Who was this man named Harry H. Elmer, who built a very amazing engine? Well, the page linked below comes from a publication titled The Accessory and Garage Journal, Volumes 1-2, from the year 1911. Page 38 of this publication gives some background information about this special person named Harry H. Elmer. Beneath the heading With The Manufacturer are the following words:
"Harry H. Elmer, formerly director and general manager of the Grant Motor Car Company and the Grant-Lees Machine Company, both of Cleveland, O., has resigned. Although he has been approached by several interests since this fact became known, it is understood that he will devote his attention to certain personal matters for the present."
Yes, Mr. Elmer would devote his attention to certain personal matters. And again, that information comes from the year 1911. So, what were the certain personal matters to which Mr. Elmer would devote his attention, potentially beginning as soon as 1911? Well, in just a bit we will know the truth of this matter, which is the subject of this presentation.
The information quoted above shows that, until his claimed resignation in 1911, Harry H. Elmer had been the director and general manager of the Grant Motor Car Company and the Grant-Lees Machine Company. So, at this point, let us take a moment to look at information about the Grant-Lees Machine Company, which was located in Cleveland, Ohio.
The first page linked below notes that Earnest J. Lees was "a cofounder of the Grant-Lees Machine Co. of Cleveland." This man named Earnest Lees "held basic patents in gear hobbing (cutting) machines," which were used to produce special gears for the automotive industry. Earnest Lees also invented an improved micrometer for machine tools, as seen in a patent linked here.
Looking into things further, the page linked below speaks about the Grant Six automobile. It states that this automobile "that was manufactured by the Grant Motor Car Company in Cleveland, Ohio from 1912 until 1913." Then, the page speaks about this Grant Six automobile and the designer of it, using the following words:
"The car was designed by Henry [sic] Elmer, who moved his automobile operation from Elkhart to Cleveland to produce the Grant Six, with backing from the Grant-Lees Machine Company. The car had a six-cylinder, 50 hp engine and sold for $2750."
Now, let us look even a bit further at this Grant Six automobile which was designed by Harry H. Elmer. The page linked below is an advertisement for the Grant Six. The ad is titled A Motor Car Proclamation. In this proclamation, Harry H. Elmer declares: "I defy any automobile manufacturer on the market to show a car with a combination of essentials equal to the 'GRANT SIX.'" Then the ad states: "This challenge is without price restrictions." Well, these are quite some words from Harry H. Elmer!
The advertisement for the Grant Six, which is noted above, is also found in the publication titled The Motor World, Volume 31, on page 21, which is from the year 1912. The ad is accessed using this link. Now, let us learn a bit more about Harry H. Elmer.
The page linked below, from April 24, 1912, mistakenly calls Harry H. Elmer by the name of Harry E. Elmer. But, other than the misprint, there is some good information in the page. Under the title of H. E. Elmer Heads "Grant Six" Forces, the page declares: "Harry E. Elmer, formerly of the Haynes Automobile Co., of Kokomo, Ind. is now director, vice president and general manager of the Grant-Lees Machine Co., of Cleveland, O., which in the near future will turn out the 'Grant Six' car."
When it comes to the Grant-Lees Machine Company, the page goes on to state: "Mr. Elmer has been with the Cleveland concern since last December, and has been active in the designing and building of the new car. This car will be manufactured in a modern plant which is now under construction, and which will be one of the largest of its kind in Cleveland."
The linked page then states: "In the manufacture of the new car Mr. Elmer will have the co-operation of several men formerly associated with him in the Haynes establishment, including Charles E. Lohr, Herbert H. Murden, James S. Worthington and E. L. Lawrence, in the capacity of chief engineer, general superintendent, assistant designer and mechanical engineer."
The page also contains another piece of information about the Grant Motor Car Company. It states: "The motor car department of the Grant-Lees Machine Co. has been incorporated separately as the Grant Motor Car Co., of Cleveland, O. The new plant will be limited to the manufacture of the six cylinder cars, using one chassis for all models. The car will list at $2,750, fully equipped, and will be sold with a year's guarantee." And, a year's guarantee in those early days of the automotive industry was actually very good.
Now, let us look a bit more at Harry H. Elmer and the group of men which left the Haynes company with him, so they could produce the Grant Six. Near the bottom of the right-hand column, on PDF page 9 of 32 in the document linked by the button below, is found the following words:
"It seems that a large portion of the Haynes manufacturing team was leaving the home nest. There were no explanations, but Harry Elmer, H. H. Murden, C. E. Lohr, J. S. Worthington and E. L. Lawrence left the Haynes company. The announcement was received by the trade in April and it was a bit of a shock, for some of these men had been building Haynes cars for ten years."
Moving onto page 10 of 32, the document linked below provides information about what was happening with the Harry Elmer group. The page states: "The Elmer 6 was completely designed and several pilot models had been built with full production in mind." Well, it appeared that things were headed in a good direction for the Elmer group, but then a major problem was discovered.
It appears that the lawyer, who was the secretary of the Elmer Automobile Corporation, did not do things in the way they should have been done. Because of this, the Elmer group ended up "with no production facilities." At this point, the more honorable Harry H. Elmer and his group left the questionable lawyer behind and joined forces with the Grant-Lees Machine Company of Cleveland, Ohio.
The linked page goes on to state: "A new department was formed in Grant-Lees as the Grant Motor Car Company. It was incorporated as a separate entity. A new large building was built to house the assembly operation and deliveries were to start in April of 1912. So - the birth of the new Grant 6." And then, the linked page gives some additional bits of information.
When it comes to the group with Harry H. Elmer, the page linked above states: "It is doubtful at this time that they had ever heard of the Grant Brothers Garage up in Detroit. After all, Grant-Lees was known around the world for its gears and gear boxes." Regarding the Grant Motor Car Company, the linked page then states:
"Harry Elmer was made a director and also general manager of the motor car division. Murden was made general superintendent, Lohr was the new chief engineer, Worthington was head of design and Lawrence was one of the head mechanical engineers. All the old guys were together again."
At this point, things may have been looking good for the Grant Motor Car Company, but it appears that things soon changed. The page linked above notes that something caused the car company to go down quick. It indicates that a lawyer was possibly trying to figure out what really happened. The page goes on to state: "Whether it was disagreement or disenchantment, Elmer resigned from grant [Grant] in November of 1912 to take up other interests." And, the "other interests" are the true subject of this page.
Well, there is the potential that Harry H. Elmer resigned from Grant Motor Car Company because of both a disagreement and disenchantment. Possibly Harry Elmer had hopes of putting a whole new type of engine, which operated on different principles than the other engines of that day, into the cars manufactured by the Grant Motor Car Company (GMCC). Now, there is a chance that the rest of the core group at GMCC were not visionaries, as was Harry Elmer.
It appears that Harry H. Elmer visualized this automotive engine which would allow for incredible fuel mileage, while using just crude oil, or even a number of other fuels. Yes, Harry Elmer envisioned a true, very economical, multi-fuel engine. Well, there is a chance that the rest of the core group at GMCC did not share in this vision and did not want to spend the time and money researching and perfecting such a radical new engine design. So, again, Harry Elmer, possibly in disagreement and disenchantment, simply resigned from GMCC and went out on his own near the end of 1912.
Based on the information provided in the pages linked below, it appears that things did not materialized quickly for Harry Elmer, when it came to his radical new engine design. It appears that it took Elmer about 10 years to perfect his special engine. Elmer filed for a patent for an engine he designed on April 6, 1922, and the Popular Science Magazine article about his engine was published in August of 1922.
Eventually, on February 19, 1924, Elmer received a patent for an engine he had designed. And, from the things written earlier in the Popular Science Magazine article about it, an amazing engine it appears that the Elmer truly turned out to be. And, there is something to consider. All of this engine design came from the mind of one lone visionary who "saw" something out of the ordinary and was determined to carry his unique project through to completion, no matter what it took.
The highlights which now follow come from the information in the pages linked in the section above. There are those which have indicated that the Elmer engine would potentially allow for obtaining 300 miles per gallon in an automobile. The Elmer test engine had a single cylinder with a bore of 3-3/4 inches and a stroke of 6 inches. Using the calculator linked here, it is found that the Elmer test engine had a displacement of 66.27 cubic inches in its single cylinder.
As a bit of a diversion, consider the following. If the Elmer test engine were made into an eight cylinder engine with the same 3-3/4 inch bores and a stroke of 6 inches, the eight cylinder version of this engine would displace about 530 cubic inches (1), or about 8.7 Liters. So, Harry H. Elmer was not doing his tests with just some dinky toy-sized engine. The displacement of the cylinder in the Elmer engine would be similar to that found in some of the very large displacement big-block engines which have been used in drag racing and for other heavy duty uses, as seen in the following linked pages: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6).
Now, let's look at some of the other highlights of the Elmer engine, as found in the pages linked by the buttons in the section above. In experiments with the big bore and stroke Elmer test engine connected to an electrical generator, it "generated sufficient power to run a battery of 18 incandescent lamps [for] 18 consecutive hours on 1-1/4 pints of oil, costing less than a cent." Now, for something very important to note. That oil which the Elmer engine was running on was crude-oil. With the Elmer engine, there is no need for those costly oil refineries which seem to be used as "tools" by the hijackers of our world to manipulate and jack-up the price of fuels, to ultimately create hardship and economically enslave citizens.
Basically, it appears that when using an Elmer-type engine, you just pump a very limited amount of crude oil out of the ground, filter it to clean out any junk, and then put it in the fuel tank of your vehicle and away you go, driving hundreds of miles on one tank of fuel. From what is said in the Popular Science Magazine article, it appears that with an Elmer-engined car, it may take only one fill-up of a 20-gallon fuel tank to go all the way across the United States, from New York City to Seattle, WA, and then turn around and drive back again. And, there may still be some fuel remaining in the tank to run a few errands, when your get back to New York City.
Looking further at the Elmer engine, it is said in the article that it did not require a cooling system. This amazing engine was simplicity itself, with only 64 parts, compared to around 200 parts (1) in the typical internal combustion engines found in cars and trucks. And, in order to tune the Elmer engine to perfection, there were only three adjustments. On top of all that, it had "no spark [plug], carburetor, wiring, nor any sort of ignition." The linked information also states that the Elmer engine "developed 200 percent more power than internal combustion engines of the same size, and will pick up almost instantaneously from 100 to 2800 revolutions a minute."
The Elmer engine "is described as a four-cycle motor, the cycles being suction, compression, expansion, and exhaust." When it come to the operation of the Elmer engine, the linked information states: "The crude oil is led through needle valves into mechanism, where it mixes with air and then, through another valve of the same kind, is drawn into the motor head, where it is compressed by the upward stroke of the piston." Now, there is something which needs to be said. It appears that the air which is mixed with the crude oil is not enough air to support complete combustion. It appears that it was a limited amount of air which was mixed with the crude oil.
Okay, so we are now at the point in the discussion where the piston is moving upwards in the cylinder, on the compression stroke. The linked article information then states: "On compression the oil is 'cracked' by chemical process and the expansion of gases takes place." In the cracking process, the liquid cloud of crude oil within the engine cylinder is converted into a much larger volume of lighter molecular weight, gaseous fuels. What appears to happen is the Elmer engine acts as a gasification unit, which converts the crude oil mixture into a form of synthesis gas, or syngas.
As the crude oil mixture rapidly "cracks" and expands and builds pressure, the piston is forcefully driven downward in the engine cylinder. Then, the exhaust port is opened and the superheated, "cracked" and gasified fuels are forced out through the engine exhaust port. Looking again at the linked article, it states: "There is no combustion in the cylinder, though hydrocarbon gas, escaping the exhaust, explodes on uniting with atmosphere." So, note closely that the article states that the crude oil does not burn in the engine cylinder. From what is said in the article, it appears that the engine cylinder simply acts as a type of fuel "cracking" and gasification chamber.
There is reason to suspect that the Elmer engine would have had a lot of torque. A vehicle with an Elmer engine should have had a lot of "pulling power." There is reason to suspect that the heavier an engine of this design is loaded, the more torque it may have produced. You might say that it may be somewhat similar to a steam engine, in this respect. And, there is another thing to know about the Elmer engine. It was a multi-fuel engine. The linked information states: "The engine has been operated with equal success on mineral, animal, and vegetable oils." And now, there is even more to consider about the Elmer-type engine.
Well, it is time to drop "a first" on you. Remember, you heard it here first! Now, why waste the fuel which the article indicates is in the exhaust from an Elmer engine, when those "cracked" and gasified fuels coming out of the exhaust port of the engine could be used to fuel one or two more engines, which would be regular internal combustion engines? The Elmer engine would be the fuel-preparation device for the internal combustion engines. All of the engines could then be used to produce power from the same batch of fuel. So, why use fuel to produce power once, when the batch of fuel could be used to produce power at least twice or thrice?
Now, there is something to consider. Are those who have hijacked control of our government truly working to improve things for the citizens of the United States, or are they working to enslave U.S. citizens? If they were truly working to improve things, you would think that they would spend some of the money which they appear to now be wasting on other, rather frivolous things, in order to make sure that systems like those spoken about in the Popular Science Magazine article were perfected and put into large-scale use. With these types of power-sets in use, the energy consumption of the United States could be drastically reduced, as would be pollution.
When it comes to those who have hijacked control of the United States, let us consider some words which are attributed to President John F. Kennedy, who "they" savagely assassinated on November 22, 1963 (1). Kennedy declared something along this line: "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child." Now, as you read through and thoroughly digest the information in the other pages on this site, it may become rather clear that President Kennedy knew what he was talking about, plus he possibly knew who, or what group, was trying to enslave the citizens of the United States.
In closing this section, there are a few things which need to be said. Do not wait for government or big business to produce energy systems which will actually help to reduce the economic burdens of U.S. citizens. It will never happen by their doing. They are not the ones who it appears would ever truly work to reduce the economic burdens on U.S. citizens. The people are the ones who will actually have to get in there and do it for themselves, and quickly. A concept has been laid out for you. Now, go after it and get it done. Help yourself and your fellow humans. And, don't try to patent the idea or the enslavers may simply block it.
At this point, there are some things to look at when it comes to the Harry H. Elmer engine, so that certain things can be compared to what is found in typical diesel engines. Let us once again note the bore and stroke of the single cylinder Elmer engine. As noted earlier in this presentation, the Elmer engine had a bore of 3-3/4 inches and a stroke of 6 inches. Now, let us look at the bore and stroke of certain diesel engines so that an interesting comparison can ultimately be made between the diesel engine and the Elmer engine.
Looking at a page linked here, it shows that a 359 cubic inch [5.9 L] Cummins diesel engine has a bore of 2.64 inches and a stroke of 2.83 inches. A page linked here speaks about the Detroit 71 Series Diesel Engine. This is an engine series in which each cylinder of the engine has a displacement of 71 cubic inches, which is a little more than the Elmer engine with its cylinder displacement of about 66 cubic inches. The Detroit 71 Series diesel engines have a bore of 4.25 inches and stroke of 5.00 inches. Now for some comparisons.
The bore of the Elmer engine is a little over 1.00 inch larger than the 359 cubic inch Cummins diesel engine, and the Elmer has a stroke of more than double that of this Cummins diesel. Looking at the Detroit 71 engines, their bore is 1/2-inch larger than the bore of the Elmer engine, but the stroke of the Elmer engine is 1.00 inch longer than that of the Detroit 71 engines. Looking at a page linked here, it states that diesel engines have "a compression ratio typically between 15:1 and 23:1."
Unfortunately, neither in the articles linked further above, nor in the patent for the Elmer engine, which is linked here, is the compression ratio for this engine given. But, there is reason to suspect that the compression ratio of the Elmer engine may have been equal to or greater than that of the diesel engine. In the Elmer engine, in the form in which it was written up in Popular Science Magazine, it is obvious that the compression temperature created in the engine cylinder would have had to be above the auto-ignition or reactive temperature of the crude oil, in order to "crack" and create expansion in the fuel charge.
Now, there is something to note in the Elmer engine patent, which is again linked here. From what is said in the patent, it appears that by 1922, Harry Elmer had moved out of the Cleveland, Ohio, area and was then living in Syracuse, New York, area. Looking into things further, it appears that what was written in the Popular Science Magazine article of August 1922 (1)(2)(3)(4) does not match with that which is stated in the Elmer patent. There are now a few things to consider.
The Popular Science Magazine article states: "The new engine is described as a four-cycle motor, the cycles being suction, compression, expansion, and exhaust." The article states further: "On compression the oil is 'cracked' by chemical process and the expansion of gases takes place." The article also clearly states: "There is no combustion in the cylinder, though hydrocarbon gas, escaping the exhaust, explodes on uniting with atmosphere."
What the quote in the paragraph indicates is that the "cracking" of the crude oil causes the hydrocarbon gases to be in a superheated, reactive state. They are still in this reactive state, or above the auto-ignition temperature of the hydrocarbon gases, as they exit the engine cylinder and the exhaust system. Only in a superheated, reactive state, above the auto-ignition temperature of the hydrocarbon gases, would they be able to react with atmospheric oxygen and then burst into flame as they escape the exhaust system.
There is an important piece of disinformation which needs to be noted in the Popular Science Magazine article. It states: "As the piston is forced down, the exhaust port is opened, and the incoming charge forces out the expanded gases." For those who know better, the preceding quote is almost hilarious. Now, a couple of paragraphs above, the quote from the Popular Science Magazine article clearly states: "The new engine is described as a four-cycle motor," but what is written in the quote in the first part of this paragraph is describing a two-cycle engine. There is a difference in operation between these two types of engines.
Now, there is something very important to consider. If the incoming fuel charge, in any way, contacted the superheated, reactive, expanded gases in the engine cylinder, which were hot enough to burst into flame as they contacted atmospheric oxygen, it would seem that the incoming fuel charge would possibly be ignited on the intake stroke and the engine would not operate at all. Well, there is a chance that someone may have been having a bit of "fun" with a potentially ignorant reporter, on how the Elmer engine actually operated. On the other hand, the article could have been tampered with, before it was published.
At this point, let us look at what the commonly publicized Harry H. Elmer patent (1) states. The patent is titled: Internal Combustion Engine And Method Of Operating The Same. Yet, the Popular Science Magazine article plainly states: "There is no combustion in the cylinder..." Something is not adding up here. So, at this time, let us begin to look at what the text of the commonly publicized patent says. In the left column of PDF page 6 of 10, starting on line 14, the patent states that the "engine is particularly simple in construction, powerful and economical and highly efficient in operation and durable in use."
Looking further into the patent text, in the right-hand column on PDF page 6 of 10, starting at line 60, it states: "This method of operating internal combustion engines comprises generally, filling into the engine cylinder a combustion supporting atmosphere, compressing a combustible gas above the pressure of such compressed atmosphere, raising the temperature of the fuel at or above the ignition point thereof and injecting the gas thus formed into said atmosphere, so that the gas burns in the compressed combustion supporting atmosphere and hence develops the power for operating the engine."
Well, at this point, it is clear that there are some things which need to be talked about. Previous to the Elmer engine which is being spoken about in this presentation, Harry Elmer was active in designing and building the Grant Six car. It is obvious that Elmer was a very talented man. Now, there is reason to suspect that the commonly publicized Harry H. Elmer patent which is linked within this presentation, and the Popular Science Magazine article which is also linked in this presentation, are speaking about two different engines, possibly both designed and/or built by Harry H. Elmer.
The publicized patent is definitely speaking about an internal combustion engine. This particular engine operated somewhat like a diesel engine. And then there is the Popular Science Magazine article, which is clearly speaking about a special engine which simply compressed and "cracked" the crude oil mixture into lighter weight gaseous fuels, using the heat created by the sudden compression of the mixture. And, this process caused the expansion of the gases and a build-up of pressure in the engine cylinder to drive the piston downward. Now, there is even more to talk about.
If Harry Elmer built an engine like the one written about in the Popular Science Magazine article, is there no patent or drawings available to the public for that particular engine? Now, if Harry Elmer ever applied for a patent for the engine written about in the Popular Science Magazine article, could those associated with certain government agencies have served Elmer with some type of a secrecy order and then basically stole his idea and put a gag order on him? This may possibly have been done in a manner which was somewhat similar to the things which are spoken about in the pages accessed by the links below.
After years of researching what has been happening in the United States for over one-hundred years, and when knowing some of the questionable things which were happening in the early 1900s and after, there is something to say. The writer has reason to suspect that possibly some person or persons in certain government agencies would have basically blocked any patent for a 300 mile-per-gallon Elmer engine, such as described in the Popular Science Magazine article. Would something like this have been done in order to protect the profits of "some buddies" in the oil industry, and possibly to help enslave U.S. citizens?
When looking through the pages in this site, there is something which becomes rather clear, especially at various places within the page titled Why Was President Kennedy Assassinated?, which page is linked here. It appears that most of the questionable or treasonous acts by the foreign-controlled crowd which has been working to hijack the United States and enslave its citizens have been hidden behind "secrecy orders" and the apparently often misused "CLASSIFIED" stamp, plus also behind things like the incredible amount of documentation about questionably or illegally activities which has been destroyed by agencies like the CIA.