A Research Organization
that Develops & Distributes
Practical Energy-Saving
Methods & Devices

Available in HTML @: www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/archive/2001/2001_12.php  
EAGLE-RESEARCH NEWSLETTER: December, 2001
  WHAT'S NEW Issue Feature: Electric Cars Fuel Saver news Free Energy Comments Brown's Gas news Reader Comments Coming Up   ****************************************************  
WHAT'S NEW (top)
  The Next Brown's Gas Meeting is in Spokane, Washington, April 13-14/2002. This meeting WILL happen (we already have attendees) and it promises to be fabulous. Projects that we have started will be well underway by then. We will give you the meeting details in the next newsletter.   I've written the 'Water Injection Manual' and am working on the drawings for it now. Then it will go through the editing and layout process. It will be published in February 2002. It is a big step toward practical application of Water as Fuel, because you can control the water going into the engine.   The first Chat was a success. A group of people were able to come together and important issues were brought up. see more in 'Fuel Saver News' below.   For details about our next Chat, titled

'Fabulous uses of Brown's Gas, including HyZor'; see:

http://www.eagle-research.com/chat/chat.php     =====================================================

Issue Feature: ELECTRIC VEHICLES (top)

  Refer back to my newsletter in April for previous text on electric vehicles: www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/archive/2001/2001_04.php   As I see it, the main reason that electric vehicles aren't as common on the road as internal combustion vehicles is because the energy density of storing electricity (usually in batteries) is very poor compared to fossil-fuel.   Lead acid batteries store only about 120 watt-hours per Kg and take a long time to recharge. Fossil-fuel has 12,000 watt-hours per Kg and filling your tank is fast.   A practical interim solution is 'hybrid-electric' where the vehicle is actually driven by an electric motor but has an onboard internal combustion engine driving a generator to charge the batteries. This option could easily give regular passenger vehicles 400 miles per gallon of fossil-fuel if designed properly.   Another thought is a 'lifetime' power supply. It is perfectly possible and (in my opinion) safe to use nuclear waste to power homes and vehicles. The waste is a good source of heat that can drive a heat engine to recharge batteries. I believe the radioactivity could be contained reasonably safely.   I expect to hear some objections to this idea, particularly as I am anti-nuclear myself. But I am also an advocate of using sources of energy that are available. Billions are being spent on trying to store nuclear waste. The biggest problem in the storage is the heat that the waste generates. Storage containers are already designed to contain the radioactivity but they need to be cooled or they'll melt. So use the heat to create electricity that can power your home and vehicle.   Another technology that is coming up is 'ultra-capacitors'. These still don't store as much energy as a lead-acid battery, but they can be charged quickly and can be designed to discharge at an acceptable rate.   Once the energy density issue is solved, I believe there will be a phase out of the internal combustion engine in favor of electric motors.   Electric motors have many potential advantages; some are:   Electric motors can turn about 90% of the stored energy into actual motive power. Internal combustion engines turn about 25% of it's fuel energy into actual motive power.   Electric motors can recharge their batteries using braking energy. Internal combustion engines generally waste even more fuel during braking.   Electric motors use NO energy when the vehicle is sitting idle. Internal combustion engines use a huge amount of fuel just keeping the engine turning over, even when it is doing no useful work.   Electric motors have few moving parts. Internal combustion engines have a huge number of moving parts and internal wear points.   Electric motors have practically zero maintenance. Internal combustion engines require constant maintenance.   Electric motors have dozens of advantages over internal combustion engines; far too many to list here.   There are a lot of good minds trying to solve the energy density issue, mostly by trying to come up with a better energy storage system. Exotic batteries and fuel cells are typical examples.   My research in alternative energy and energy efficiency has given me some insights that I think should be applied to electric vehicle technology. The idea is to have a practical, low production cost, long life, low maintenance, low operating cost, environmentally friendly vehicle.   The vehicle itself should be low cost, low weight, impact resistant and maintenance free. There are people designing plastic vehicles that fit these specifications. No rust, no paint and easily recycled. The energy storage could be built right into the vehicle.   The energy storage should be capable of delivering high voltage, at least 120 volts and as high as 300 volts. High voltage, low amperage electric systems are lighter and more efficient than low voltage, high amperage systems.   The drive train should have an infinitely variable transmission with at least two times overdrive and freewheeling (without being disconnected) capability. The drive train should be designed to keep the motor operating in it's most efficient rpm range.   The power controls should reduce power consumption to the minimum, by keeping the power flow to no more than is needed by adjustment of transmission and amperage, cutting off amperage when not needed, shifting into freewheel and regen braking at appropriate times.   The electrical system should also include 'energy recycling' technology discovered by Nikola Tesla, Edwin Gray, Joseph Newman, Bill Mueller, John Bedini and quite a few others. These systems recharge the batteries by various means, usually involving high amperage pulses of very short duration.   I believe this 'recycling' technology has reached a stage that practical applications can be developed and there are people working on it. However, in my opinion, actual implementation of the technology can only be done by 'gifting' it to the world. Anyone trying to patent it will (and has been) suppressed by the 'vested interest'.   The electric motor should use permanent magnets and be capable of efficient operation over a wide range of torque and rpm. It needs to have regen capability down to at least 5 mph. The variable transmission may help by keeping the motor rpm up as the vehicle slows down.   Our Capacitive Power Supply technology is an example of a technology that would increase the efficiency and practicality of electric vehicles.   The 'Capacitive Battery Charger' could be built right into an electric vehicle. It would allow the batteries to be charged from any voltage source (say 100 to 270 VAC) while limiting the amperage to a value that the source could handle (say 1 to 30 amps, adjustable by the driver). It can handle any kind of 'dirty' power and a wide range of frequencies ( from 35 to 75 Hz). The capacitors could be stuffed anywhere in the vehicle and would not create heat, noise or vibration. For the same power, they are also lighter than transformers. The CBC also charges batteries at least twice as efficiently (up to four times more efficient) as transformer battery chargers of the same amperage.   Our Capacitive Transformer design is also efficient and practical.   You cannot buy Capacitive Battery Chargers or Capacitive Transformers. You must build them yourself and the plans can be bought from us.   If electric vehicles take advantage of the technologies that exist NOW, they could easily compete with internal combustion vehicles in performance, cost and reliability. We could even have vehicles that never need to be fueled and would last at least a million miles with minimum maintenance.   I have a model Tucker on my desk that my wife gave me. The Tucker was a typical example of what could be done at the time, by a man in his backyard. Now, over 50 years later, the automobile industry still hasn't incorporated all the features of that car.   Dear friends, if we want efficient vehicles and self sustaining home power, we'll have to do it ourselves. =====================================================

FUEL SAVER NEWS: (top)

  Our first Chat was titled 'Fuel Savers DO Work' and brought up several important issues, some of them listed below.   • Both Mechanics and the general public need to be educated on the truth of combustion enhancement technology. Obviously we are addressing that with our literature and products, including our new 'Why >200 MPG is Possible' Pocket Pal. Our literature and fuel saving techniques have been the most practical in the marketplace for over 12 years now.   • Installation videos need to be made and the vote for the first one is the HyCO 2A Technology. It will be awhile before we can address this issue because we already have several projects on the go. We recognize the need and will address it. This will also help relieve the 'installer' issue.   There is an interest in using Water as Fuel, particularly the French 'steam injection' method. Our new 'Water Injection Manual' will really help make this a reality. I'm even hiding a hint in the Manual that may be a clue as to how the French patent worked. I'll expand on it when I write the "Steam Injection Manual'.   Opps, ... in reviewing the Chat text, I see I did not answer everyone's questions during the Chat. Please forgive me, I did not have my answering 'technique' down.   See the Chat at: http://www.eagle-research.com/chat/archive/2001_11.php   Second Installation Stage Of Fuel Saver Technology On A Honda: See previous newsletter for first stage.   My wife's Honda now has a fuel filter and fuel pressure regulator installed. This took a total of 0.5 hour (hood up to hood down) for the installation and cost about $40. I used a Purolator fuel pressure regulator and a common transparent plastic fuel filter. I installed them so that they are easily seen and adjusted when I open the hood.   The fuel filter is installed before the fuel pressure regulator to protect both the fuel pressure regulator and the carburetor. A lot of OEM fuel filters have a 'bypass' function that allows the fuel to bypass the filter, if the filter is dirty enough to be 'plugged'. With the transparent filter, I can see if the filter is getting dirty and change it.   With the fuel pressure regulator, I am able to set the fuel pressure to 0.5 psi (down from almost 10 psi that the electric fuel pump delivered) and enough fuel is provided for full power, even climbing mountains. I set the pressure down by 0.5 psi at a time, starting at 3 psi and running the vehicle in actual driving conditions for awhile between each adjustment.   EPA mileage rating for this car is 30 mpg city and 34 mpg highway. The car has never gotten so low mileage. With everything adjusted to OEM specifications and no fuel saving technology applied, it gets 32 mpg city and 36 mpg highway.   When I added the fuel pressure regulator I noticed an immediate mileage jump. It went to 34 mpg city and to 38 mpg highway.   The fuel pressure regulator really helped a 'float bowl flooding' problem that this particular carburetor had. The needle valve for the 'auxiliary' fuel system (for the 'pre-combustion' chamber) was chronically leaking and flooding. The lower O-ring would go bad and the fuel would bypass the needle valve completely. Since installing the fuel pressure regulator I have noticed only an occasional and minimal flooding problem.   Float bowl flooding is a typical cause of poor mileage when using carburetors. All carburetor inlet needle valves leak at some time, reducing the fuel pressure helps mitigate this problem. We absolutely need to reduce float bowl flooding or as we add fuel savers, we will get NO gain. =====================================================

FREE ENERGY COMMENTS (top)

  I copied this post from the 'supercarbs egroup' About 3 years ago Jock Laurie from Adalaide was showing his electric to the public that recharged itself. It had three sets of batteries. At any given time, one set ran the car while the others where being recharged from rear wheel mounted generators. The car was a converted Suzuki Hatch back.   The trick he employed and patented was a temperature anomaly point at which the batteries require less charge capacity than they are to deliver as discharge capacity. For this he had redesigned the batteries. I assume that he fitted peltier elements in them.   In the newspaper article from the Advertiser which showed a photo of Jock with his car as he was driving from Adelaide to Sydney and back (3000km) with no recharge, a professor from Adelaide University stated that the principle used has been known to science since the early 1900's. At the time Jock was an unemployed Electrician living on a trailer park. Since his phone number was shown on the side of the car, i gave him a ring. He told me that he already had several offers from overseas, one being for the sum of 50 million Dollers, but he wants the car to be built in Australia.   Next thing there was a clip on a current affairs program about him, showing him having driven his car with the headlights on all night through the Adelaide Hills with a french delegation of investors following him in his tow.   To cut a long story short, last time I rung Jock on his cell phone, he was living in Adelaide's most exclusive suburb and he said to me:"What electric car? I don't know what you are talking about.   So much for "There is no such thing as free energy"   Uli Kruger    Dear readers, I have heard this 'recharge' while driving story a lot of times. This is an interesting rumor because it gives a possible reason why it'd work and enough facts to check the accuracy of the story. Anyone want to follow up? =====================================================

BROWN'S GAS NEWS (top)

    Some people who wanted to attend the November Brown's Gas meeting scheduled personal time with us and flew up anyway. These consultations are proving very fruitful and the Watertorch Collective is growing, both in membership and productivity. We are accomplishing our goals of promoting Brown's Gas and making money from the technology.   The amount of information that is pouring in and research that we are accomplishing is staggering. We are finding new uses for the gas and are designing equipment to take advantage of those uses.   Our next generation of machines and technology will be unveiled at the April meeting. Also to be unveiled will be our newest opportunities to make money with Brown's Gas technology. A world of opportunity opens up with our new, low cost, super-efficient machines. =====================================================

READER COMMENTS (top)

  >My name is Lawrence Miller. I share your vision of independence, >knowledge, and resources. I hope to follow your work and hope to build and >test the fuel savers. I plan to start with water vapor injection on a 1996 >GEO Metro with a throttle body fuel injection.   I recommend liquid water injection in fuel injected vehicles. Vapor injection may be seen as a vacuum leak by the MAP sensor, the computer will then spray excess fuel out the injectors because it thinks the engine is under load. ---------------   > Hi George, > >What you are doing about Brown's gaz is very great and >I have a lot of respect about what you are doing but I >think, that time for duel saving and all those things >are part of the past, we must ultimately focus our >mind , energy and détermination on electricity >production as several does and especialy Don Smith. > >There is so much to do, and to understand, making fuel >saving in the wrong system who are done to consume >more energy is really not the solution any more. > >we absolutely need a vast and deep paradygm shift at >all levels of our being and thinking. > >It is my humble point of view. > >Truly yours, > >Michel   We are working hard on the solutions you mention and not limited to the technology of Don Smith. I am in full agreement that new, environmentally compatible energy sources is where the future focus must be.   However, there are over 500,000,000,000 vehicles in the world that run on internal combustion based on fossil-fuel and they have an existing infrastructure to support them. They are polluting our planet NOW and (in my opinion) any practical thing we can do to partially relieve that problem is a right and proper thing to do.   Even if there were a practical free energy system made public today, it would take decades to actually implement. The 'inertia' of the existing infrastructure is just that big. The fact is, there isn't a practical free energy system in the public domain yet. So, in my opinion, helping save billions of tons of pollution RIGHT NOW makes sense.   I also catch criticism for not producing a 200 mpg fuel system. Instead I sell techniques that only double mileage. I am a self-employed inventor, I need to produce what will actually sell. I can make and sell practical fuel saving technology that doubles mileage. The extreme mileage technology (while possible) is far too expensive and I would starve to death waiting for someone to buy one. The lesser fuel savers sell well, help our customers with practical solutions, feed me and finance continued research, including the energy alternatives that you suggested. ---------------   >Hi George, >find your "what's do able now" very valuable. Weaving what we see now >with what we dream and vision makes for great futures for us all. >Regarding "the value of Lee": >First time I ever saw browns gas demonstrated. WOW! (fortunately I did not confuse Browns Gas with Lee)   He is a great speaker.   >Saw a room of 900 to 1200 people thinking "new energy" is possible. Is >this it?   Is Brown's Gas a possible free energy technology? Perhaps. I haven't done it yet :)) but as I've pointed out in my last newsletter, it looks possible.   >Experienced hundreds of engineers in the room talking on the break and > being excited that all this didn't look all that complicated. Some saying, >"Hey, this isn't so hard. I could do something like this, too."   Dennis makes it seem easy. He does not fully disclose the facts.   >True disappointment is being seeded by this guy. But the $100,000,000 >he has stolen from the capital pot is only a teaspoon at the oceans edge.   Give us $100,000,000 and see what can really be done. I resent that my actual hardware doesn't bring in the bucks like his talk. However, I 'm very happy with my reputation of a man that delivers what he promises.   >For me his integrity never passed the test. But the excitement of 10,000 >and 100,000 people beginning to believe, if only until Lee showed his true >color, that alternative zero-point energy is coming. And coming very soon, >is a value.   Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect. That people are dreaming is good, but when people are expecting actual hardware and then the hardware never arrives, it causes anger and resentment against the actual technology. I know because when I then present actual working technology, people won't listen to me. Dennis is destroying the dream, not building it.   This is why I think he may be in the employ of 'vested interest'. If not directly, then indirectly. I think he is allowed to continue as he does because he is causing people to think the technologies are frauds by presenting a dream and then never delivering. This dries up funding for the true researchers and acts as a 'counter-technology' publicity campaign for the 'vested interest' at NO cost to them.   >You asked. Here is a possible answer. I know this was not what you were >looking for. Things, products, even "free energy" maybe. But then off beat >thought does produce new ways of finding value and energy in unusual > places. >Respectfully, >Dafydd Nicholas   True, that's what we do here at Eagle-Research. Thanks for the thoughts :)) =====================================================

COMING UP (top)

  February/2002 will feature Free Energy   April/2002 will feature Water as Fuel   June/2002 will feature Water Injection (skipped due to work over-load while setting up manufacture for the ER1200 WaterTorches.) *****************************************************

If you know someone whom you believe would like to be subscribed to this unique newsletter; invite them to view:   www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/newsletter.php   emails to: < newsletter@eagle-research.com > are automatically bounced except if a subscribe or unsubscribe because all those emails are automatically routed to a robot program with no one reading them, so you'd get no answer. We wouldn't even know you'd written.   To email Eagle-Research: < >

PROVEN RESULTS ON FILE FAIR MARKETING DISCLAIMER TESTIMONIAL DISCLAIMER Eagle-Research advocates fair marketing practices in all endevours.  Therefore, in support of government efforts to protect the common good, we have created these icons (left).   Statements on this page may be subject to any or all of these self-policing icons.   Click on the icons for detailed information.
Do you really need a car?
 
Think Different
Spider Search
Powered Search 
Get Firefox 2 Get Adobe Reader