Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 03:36:32 -0700 (PDT) From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? > >On Bill beaty's home pages there is a (moderately humorous) document >describing how to turn a normal engine into a steam engine by replacing >the spark plug with a magnetron in order to vaporize steam... >said document claims overunity performance for such a device. >Has anyone built one? How well does it perform? does it generate >enough energy to keep 'sparking' ? > >In thinking about it, all the energy is derived from the (semi explosive) >pressure change due to the phase change of the water. But is it enough? > >I have visions of a magnetron-based steam chamber venting into a Tesla-style >turbine engine.... > Yes, I agree, the microwave transducer motor looks good, but who knows if it really produces overunity ?? WHo has build this prototype ? I just got a video tape called: It runs on water. There is Stanley Meyer shown, having invented a Hydrogen splitter from plain water which he uses directly to jerk Hydrogen into the combustion chamber of a car motor. So the Hydrogen is produced on DEMAND and it needs less power (RF- pulsing high voltage instead of huge current) to generate the electrolysis ! regards, Stefan. > --Zachary > >PS: This is all the more interesting to me now that gasoline is up to $1.25/gal ! > ...water would be much cheaper... > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605032010.NAA03054@big.aa.net> Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? As per the items below, do you recall the post about using blue laser light to split water into hydrogen/oxy? I was going to use ordinary electrolysis to power a vehicle until I wised up about the practicality of channeling so much amperage at low voltage, seemed too inefficient electrically and too expensive in the componants. A blue light laser is probably very expensive, but it is in the right direction of efficiency. I have an old 66 dodge dart available as a test bed. It's great advantage is the big ole simple minded flatbed straight six. Easy running motor and real easy to jury rig. You can get right down into the engine well and hug the motor. At 03:34 AM 5/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >>On Bill beaty's home pages there is a (moderately humorous) document >>describing how to turn a normal engine into a steam engine by replacing >>the spark plug with a magnetron in order to vaporize steam... >>said document claims overunity performance for such a device. >>Has anyone built one? How well does it perform? does it generate >>enough energy to keep 'sparking' ? >> >>In thinking about it, all the energy is derived from the (semi explosive) >>pressure change due to the phase change of the water. But is it enough? >> >>I have visions of a magnetron-based steam chamber venting into a Tesla-style >>turbine engine.... >> > >Yes, I agree, the microwave transducer motor looks good, but who knows >if it really produces overunity ?? > >WHo has build this prototype ? > >I just got a video tape called: > >It runs on water. There is Stanley Meyer shown, >having invented a Hydrogen splitter from plain water >which he uses directly to jerk Hydrogen into the combustion >chamber of a car motor. >So the Hydrogen is produced on DEMAND and it needs less >power (RF- pulsing high voltage instead of huge current) >to generate the electrolysis ! > >regards, Stefan. > > > > >> --Zachary >> >>PS: This is all the more interesting to me now that gasoline is up to >$1.25/gal ! >> ...water would be much cheaper... >> >> >-- >Hartmann Multimedia Service >Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann >Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany >Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 >email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de >Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti >Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de > > > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:20:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16453; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Zachary DeAquila To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From: Michael Mandeville >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > >As per the items below, do you recall the post about using blue laser >light to split water into hydrogen/oxy? no! missed that one... I'll have to go look for it... >I was going to use ordinary electrolysis to power a vehicle until I >wised up about the practicality of channeling so much amperage at >low voltage, seemed too inefficient electrically and too expensive >in the componants. In private discussoin with another list member this was brought up and I had similar doubts about being able to cheaply and safely channel and store such high currents... >A blue light laser is probably very expensive, but it is in the right >direction of efficiency. What order of efficeny *is* it? I think a prepackaged cheap magnetron wins over an expensive delicate blue laser for simplicity... providing it works, of course :) >I have an old 66 dodge dart available as a test bed. It's great advantage >is the big ole simple minded flatbed straight six. Easy running motor and >real easy to jury rig. You can get right down into the engine well and hug >the motor. Hrm. Well, from what I've read, the best kind of actually working vechicle would be a hybrid: an electric car drive train with a gas/steam turbine/engine generator hooked up and generating enough electricity to 1) help provide power to the car and 2) charge the batteries. The constant input of electricity helps to smooth out the performance jags due to driving patterns. As an added bonus, since you've got an electric vehicle, regenerative braking systems can just feed right into the charging system... If any of the above sounds too wild, well, I've got much more 'thought-time' in on these things than 'design-time' or 'build-time'... and I'm all-too-aware of the theory vs. practice problem in design. >At 03:34 AM 5/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>On Bill beaty's home pages there is a (moderately humorous) document >>>describing how to turn a normal engine into a steam engine by replacing >>>the spark plug with a magnetron in order to vaporize steam... >>>said document claims overunity performance for such a device. >>>Has anyone built one? How well does it perform? does it generate >>>enough energy to keep 'sparking' ? >>> >>>In thinking about it, all the energy is derived from the (semi explosive) >>>pressure change due to the phase change of the water. But is it enough? >>> >>>I have visions of a magnetron-based steam chamber venting into a Tesla-style >>>turbine engine.... >>> >> >>Yes, I agree, the microwave transducer motor looks good, but who knows >>if it really produces overunity ?? >> >>WHo has build this prototype ? Actually, this particular design has other appeals besides just overunity... 1)cheap/free fuel (just water, after all) 2)no air pollution... just some waste heat, and possibly not as much of that as current vehicles vent. >>I just got a video tape called: >> >>It runs on water. There is Stanley Meyer shown, >>having invented a Hydrogen splitter from plain water >>which he uses directly to jerk Hydrogen into the combustion >>chamber of a car motor. >>So the Hydrogen is produced on DEMAND and it needs less >>power (RF- pulsing high voltage instead of huge current) >>to generate the electrolysis ! Hrm. what range of voltage is necessary to pull this off? (and where'd I put my Tesla coil? hrm) --Zachary From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun May 5 00:06:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA06948; Sat, 4 May 1996 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tim Chandler To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:36 AM 5/3/96 -0700, (someone...) wrote: >>On Bill beaty's home pages there is a (moderately humorous) document >>describing how to turn a normal engine into a steam engine by replacing >>the spark plug with a magnetron in order to vaporize steam... >>said document claims overunity performance for such a device. >>Has anyone built one? How well does it perform? does it generate >>enough energy to keep 'sparking' ? >> >>In thinking about it, all the energy is derived from the (semi explosive) >>pressure change due to the phase change of the water. But is it enough? >> >>I have visions of a magnetron-based steam chamber venting into a Tesla-style >>turbine engine.... >> > >Yes, I agree, the microwave transducer motor looks good, but who knows >if it really produces overunity ?? > >WHo has build this prototype ? Hi Stefan et al, A few years ago me and few guys at college tried something like the engine conversion described in the fore-mentioned article. The only major difference between our engine and the one in the article is ours used a series of specially designed rectangular/circular waveguides to get the MW energy into the firing port above the cyclinder. We figured the vibrations from the engine would not take long to crack and destroy the antenna output casing (which is glass type) on the magnetron. I personally do not see how the magnetron would just simply connect into the spark plug socket, all of the magnetrons I have seen do not have any treads on them that remotely match those of the spark plug port, of course the magnetrons we used were vintage 60's so maybe they have changed some. We did have to make quite extensive modifications on the ignition coil of the Briggs & Stratton engine we used, inorder to keep it running continuously. I do not recall exactly what the modifications were other than we did have to modify an autoracing type ignition coil (high power type for high performance autos) and the electronic ignition module on the the existing engine ignition coil (it is called a magnetron as well, go figure). These modifications took use about 2 weeks to get right before the engine would fire/run continuously. Performance wise, it was better than the combustion configuration, but not more efficient, it ran out of fuel (water) alot faster due to the need for a higher volume of fuel in the chamber (with the gas fuel there is gas and air (oxygen) injected into the combustion chamber by the carburetor). We eventually detected that the improper amount of water fuel (and to much air) was being supplied by the carburetor we tried to alter the carburetor but it simply was the wrong piece of equipment for this job. After discovering that the carburetor was not up to task at hand we modified a little pump and saw to it that it did inject the proper amount and little to no air. As for being overunity, ours surely was not, but I suppose it could be done. The first problem to overcome in a full sized combustion engine, say a 4 cylinder model, would be sealing the engine up better. The water vapors readily escaped from the standard seals on our little Briggs & Stratton engine. The engine would need to as air tight as possible as the water vapors would be able to escape alot easier than the "combustion" so to speak that the engine was orginally designed to handle. I suppose one could use some type of high temperture polymer, say TFE seals or something to that effect. The polymer seals should have a high expansion rate as to increase the sealing ability as the temperture of the engine increases, and it will increase quite rapidly. This brings up the next problem, keeping the engine/engine components for melting-down or warping. The magnetron is generally not subjected to such high tempertures in it normal intended use (in a microwave that is...). This problem of heat could be easily overcome by employing a liquid-nitrogen cryo-type cooling system. With a little work it could be used to cool every component that needed to be cooled in the engine, including the magnetrons. Another important factor to concider would be what to do with the exhaust vapors. One could possible incorporate some type of pressurized condensing system, that would enable the capture of most of the exhaust water vapors. Then the captured vapors could be condensed back into it's liquid state by either high pressure or cooling from the cryo-cooling system. If one wanted to get really creative, they could make a special electronic fuel injection system specifically designed for the engine, it would take some time to get the exact amount of water and least amount of air in the proper place at the proper time. This should improve performance considerablely since when our engine was running the carburetor gave us the most headaches before we scraped it. Another performance boost would be designing some type of electronic ignition system specifically for use in triggering the magnetron, as that too is a prime source for efficiency problems. One might go the other way with this problem. If you run the magnetron continuously as in a microwave oven(cooling it continuously as well) and then somehow design a shutter in the waveguide which would open and shut during the proper times in the firing cycle, the performance might be increased. Although closing off the waveguide would cause the EM waves (microwaves) to be deflected back into the antenna port on the magnetron, which would most likely damage the magnetron directly, not to mention increasing the ambient temperture of the magnetron significantly. So maybe the electronic iginition type module would be the best way to go, it would definitely beat out the old distributor/point(s) type system. Just a few ideas. I will look around and see if I can find any of my notes on the the B&S steam-type engine we worked on. I will post them, that is if I can find them...:) Food for Thought, Tim o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Timothy A. Chandler || M.S.Physics/B.S.Chemistry | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | NASA-Langley Research Center || George Mason University | | Department of Energy || Department of Physics | | FRT/Alpha - NASALaRC/DOE JRD/OPM || Department of Chemistry | | CHOCT FR Designation #82749156/MG09|| OPC-EFC | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Private Email Address: tchand@slip.net | o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun May 5 15:50:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10221; Sun, 5 May 1996 15:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 15:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: magnetron engine O/U? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 4 May 1996, Tim Chandler wrote: > Performance wise, it was better than the combustion configuration, but not > more efficient, it ran out of fuel (water) alot faster due to the need for a You mean that your engine used water as fuel?!!!! Or was it actually just powered by its battery? If the engine ran its battery down, then you're right, it's probably not overunity. The fuel then is not the water, the water is just the working fluid, and your whole system is actually just a fantastically complicated electric motor. Orthodox Physics does not regard water to be useable as fuel, so if you succeeded in running a microwave steam engine just on water, without running its battery down, then your engine was doing something very strange, and we should all try reproducing your experiment. One person on VORTEX-L believes that water molecules have a metastable state, a sort of delayed phosphorescence effect that is pumped up by ultraviolet radiation in sunlight, and then is released as heat when the water is stimulated somehow. As if the water was a fuel which could provide excess heat. If true, then many water-based o/u devices are actually running off of delayed solar energy. Which is the same situation with coal, coal having once been been ancient plants storing sunlight energy. If water acts as a fuel, then water-based o/u devices which recycle the same water would be expected to run for awhile then fail mysteriously. O/U devices which have a continuous input of "new" water would run forever. And any water that flowed through this latter type of device would become "depleted" water, which could not be used to run O/U devices and might have all kinds of other weird properties. The water theory was offered as an explanation for Cold Fusion, where a CF cell was acting as an electrical device for stimulating water into dumping its metastable internal energy. ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:41:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21538; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tim Chandler To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:44 PM 5/5/96 -0700, bilb@eskimo.com wrote: >On Sat, 4 May 1996, Tim Chandler wrote: > >> Performance wise, it was better than the combustion configuration, but not >> more efficient, it ran out of fuel (water) alot faster due to the need for a > >You mean that your engine used water as fuel?!!!! Or was it actually just >powered by its battery? If the engine ran its battery down, then you're >right, it's probably not overunity. The fuel then is not the water, the >water is just the working fluid, and your whole system is actually just a >fantastically complicated electric motor. Orthodox Physics does not >regard water to be useable as fuel, so if you succeeded in running a >microwave steam engine just on water, without running its battery down, >then your engine was doing something very strange, and we should all try >reproducing your experiment. Well yes you are right, the water is just a "working-fluid" so to speak. If one wants to look at it in that aspect though, one must look at all the energy transformations that takes place in the mechanism. The electrical energy is pumped into the magnetron, which in turn produces an EM wave (microwave) which in this application is best termed thermodynamic (or heat) energy. That thermodynamic energy is then absorbed by the molecules in the water which causes the temperture of those molecules to raise until it cause's the molecules to undergo a phase transition, in which the liquid turns into a gas, this a change in physical property thus the energy still remains a thermodynamic type. The pressure increase caused by the expansion of the water molecules undergoing there phase transition forces the engine's piston down, thus the thermodyanamic energy is converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is transfered from the piston to the crankshaft, and from the crankshaft to whatever output one desires, as long as it is able to make use of the mechanic energy. Work has and can be done. I understand what you are getting at though. In the engines normal operation, the fuel is gasoline which has a specific stored amount of chemical energy which is able to be released when the spark plug ignites it. When the spark-plug fires, the gasoline in the chamber ignites, which produces a chemical change in the gasoline that releases chemical energy, this release of chemical energy then in turn causes the piston to be forced down, the energy is thus transformed into mechanical energy. The water within the chamber when excited to the gaseous state from its liquid state undergoes a soley physical change in which the energy is NOT converted into chemical energy. Water does not have the stored chemical energy, so to speak, that the gasoline possess, but one must remember water is quite a weird little molecule, and it has been known to exhibit properties that other molecules chemically similar to water do not. Just because there is no transformation into chemcial energy in the water, that does not necessarily mean that the water does not exhibit an increase in internal (potential/kinetic) energy, it does. When the water changes phases, going from liquid to gas, it absorbs the heat energy from the EM wave in order to obtain its gaseous state. Lets say that when water is in its liquid state, the molecules individualy have an inherent kinetic energy of 5 joules, inherent kinetic energy is the energy that required of the "motion" of the molecules. When the molecules are forced into there gaseous state, in this case through the application of thermodynamic energy, the inherent kinetic energy raises to 50 joules, the "motion" of the individual molecules is significantly increased. This increase in "motion" causes an increase in pressure within a confined space. The pressure forces the piston down, and so on. The thermodynamic energy of the EM wave is simply asorbed by the water molecules and is then transformed into mechanical energy. So primarily your statement is correct, water does not really operate as a fuel, only a means to which thermodynamic energy is transformed into mechanical energy, basically. That is if there are no other "processes" taking place within the water molecules. As for overunity, first one must define overunity. What is it actually? Is overunity merely getting more energy out than you are putting in or is overunity actually a process that requires very little energy input with regards to it energy output? I do not know what "overunity" actually is, perhaps someone else can explain this better for me. As for the battery running down, what battery? If one modifies a lawnmover engine, say a Briggs & Stratton 3HP model, to operate using the microwave technique, in the following manner, no battery is needed, just a trigger source: (1) Reconfigure engine to accept a MW EM wave source (magnetron) instead of the standard spark plug. (2) Rework the existing ignition system on the engine to trigger the magnetron without using any other energy source for input. (3) Adjust the injector mechanism on the engine so that it injects the proper amount of water into the chamber above the piston. (4) Fill "fuel" tank with water instead of gas. If that is all one does to the engine, then there is no external energy inputs, such as a battery. The ignition system on the standard Briggs & Stratton 3HP lawnmover engine is called a "Magneto Ignition System" (MIS). The MIS works as follows from start-up (very basic): (a) The manual starter cord is pulled causing the flywheel (with magnets mounted on it) to turn. (b) The flywheel then causes the crankshaft, camshaft, and piston to which is connected, to move, as well as causing the magnets to pass by the ignition coil, which induce a current and thus voltage to flow through the coil. (c) (when point(s) are closed) As the flywheel magnet passes by the ignition coil, the magnet in motion creates an electric current in the primary circuit, which is completed to ground at both ends because the crankshaft lobe has allowed the moveable breaker points to close. (d) (when point(s) are opened) The flywhell magnet has passed by. The crankshaft lobe opens the breaker points, causing the electromagnetically charged field of the primary circuit to collapse upon the secondary circuit. This results in high-voltage current to the spark plug- the terminal of the secondary circuit. The above applies to older model engines, newer models incorporate an electronic type ignition system. For reference on installing an electronic ignition system see: "How To Install An Electronic Ignition" by Mort Schultz Popular Mechanics May 1989 page 149-150 Keeping the above in mind, when the engine is running, there is no battery source which could be drained. So then could the water not be considered the "fuel" source? Maybe, maybe not, but none the less, the water is the means by which the engine is kept operational, for if the water runs out the engine will stop operating, will it not? >One person on VORTEX-L believes that water molecules have a metastable >state, a sort of delayed phosphorescence effect that is pumped up by >ultraviolet radiation, and then is released as heat when the water is >stimulated somehow. As if the water was a fuel which could provide excess >heat. If true, then many water-based o/u devices are actually running off >of delayed solar energy. Which is the same situation with coal, coal >having once been been ancient plants storing sunlight energy. If water >acts as a fuel, then water-based o/u devices which recycle the same water >would be expected to run for awhile then fail mysteriously. O/U devices >which have a continuous input of "new" water would run forever. And any >water that flowed through this latter type of device would become >"depleted" water, which could not be used to run O/U devices and might >have all kinds of other weird properties. > >The water theory was offered as an explanation for Cold Fusion, where a CF >cell was acting as an electrical device for stimulating water into dumping >its metastable internal energy. As I stated above, water is a weird little molecule, and is not totally understood. Upon closing I must say that our modification of the Briggs & Stratton engine was never intended for an "overunity" application so to speak, it was merely an experiment we were conducting to determine whether or not it was possible to operate an engine on water, thus negating many of the emission problems associated with combustion type engines. Nothing more, nothing less... Thanks, Tim o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Timothy A. Chandler || M.S.Physics/B.S.Chemistry | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | NASA-Langley Research Center || George Mason University | | Department of Energy || Department of Physics | | FRT/Alpha - NASALaRC/DOE JRD/OPM || Department of Chemistry | | CHOCT FR Designation #82749156/MG09|| OPC-EFC | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Private Email Address: tchand@slip.net | o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 04:22:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA04833; Mon, 6 May 1996 04:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605061000.MAA17997@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Just a few ideas. I will look around and see if I can find any of my notes >on the the B&S steam-type engine we worked on. I will post them, that is if >I can find them...:) > >Food for Thought, How long did the batteries last, that powered the magnetron ? Did you use the car batteries for powering it ? So was the car battery also charged again via the car generator ? regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 04:58:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA09270; Mon, 6 May 1996 04:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605061134.GAA14203@fastlane.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bert Pool To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] Bill Beaty said: > >One person on VORTEX-L believes that water molecules have a metastable >state, a sort of delayed phosphorescence effect that is pumped up by >ultraviolet radiation, and then is released as heat when the water is >stimulated somehow. As if the water was a fuel which could provide excess >heat. If true, then many water-based o/u devices are actually running off >of delayed solar energy. Which is the same situation with coal, coal >having once been been ancient plants storing sunlight energy. If water >acts as a fuel, then water-based o/u devices which recycle the same water >would be expected to run for awhile then fail mysteriously. O/U devices >which have a continuous input of "new" water would run forever. And any >water that flowed through this latter type of device would become >"depleted" water, which could not be used to run O/U devices and might >have all kinds of other weird properties. > >The water theory was offered as an explanation for Cold Fusion, where a CF >cell was acting as an electrical device for stimulating water into dumping >its metastable internal energy. > >William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Bill, I might add that I know of some very recent work in the area of water research which has been submitted to one of the major physics review publications for peer review. If successfully reviewed, the work will soon be published. This research has found that one of the big "over-unity" phenomenon associated with water to be precisely what you describe: there is a way to release stored solar energy from water. It now seems that conventional scientists are willing to admit that water contains an extra bit of energy (originally of solar origin) which can be released from the water and which kept appearing as "excess" energy in carefully controlled experiments. When the researchers had confronted themselves with absolutely irrefutable evidence that more energy was coming out than was going in, a fellow researcher in a different field was able to tie these results up by invoking a new theory that water absorbs solar energy during the evaporative/condensive phases in nature. The fact that water contains extra energy which can be released, is, I believe, pretty well accepted by most people now, but I don't believe that the solar connection has been _proven_ beyond a doubt. The "absorbed solar energy" theory is a very tidy way for science to account for the extra energy, but is it _the_ source of the excess energy? More work will have to be done. The end result is that water does contain a surplus of energy that can be released, but the process used in these experiments would be difficult to implement to produce usable work. Personally, I don't care whether the surplus energy coming out of the several different water based f/e devices today comes from solar energy or from the aether. If the excess energy stored within water can be released and used to get me off the power grid, then I am ready to embrace the energy and it's technology, regardless of it's origin. Bert nikki@fastlane.net From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 06:17:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19935; Mon, 6 May 1996 06:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 06:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Todd Heywood To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A > One person on VORTEX-L believes that water molecules have a metastable > state, a sort of delayed phosphorescence effect that is pumped up by > ultraviolet radiation, and then is released as heat when the water is > stimulated somehow. As if the water was a fuel which could provide excess > heat. If true, then many water-based o/u devices are actually running off > of delayed solar energy. Which is the same situation with coal, coal > having once been been ancient plants storing sunlight energy. If water > acts as a fuel, then water-based o/u devices which recycle the same water > would be expected to run for awhile then fail mysteriously. O/U devices > which have a continuous input of "new" water would run forever. And any > water that flowed through this latter type of device would become > "depleted" water, which could not be used to run O/U devices and might > have all kinds of other weird properties. > > The water theory was offered as an explanation for Cold Fusion, where a CF > cell was acting as an electrical device for stimulating water into dumping > its metastable internal energy. Is there any further info available (write-ups in th archive?), or was this just disorganizaed discussion? More info would be interesting. There are interesting parallels with the "memory of water" episode, where it seems that water retains chemical info even after being diluted to the point that no molecules initially conveying the chemical info in an original solution remain. (Homeopathy.) Todd Heywood From bilb@eskimo.com Mon May 6 07:45:31 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (bilb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06476 for ; Mon, 6 May 1996 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id HAA20290; Mon, 6 May 1996 07:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 07:44:48 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 6 May 1996, Todd Heywood wrote: > > One person on VORTEX-L believes that water molecules have a metastable > > state, a sort of delayed phosphorescence effect that is pumped up by > > Is there any further info available (write-ups in th archive?), or > was this just disorganizaed discussion? > > More info would be interesting. There are interesting parallels with > the "memory of water" episode, where it seems that water retains > chemical info even after being diluted to the point that no > molecules initially conveying the chemical info in an original > solution remain. (Homeopathy.) The "u/v water storage" idea was the pet theory of one VORTEX-L member, from compuserve I think, and a small discussion continued for a few weeks about it. I don't recall which month it was, but you can search the mail archives at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:49:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA06763; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Fields To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 6 May 1996, Bert Pool wrote: > [snip] > > Bill Beaty said: > > > > >One person on VORTEX-L believes that water molecules have a metastable > >state, a sort of delayed phosphorescence effect that is pumped up by > >ultraviolet radiation, and then is released as heat when the water is > >stimulated somehow. As if the water was a fuel which could provide excess > >heat. If true, then many water-based o/u devices are actually running off > >of delayed solar energy. Which is the same situation with coal, coal > >having once been been ancient plants storing sunlight energy. If water > >acts as a fuel, then water-based o/u devices which recycle the same water > >would be expected to run for awhile then fail mysteriously. O/U devices > >which have a continuous input of "new" water would run forever. And any > >water that flowed through this latter type of device would become > >"depleted" water, which could not be used to run O/U devices and might > >have all kinds of other weird properties. > > > >The water theory was offered as an explanation for Cold Fusion, where a CF > >cell was acting as an electrical device for stimulating water into dumping > >its metastable internal energy. > > > >William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd > > > Bill, I might add that I know of some very recent work in the area of water > research which has been submitted to one of the major physics review > publications for peer review. If successfully reviewed, the work will soon > be published. > > This research has found that one of the big "over-unity" phenomenon > associated with water to be precisely what you describe: there is a way to > release stored solar energy from water. It now seems that conventional > scientists are willing to admit that water contains an extra bit of energy > (originally of solar origin) which can be released from the water and which > kept appearing as "excess" energy in carefully controlled experiments. When > the researchers had confronted themselves with absolutely irrefutable > evidence that more energy was coming out than was going in, a fellow > researcher in a different field was able to tie these results up by invoking > a new theory that water absorbs solar energy during the > evaporative/condensive phases in nature. The fact that water contains extra > energy which can be released, is, I believe, pretty well accepted by most > people now, but I don't believe that the solar connection has been _proven_ > beyond a doubt. The "absorbed solar energy" theory is a very tidy way for > science to account for the extra energy, but is it _the_ source of the > excess energy? More work will have to be done. The end result is that > water does contain a surplus of energy that can be released, but the process > used in these experiments would be difficult to implement to produce usable > work. Personally, I don't care whether the surplus energy coming out of the > several different water based f/e devices today comes from solar energy or > from the aether. If the excess energy stored within water can be released > and used to get me off the power grid, then I am ready to embrace the energy > and it's technology, regardless of it's origin. > > > Bert > nikki@fastlane.net -------------------- > When steam condenses into water it releases more calories than water requires to turn into steam. This is a measurable, undeniable fact. Unfortunately, it takes more work to turn water into steam than the conversion from steam to water will return. Newton wins again... But, hopefully, not for long. Starship ----------- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:53:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA08038; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tim Chandler To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:13 AM 5/6/96 -0700, Stefan Hartmann wrote: >How long did the batteries last, that powered the magnetron ? > >Did you use the car batteries for powering it ? >So was the car battery also charged again via the car generator ? Hi Stefan, As I mentioned prior, our experiemnt was alittle different. It was basically the same theory at work, but we used different means to arrive at the end result. Rather than using a battery, we took the time to modify the existing ignition coil setup on the engine, in order that it would properly trigger/fire the magnetron. For our first few runs we did however use an external power supply to power the filiment heater on the magnetron (approx. 3VAC), but eventually that too was supplied by the ignition system. So we really had no battery, to go dead, the power was generated and used... I personally did not handle the major modifications to the ignition system, and I do not recall exactly what they were. I have however skoke with the guy who did redesign it, he said he would draw up a schematic and send it to me when he finishes up with his finals (which are all this week). Once I get the schematic I will post it to the list. Thanks, Tim o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Timothy A. Chandler || M.S.Physics/B.S.Chemistry | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | NASA-Langley Research Center || George Mason University | | Department of Energy || Department of Physics | | FRT/Alpha - NASALaRC/DOE JRD/OPM || Department of Chemistry | | CHOCT FR Designation #82749156/MG09|| OPC-EFC | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Private Email Address: tchand@slip.net | o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 09:46:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14251; Tue, 7 May 1996 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Alexander Lotoski To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Any information, http sites, journals, files or articles on the subject of water having extra energy and homeopathic effects (displaying chem effects at extremly low conc. of solute) would be greatly appreciated. I'm considering doing some experiements here at U of W... Some background info and starting points for research would be greatly appreciated. Thanx John Lotoski [Chem/Phys U of W] From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 17:17:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07950; Tue, 7 May 1996 17:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Todd Heywood To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 7 May 1996, John Alexander Lotoski wrote: > > > Any information, http sites, journals, files or articles on the > subject of water having extra energy and homeopathic effects (displaying > chem effects at extremly low conc. of solute) would be greatly > appreciated. I'm considering doing some experiements here at U of W... > Some background info and starting points for research would be greatly > appreciated. > > Thanx > > John Lotoski > > [Chem/Phys U of W] > Here is something I just posted to vortex-l. A web search on "memory of water" doesn't turn up much. Anyone else? Todd Heywood ========= I've been surprised that not many people in the US seem to be aware of the "memory of water" fiasco that Nature/Maddox were embroiled in about the same time as the cold fusion thing was going on. Here is a short review of a book on this, which seems to only be available in Europe (a friend sent it to me after I got "never heard of it" from a number of US publishers). There=20 was also a TV show I saw when I was living in the UK a couple of years ago, called "Heretics", profiling Benveniste, Rupert Sheldrake, Linus Pauling, Eric Laithwaite (for gyroscope work), etc. (I can't remember if Pons/Flieschman were in there). Maddox was interviewed a few times on this, and I remember thinking, "what arrogance". [My comments in brackets] Book review by Brian Josephson published originally in the Times Higher Education Supplement, issue of Dec. 15th. 1995. (c) Times Supplements 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - THE MEMORY OF WATER BY MICHEL SCHIFF Thorsons/HarperCollins, 166 pp, =A314.99 ISBN 0 7225 3262 8 Published 23 October 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Deserving the appellation "devastating critique" is Michel Schiff's "The Memory of Water: Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science". Technical in places but in general explained in such a way as to be accessible to the general reader, it details the struggles that new ideas in science have had and are still having to get a hearing, faced as they are with the variety of means, normally used in an unexceptionable manner, that editors, referees and review panels, and so on have at their disposal to prevent work that they consider unsatisfactory from being published or funded. The general directions of the author's critique may be indicated by a selection of his headings: "it is impossible _a priori_, hence it never happened", "debunking as a substitute for scientific arguments", "censorship as part of the normal scientific process", "mock attempts to duplicate an experiment", and "A scientific exploration gets paralysed by the burden of proof". As a historical example, Schiff cites the case of the Hungarian obstetrician Ignazius Semmelweis, who 20 years before the discovery of bacteria by Pasteur showed that deaths from puerperal fever could be reduced if the doctors were to wash their hands with antiseptic before attending their patients and was ridiculed for his proposals, and as a current parallel the suppression of evidence gained by Schiff's colleague Jacques Benveniste that particular kinds of saline solution might have adverse effects on patients in whom it was injected. Much of the discussion relates to Benveniste's work on homeopathy and the "memory of water", which expressions, the author observes in his introduction, are "capable of turning a peaceful and intelligent person into a violently irrational one". Benveniste's _in vitro_ experiments on homeopathically prepared samples met with a hostile response from _Nature_ and its referees when he submitted the work for publication there, but since they could not point to any errors in it the Editor eventually agreed to publication under the curious condition that _after_ publication Benveniste would allow a team of investigators to carry out investigations at his laboratory. Schiff lists a number of errors that he claims are present in the published investigators' report, as also in published reports of failure to confirm the Benveniste results by other scientists. Publication of a _successful_ replication by Benveniste was refused on the basis of a referee's report which, according to Schiff, contained elementary mistakes such as confusing error and variance (i.e. error squared). [Note that the "team of investigators" consisted of Maddox (a journalist), James Randi (a magician), and a "fraud expert" whose name escapes me at the moment, but who was a referee who adamantly opposed publication of the paper. Hardly an objective group.] From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 17:31:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA11371; Tue, 7 May 1996 17:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605071816.AA15091@student.utwente.nl> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John (Starship) wrote: >When steam condenses into water it releases more calories than water >requires to turn into steam. This is a measurable, undeniable >fact. > >Unfortunately, it takes more work to turn water into steam than the >conversion from steam to water will return. Could you please explain the controverse between these two sentences? First you write condensing releases more energy than steaming costs, the next line you write the opposite. Timothy van der Linden (T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl) From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 06:04:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06588; Wed, 8 May 1996 05:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Alexander Lotoski To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >When steam condenses into water it releases more calories than water > >requires to turn into steam. This is a measurable, undeniable > >fact. > > > >Unfortunately, it takes more work to turn water into steam than the > >conversion from steam to water will return. > > Could you please explain the controverse between these two sentences? > First you write condensing releases more energy than steaming costs, the > next line you write the opposite. I think i see what he's getting at. It is fact as he says, but it's also well explained... Water (l) --> Water (g) requires more energy than: Water (g) --> Water (l) Because of the fact that in the liquid state, hydrogen bonding, Van der Waals attractions and London dispersion forces exist, requiring extra input of energy to break these bonds/attractions and escape to the gas phase. Upon gas phase condensation, bonds are formed (namely hydrogen bonding--Van der Waals & London dispersion forces are mainly insignificant compared to H bonding), heat is released, and internal energy decreases. Thus, (l) -> (g) requires energy (g) -> (l) releases energy In his second statement he is referring to work, not heat being released, and thus is makes sense. This is off the top of my head, but i'm pretty sure it's a correct explanation.. John From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 19:29:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07497; Thu, 9 May 1996 19:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 19:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Fields To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 7 May 1996, Timothy van der Linden wrote: > John (Starship) wrote: > > >When steam condenses into water it releases more calories than water > >requires to turn into steam. This is a measurable, undeniable > >fact. > > > >Unfortunately, it takes more work to turn water into steam than the > >conversion from steam to water will return. > > Could you please explain the controverse between these two sentences? > First you write condensing releases more energy than steaming costs, the > next line you write the opposite. > > > Timothy van der Linden > > (T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl) ----------------------------------------- Sorry for the careless writing. What I meant to say was: In a conventional imperfect system, some energy will be lost through radiation, conduction, and convection while the water is being heated to the boiling point. In addition, when the water makes the transition from water at 100 C to steam at 100 C, an additional amount of heat (the latent heat of vaporization) is required for the transition to occur. When the steam condenses to water this heat is given up and must be resupplied in order to turn the water into steam once again. In the meantime, all the losses in the system must be continuously taken care of in the form of additional energy being supplied to the system. As a result, the work done by the expansion and contraction of the water/steam will be less than the energy put into the system. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 19:33:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08574; Thu, 9 May 1996 19:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 19:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605091536.AA02906@student.utwente.nl> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To John Alexander Lotoski, >> Could you please explain the controverse between these two sentences? >> First you write condensing releases more energy than steaming costs, the >> next line you write the opposite. > Because of the fact that in the liquid state, hydrogen bonding, Van >der Waals attractions and London dispersion forces exist, requiring extra >input of energy to break these bonds/attractions and escape to the gas >phase. > > Upon gas phase condensation, bonds are formed (namely hydrogen >bonding--Van der Waals & London dispersion forces are mainly >insignificant compared to H bonding), heat is released, and internal >energy decreases. > > Thus, (l) -> (g) requires energy > (g) -> (l) releases energy This I all knew (except London dispersion), but thanks. > In his second statement he is referring to work, not heat being >released, and thus is makes sense. I'm not sure if I understand the latter, doo you mean that he is merely pointing at conversion efficiencies? Timothy From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:52:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA11018; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Alexander Lotoski To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > In his second statement he is referring to work, not heat being > >released, and thus is makes sense. > > I'm not sure if I understand the latter, doo you mean that he is merely > pointing at conversion efficiencies? heheh.. i can't even really remember the originally message now, but i just remember in the first part he pointed out the obvious fact that gas -> liquid released more energy than liquid -> gas. And it seemed to me that in the second part he just stated in a roundabout way that a naturally consequence of this is that: converting liquid -> gas requires more energy (work) than gas -> liquid. This is obvious because it requires no input of energy at all to convert gas to liquid, but will release it instead. This is of course assuming that the system is cool enough so that the molecules slow down and interact enough to form the corresponding attractive forces and bonds in order to enter the liquid phase. I do remember having to read it a couple times to understand what he/she was trying to say... :)... cya John From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:55:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA11658; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Alexander Lotoski To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Sorry for the careless writing. > What I meant to say was: > > In a conventional imperfect system, some energy will be lost through > radiation, conduction, and convection while the water is being heated > to the boiling point. In addition, when the water makes the transition > from water at 100 C to steam at 100 C, an additional amount of heat > (the latent heat of vaporization) is required for the transition to occur. > > When the steam condenses to water this heat is given up and must be > resupplied in order to turn the water into steam once again. > > In the meantime, all the losses in the system must be continuously taken > care of in the form of additional energy being supplied to the system. > > As a result, the work done by the expansion and contraction of the > water/steam will be less than the energy put into the system. > Ahh, ok.. I see... Yes, it is unfortunate.. Talking about this sort of thing reminds me of an article i saw on here a while back where someone stated that a person in Germany had designed a device that broke that barriers of effienency of the Carnot cycle. He apparantly was applying for patents and such.. Anyone heard anything lately about this? John From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 23:07:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13285; Fri, 10 May 1996 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605101621.AA07004@student.utwente.nl> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Sorry for the careless writing. >What I meant to say was: > >In a conventional imperfect system, some energy will be lost through >radiation, conduction, and convection while the water is being heated >to the boiling point. In addition, when the water makes the transition >from water at 100 C to steam at 100 C, an additional amount of heat >(the latent heat of vaporization) is required for the transition to occur. OK, that clears things up. Timothy From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 07:23:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA05486; Sat, 11 May 1996 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: John Alexander Lotoski To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: water & f/e X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > Sorry for the careless writing. > > What I meant to say was: > > > > In a conventional imperfect system, some energy will be lost through > > radiation, conduction, and convection while the water is being heated > > to the boiling point. In addition, when the water makes the transition > > from water at 100 C to steam at 100 C, an additional amount of heat > > (the latent heat of vaporization) is required for the transition to occur. > > > > When the steam condenses to water this heat is given up and must be > > resupplied in order to turn the water into steam once again. > > > > In the meantime, all the losses in the system must be continuously taken > > care of in the form of additional energy being supplied to the system. > > > > As a result, the work done by the expansion and contraction of the > > water/steam will be less than the energy put into the system. Hmmm... This is not a special property of water. It applies wherever an imperfect system is in use (pretty much everywhere). Also any conversion of energy (Ie. heat to mechanical work) is never 100% (correct?) no matter what the chemical is (or method of transferance)... John From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 09:07:43 1996 Message ----> Status: O X-Status: From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun May 12 15:51:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA21828; Sun, 12 May 1996 15:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 15:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960512182356_489581088@emout17.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: MichaelUK1@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 06/05/96 09:32:43 Tim Chandler wrote regarding the conversion of a normal petrol engine to run on water: > >As I stated above, water is a weird little molecule, and is not totally >understood. > >Upon closing I must say that our modification of the Briggs & Stratton >engine was never intended for an "overunity" application so to speak, it was >merely an experiment we were conducting to determine whether or not it was >possible to operate an engine on water, thus negating many of the emission >problems associated with combustion type engines. Nothing more, nothing >less... > >Thanks, > >Tim > > Did I understand this correctly, you did get a self-running engine to operate just on water? If this is the case then your statement "nothing more nothing less" seems a bit casual. Or have I misunderstood and you tried and failed to get the engine to operate in such a self sustaining mode? Mike Butcher From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon May 13 01:49:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03497; Mon, 13 May 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960513080844_76216.2421_HHB45-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On May 12 Mike Butcher wrote: > "Did I understand this correctly, you did get a self-running > engine to operate just on water? If this is the case then > your statement "nothing more nothing less" seems a bit > casual. Or have I misunderstood and you tried and failed to > get the engine to operate in such a self sustaining mode?" Me too, Mike. Frankly, I'm rather suspicious this story was put here to tease us a bit. My apologies to Timothy Chandler if it's a true story, but I think you have to admit it looks a little strange as posted here. It's like, yeah, we got an engine to run on *nothing but water*, and then just shrugged and went on with our lives. I basically thought it might have been posted as a joke. Did anyone here wonder at all what kind of valve or gate arrangement allowed the microwaves to be guided from the waveguide into the combustion chamber enclosure to abruptly heat up - what, a water mist(?) - which then expands against a piston? The air/fuel(water) intake valves are by then closed, but what about the waveguide openings, aren't they by necessity closed too at that point to maintain pressure? What was it, a ceramic or somesuch plug in the spark plug hole that's transparent to microwaves coming down the waveguide? Timothy didn't say. But he did say the devices powering the spark plugs on a B&S engine are also called magnetrons. They're actually called magnetos, little permanent magnet electrical generators. We're being exposed to enough talk of overunity this and that nowdays to maybe just believe that microwaves could somehow boil out that mysterious energy from the ZPF and such an engine might be possible. Until I see one running, I doubt it. Open minded skepticism. Then again, I've heard that they had essentially that up and running in Denver just recently. Supposedly it needed a small proportion of gasoline in the water to run just right - it got too hot when run on pure H2O, although it otherwise ran very well even then. I don't know if this was the latest Meyer-type engine with the on-demand electrolysis being powered by the mags off the engine, with the resulting HO fuel thus produced being burned in the cylinder(s). I'd love to see the details. Was anyone there? Timothy, *please* don't be offended, but were you serious about this story? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 12:59:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA29911; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605151627.JAA03211@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:34 AM 5/13/96 -0700, you wrote: >On May 12 Mike Butcher wrote: > > > "Did I understand this correctly, you did get a self-running > > engine to operate just on water? If this is the case then > > your statement "nothing more nothing less" seems a bit > > casual. Or have I misunderstood and you tried and failed to > > get the engine to operate in such a self sustaining mode?" > >Me too, Mike. Frankly, I'm rather suspicious this story was put here to tease >us a bit. My apologies to Timothy Chandler if it's a true story, but I think >you have to admit it looks a little strange as posted here. It's like, yeah, we >got an engine to run on *nothing but water*, and then just shrugged and went on >with our lives. I basically thought it might have been posted as a joke. > >Did anyone here wonder at all what kind of valve or gate arrangement allowed >the microwaves to be guided from the waveguide into the combustion chamber >enclosure to abruptly heat up - what, a water mist(?) - which then expands >against a piston? The air/fuel(water) intake valves are by then closed, but >what about the waveguide openings, aren't they by necessity closed too at that >point to maintain pressure? What was it, a ceramic or somesuch plug in the >spark plug hole that's transparent to microwaves coming down the waveguide? >Timothy didn't say. But he did say the devices powering the spark plugs on a >B&S engine are also called magnetrons. They're actually called magnetos, little >permanent magnet electrical generators. > >We're being exposed to enough talk of overunity this and that nowdays to maybe >just believe that microwaves could somehow boil out that mysterious energy from >the ZPF and such an engine might be possible. Until I see one running, I doubt >it. Open minded skepticism. Then again, I've heard that they had essentially >that up and running in Denver just recently. Supposedly it needed a small >proportion of gasoline in the water to run just right - it got too hot when run >on pure H2O, although it otherwise ran very well even then. I don't know if >this was the latest Meyer-type engine with the on-demand electrolysis being >powered by the mags off the engine, with the resulting HO fuel thus produced >being burned in the cylinder(s). I'd love to see the details. Was anyone there? > >Timothy, *please* don't be offended, but were you serious about this story? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > I am having difficulty believing that the microwave which could be fitted onto small engine ports could flash the water into steam, even low-grade steam, quickly enough to provide any rpm, seems like you would have to class the output in rph. (hour) ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From bilb@eskimo.com Mon Jun 17 22:55:00 1996 Status: RO X-Status: Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA20061; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: microwave lawnmower X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Wes C. (not a subscriber, yet ) is interested in building the "magnetron lawnmower" device as well. I wonder if it's smart to start with an engine, or instead to just try pulsing a magnetron into a small cavity with water spray. If this forms a "steam exploder" device, then an engine should be possible. Small holes (mm dia.) should pass steam but not RF. And this should make for a simple test bed for adjusting pulses, water flow and droplet size, etc. Maybe an overunity microwave pulsejet engine would also work. The underwater version would be a boat motor with no moving parts? On the lawnmower engine, I suspect it would work best to plug the sparkplug port with some dielectric material which would contain the steam, yet pass RF energy. ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Jun 23 00:03:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09170; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: lawnmower engine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, wesly crosiar wrote: > I'm interested in building the magnatron lawnmower engine, already have > most of the > parts laying around,BUT I have been waiting for more information to be > posted by timothy chandler. I am especially interested in the notes that he > was going to post with the discussion group about electrical diagrams, etc. > Has anybody else talked to him? I talked to bill beaty on the land line, he > was most helpful and emailed me all that was posted on the discussion group > on this subject. THANKS BILL! Anyway timothy > if your reading this please post any new information you have, or email me > directly. > ANYONE ELSE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT? An idea I might try: somewhere on my pages there's an article about magnetrons used as weapons by powering them with capacitor discharge. I wonder how this might work for vaporizing water? Dump a few hundred joules of 20KV capacitor through a microwave oven tube, with a bit of water in a perfmetal waveguide stuck on the end. If the water goes "boom," then reduce the joules to find the requirements for steam generation. Hey! This has similarities to the "exploding water" effect being explored by the Drs.Graneau, where capacitor discharge through water creates immensely large forces, but if the voltage (and maybe current?) is below a certain threshold, there is no explosion. An "exploding water" engine was suggested, but how to fill a cylinder with water, and how to keep the steel from shattering under the high impulse forces? Use microwaves in water droplets! Individual droplets might explode violently, but then the steam acts as a cushion and distributes a smaller force over a longer time. If this is how it works, then the Microwave Lawnmower might require extremely high power over extremely short times, more like capacitor discharge than like a magneto coil output pulse. The RF energy would need to cause extremely large currents in the droplets. If the same energy is delivered at low voltage over a long time or at high voltage over a breif time, it only explodes the water in the second case. And size of the water droplets might be important; higher currents might be obtained with either very large or very small drops. If exploding water is an o/u phenomena, then the "water cannon" is not a good way to build an engine, and the microwave lawnmower should really work! ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Jun 23 00:04:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09271; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606210147.SAA07161@claim.goldrush.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wesly crosiar To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Microwave lawnmower steam engine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:18:45 >To: kbrown@nisku.blackgold.ab.ca >From: wesly crosiar >Subject: Microwave lawnmower steam engine > > Kieth: I emailed you the first half of the microwave messages from the discussion group that bill beaty sent me, sorry but I trashed the second half. I have additional info for you if you want to call me on the land line or email me, like where to get all the parts for free and how to build the waveguide. Voltage to exciter, to magnatron, etc, if you don't have this information. But Tim Chandler has the information I'm waiting for. My landline is 209-754-4742. As you probably know microwaves act very different from lightwaves such as they are reflected by stainless, silver,coper etc but are absorbed by other metals. Also won't penetrate small holes like the ones on your microwave but will go through slits and round holes such as your sparkplug hole with a ceramic plug, or epoxy plug. Also improvments would be along the line of using a 2 cycle engine instead of 4 cycle, vent the bottom end, plug the intake ports with epoxy >and use modified fuel injector and no air. Injector would fire before tdc magnatron would fire at tdc and exhaust would vent at bdc. BUT I am waiting for tim to post that schematic he talked about. Try it the way he says, see if it works, then try to improve it. SHIELD EVERTHING WITH A FARADAY TYPE SHIELD MADE OUT OF A MATERIAL LIKE THE PERFORATED METAL USED ON MICROWAVE DOORS. Magnatrons normaly use 3000 to 5000 volts and for this project to work the magnatron will likely need 25,000 to 50,000 volts. Also IF this project works, a MALLORY MSD 6-A will most likely increase it's output considerably. This device or one similar to it was used on EV GREYs motor. It is mentioned in the patent text, the purpose is to make it fire 20 to 30 percent of the stroke instead of only at top dead center. THANKS Wes! > From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Jun 23 00:04:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09387; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Microwave pulses X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The file on microwave pulsing is http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrg/empweap.html It suggests that high current pulses above a certain level in a magnetron might interfere with the usual axial magnetic field and spoil the microwave output. Strong magnets required. Or use coils and pulse them at the same time as the anode supply to the magnetron. Also mentioned is an "electromagnetic missle." This sounds like a soliton. I known that light-wave solitons in air are possible, where the light acts like a self-focusing pulse which does not grow wider with distance. But high intensity is required, and since the air absorbs the light, eventually the intensity will fall too low and the pulse falls apart after a few feet. If something similar was done with VHF or UHF radio waves, I bet it would go much further because the air doesn't absorb it. ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Jul 20 09:54:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12962; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tim Chandler To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Microwave powered engines X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:35 PM 7/17/96 -0700, Lance Ellinghaus wrote: >There has been some talk on this list of how to modify a >standard combustion engine to use Microwaves and water as >fuel. > >Has anyone done this to a car's engine? Yes I know of someone who did try it, last I checked, he wasn't very successful. >If anyone has done this, how can I get in touch with them? I will see if I can dig up his email address and send it to you... >Thank you, >Lance Ellinghaus Thanks, Tim From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Jul 30 19:32:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA04470; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607310231.TAA04536@claim.goldrush.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wesly crosiar To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: lawnmower engine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: TO ALL:Back a month or so ago Timothy A Chandler talked about a lawnmower engine he had worked on,in his description of his modifications he mentioned using a magnatron ingition, at the time I figured he'd made a typo, as most of us do, anyway someone sent a message that he was wrong, it was a magneto, I AGREED, BUT, I have talked to tim via email, and this guy knows his stuff, he's told me things about magnatrons I didn't know and given me answers nobody else could. ANYWAY!! Today at the library I was studying small engine ignition systems and on page 84 of Interteck Small Aircooled engines, service manuel 16th edition, it states MAGNATRON IGNITION - A MAGNATRON IGNITION IS A SELF CONTAINED BREAKERLESS ENGINE IGNITION. This is the type of ignition tim described to me that he used. HE WAS RIGHT! Thanks Wes From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 07:39:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26281; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <1996Jul31.092615.1650.241561@smtpmail.micro.honeywell.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: MMcCoy@smtpmail.micro.honeywell.com (McCoy, Mark) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: FW: lawnmower engine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greetings everyone! Wes said: Today at the library I was studying small engine ignition systems and on page 84 of Interteck Small Aircooled engines, service manuel 16th edition, it states MAGNATRON IGNITION - A MAGNATRON IGNITION IS A SELF CONTAINED BREAKERLESS ENGINE IGNITION. This is the type of ignition tim described to me that he used. HE WAS RIGHT! Thanks Wes Unless I'm mistaken, the "Magnatron" ignition as described in the Aircooled Engines service manual is a regular, ordinary electronic ignition module that is given the trademark "Magnatron" by Briggs and Stratton, and really has nothing to do with the RF generator of a microwave oven. Hope this clears up some confusion. Mark McCoy 214-470-4462 mmccoy@smtpmail.micro.honeywell.com From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 08:56:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA11334; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607311537.IAA00969@claim.goldrush.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wesly crosiar To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: FW: lawnmower engine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:31 AM 7/31/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Greetings everyone! > >Wes said: >Today at the library I was studying small engine ignition systems and on >page 84 of Interteck Small Aircooled engines, service manuel 16th edition, >it states MAGNATRON IGNITION - A MAGNATRON IGNITION IS A SELF CONTAINED >BREAKERLESS ENGINE IGNITION. This is the type of ignition tim described to >me that he used. HE WAS RIGHT! >Thanks Wes > >Unless I'm mistaken, the "Magnatron" ignition as described in the Aircooled >Engines service manual is a regular, ordinary electronic ignition module >that is given the trademark "Magnatron" by Briggs and Stratton, and really >has nothing to do with the RF generator of a microwave oven. >MARK:YOUR RIGHT, BUT THE REASON TIM REFERED TO IT AS A MAGNATRON TYPE INGITION SYSTEM IS THAT THIS IS THE SPECIFIC PART HE USED, APPARENTLY THE MAGNATRON IGNITION IS THE ONE THAT HAS ALL THE ELECTRONIC PARTS BUILT INTO IT, BRIGGS ALSO HAS A TINY ELECTRONIC AFTERMARKET IGNITION THAT REPLACES THE POINTS SYSTEM, AND ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES TO INSTALL AND COSTS 15 DOLLARS OR SO. BY ADDING OR REMOVING WINDINGS ON THE PRIMARY SIDE YOU CAN CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE OR RETARD > THANKS WES > From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Jul 31 12:22:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA03556; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607311804.NAA03216@firefly.prairienet.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: FW: lawnmower engine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > >Greetings everyone! > >Wes said: >Today at the library I was studying small engine ignition systems and on >page 84 of Interteck Small Aircooled engines, service manuel 16th edition, >it states MAGNATRON IGNITION - A MAGNATRON IGNITION IS A SELF CONTAINED >BREAKERLESS ENGINE IGNITION. This is the type of ignition tim described to >me that he used. HE WAS RIGHT! >Thanks Wes > >Unless I'm mistaken, the "Magnatron" ignition as described in the Aircooled >Engines service manual is a regular, ordinary electronic ignition module >that is given the trademark "Magnatron" by Briggs and Stratton, and really >has nothing to do with the RF generator of a microwave oven. > >Hope this clears up some confusion. > >Mark McCoy >214-470-4462 >mmccoy@smtpmail.micro.honeywell.com I think the difference here is in the spelling. The "Magnatron" is as described above. A "Magnetron" is a microwave oscillator tube used in microwave ovens. I think the device in question actually used a magnetron tube, not a magnatron, to vaporize water by fitting the output of the tube's probe into the spark plug hole. Is this correct? Zack -- "You can't be optimistic with a misty optic" - Rex Luscus Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:00:55 -0800 From: David Pudil To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: O/U lawn mower, ideas on. Dear Billb, A few years ago I read your article on the over unity lawn mower idea that some sent to yor weird science site. Here's some ideas that I thought up a while ago that might help it work better. Sincerely, Clair Morrill. EFFICIENTCY NOTES ON THE MAGNETRON STEAM ENGINE Dear Sirs, Your idea is valid but, there are problems with your idea. One of my interests is in suppressed inventions, more especially with gasoline vaporizers. I have studied the theory and know how they work. The basic theory on how your engine works is by using the magnetron to flash vaporize the water to steam in the cylinder to power the engine. I feel that I may be able to use my knowledge with gasoline vaporization to help you achieve higher rpms. Here are some ideas: 1. Heat the WATER going to the carburetor by using waste exhaust heat or use some other source of heat for test purposes. 2. Pick a carb that produces a finer mist of water. To find out this fabricate a clear plastic tube. Mount the carb on one end of the tube, hook up the other end to a rainbow vacuum or a shop vac. (it must be able to vacuum water.) 3. Heat the AIR, again by using waste exhaust heat or some other source for test purposes. By heating the water as in #1, the magnetron doesn't have to work as hard to flash (vaporize) the Water. The same goes for #2. The idea about drilling out the jets may be a bad idea, it could actually slow down the engine because of excess water build up in the cylinder! Remember theres a law that says you can compress AIR all you want but, you can't compress Water! These Ideas I feel may give some added performance to your engine. you may freely copy this text file.