverter generator, and hit and miss, don't suffer from pumping losses, as air tries to get past a throttle valve in a carburetor. The inverter generator just slows down, and the hit and miss, only gulps fuel, when needed. Both will be more efficient than the high speed generator I described in my last post.