Discussion of "Magputt" microwave lawnmower engine

Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 03:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann)
To: Multiple recipients of list <freenrg-l@eskimo.com>
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...
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm





Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: 
From: Zachary DeAquila 
Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? 

>From: Michael Mandeville 
>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?
 
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:
>>
>>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: Tim Chandler 
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine?

At 03:36 AM 5/3/96 -0700, (someone...) wrote:
>>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






Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 15:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: William Beaty 
Subject: magnetron engine O/U?

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 




Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: Tim Chandler 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U?

At 03:44 PM 5/5/96 -0700, bilb@eskimo.com wrote:
>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




Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine?

>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










Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: Bert Pool 
Subject: Re: water & f/e

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.

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





Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 06:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: Todd Heywood 
Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U?

> 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




Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 07:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty 
Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U?

On Mon, 6 May 1996, Todd Heywood wrote:

> 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 











Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Fields 
Subject: Re: water & f/e

On Mon, 6 May 1996, Bert Pool wrote:
> 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.

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
-----------  















Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: Tim Chandler 
Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine?

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












Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Alexander Lotoski 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: water & f/e

        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]










Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Todd Heywood 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: water & f/e

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.

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.]











Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: water & f/e

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)













Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: John Alexander Lotoski 
Subject: Re: water & f/e

> >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 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 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
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
From: William Beaty 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: microwave lawnmower

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 












Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
From: William Beaty 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: lawnmower engine

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:
>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
>
>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.

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.