|
|
Newsletter
Invitation:
Postings
to the Archive are listed only on
the Newsletter invitation
page:
These
newsletters are sent only to people
on the Eagle-Research newsletter
list, which is strictly an opt-in
list.
If
you received this email in error you
can unsubscribe using the
instructions at the bottom of this
column. If you wish to communicate
with Eagle-Research, send your email
to:
<
>
If
a friend sent you a copy of this
newsletter and you wish to
subscribe, see instructions at the
bottom of this column.
If
you know someone who you believe
would like to be subscribed to this
unique newsletter; invite them to
view:
www.eagle-research.com
/newsletter/newsletter.html
The
Eagle-Research newsletters are
archived, but the archive listing
will always lag by one issue, to
give subscribers first
view.
Note
that we do NOT give out your
personal information without your
permission. We may allow advertisers
to put ads in this newsletter, but
only those that support the spirit
of the newsletter.
|
.
|
Available
in HTML @:
www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/archive/2002/2002_10.html
EAGLE-RESEARCH
NEWSLETTER: October,
2002
WHAT'S
NEW
Issue
Feature: Gravity
Power
Fuel
Saver news
Free
Energy Comments
Brown's
Gas news
Reader
Comments
Coming
Up
Never
doubt that a small group of
thoughtful citizens can change the
world. Indeed, it is the only thing
that ever has.
-
Margaret Mead -
****************************************************
WHAT'S
NEW (top)
•
The 'Leader of the Pack' Brown's Gas
Meeting in Penticton, BC was
absolutely full and attendees had
lots of fun. WELCOME ABOARD for
those people that have become
WaterTorch Distributors.
•
We have a new Brown's Gas Brochure
and the Brown's Gas Video 3 'See
Water Burn' is impressing people
around the world. It is available in
NTSC and PAL formats
•
The HyCO 2A installation video ' Get
More MPG' is finally finished and
will be shipping out this week. My
sincerest and humble apologies to
all the people who ordered and have
been waiting. It was MY fault, not
the people working with me. They
needed time with me to get it done
and I had precious little to give.
My thanks to all who have been
patient as we got it
done.
The
HyCO 2A video was the result of a
vote that was taken during one of
the Eagle-Research Chats. Tenaj
asked what you would like us to
produce next, she schedualed it and
we got it done. Thank you for your
input, we want to provide what you
need to actually apply our
technologies.
•
We are now starting our third
production run of ER1200
WaterTorches. The torches that are
out in the marketplace are
performing well, all around the
world. We based this design on
practical research that we've done
since 1995, and have the safest,
most practical, efficient and lowest
priced (cost per production
capability) Brown's Gas
electrolyzers on the
planet!
•
The last Eagle-Research Chat
information is at:
http://www.eagle-research.com/chat/chat.html
We'll
be talking about electric vehicles
on the next chat.
=====================================================
|
|
|
|
Issue
Feature:
GRAVITY POWER (top)
I
have not gotten back to my Gravity
Power research as I had planned, so
I'll give you a few tidbits to think
about and (hopefully) get my Gravity
Wheel built sometime this next
spring.
My
'mechanical IQ' is literally off the
scale used to test me (don't be too
impressed, I lack in other areas). I
literally have the ability to
visualize an apparatus, build and
move it in my head, like a 3D
modeling program. This ability only
fails when I'm ignorant of factors
that affect the performance of the
apparatus, factors that my training,
research and experimentation clear
up as I progress from concept to
working model.
Over
the years I've found a lot of
'gravity power' ideas. I've done
enough research in gravity and FE
machines in general to 'see' reasons
why all those machines won't work.
Still, some of the concepts had
merit, when combined with other
ideas. My mechanical ability allowed
me to sift through volumes of
information, fitting concepts
together, like a jigsaw puzzle, till
I conceive machines that I can't
(intellectually) prove won't work.
The next step is to experiment,
seeing if the concepts work in real
life like they do in my mind. If so,
I proceed to a (hopefully) working
model. If not, then I know more for
evaluating previous and subsequent
concepts.
So
far I've conceived of three possible
ways to use gravity as a power
source, with varying degrees of
practicality.
First
is the 'conveyor' that pumps it's
own water by virtue of hydraulics
and vacuum; having a net excess of
torque. This theory and apparatus is
described in my 'Gravity Power'
pocketpal. I have worked out the
math and distributed the pamphlet
for review. So far, no one has found
fault with the math or concept. I
did experiments to prove out my
machine concept and they worked as I
anticipated, there would be excess
torque. I have not built this device
because I think the Gravity Wheel is
more practical.
Second
is the concept detailed in a
previous newsletter:
www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/archive/2001/2001_10.html
Whereby
we use Brown' Gas techniques to
convert water to a gas to rise on
one side of the system (powering a
turbine); then convert the BG back
to water (recovering a significant
portion of the energy required to
convert the water to BG) and then
allowing the resulting water to drop
(via gravity) through a conventional
turbine back into the electrolyzer,
to be turned into BG again. This
concept requires the device to be
hundreds or thousands of feet high,
not very practical for areas that
don't have high mountains and/or
deep water. I have only done
preliminary math on this concept. It
will work in theory.
Third
is the gravity wheel.
In
the early 1990's I started
experiments with balancing weights
and levers, to 'prove' out concepts
that I had. Note: In Jeane Manning's
'The Coming Energy Revolution'
you'll see a picture of me in front
of one of my 'balancing'
experiments.
I
had/have a concept that it would be
possible to build an apparatus that
would have equal weight on both
sides, but more torque on one side,
thus resulting in movement and net
power output. The concept is to move
weights horizontally (in on one side
and out on the other) to achieve
torque. I also wanted the weight
movements to be inherent in the
device, not done by outside energy
input. Moving weights horizontally
requires very little energy and
mostly involves calculation of
resistance and inertia.
My
experiments proved that my original
ideas to accomplish this were
'negative' in that my understanding
of 'balances' and scales was
inaccurate. The concept itself still
seemed intact, but how to accomplish
it?
Years
later, as I looked over some
'gravity wheel' designs (from a
pamphlet I go from Lindsay's Books)
and recognizing why they wouldn't
work, I saw a means to 'swing'
weights from an inner radius (on one
side of the machine) to an outer
radius on the other side of the
machine. I thought this was the
answer till I realized I still had
the 'problem' I found with the
'balancing' experiments; the weights
would swing too far and would
'balance'.
As
months went by and I occasionally
took out this idea and worked it
over, I got the idea to make 'holder
rods' that would prevent the weights
from swinging too far and
(incidentally) actually INCREASE the
torque effect. Once I had worked out
the geometry needed, I built a wheel
with one single weight and measured
the torque every 15 degrees. I used
three different measuring techniques
and consistently found excess
torque.
Further
research on gravity wheels turned up
the 'myth' of the Bessler Wheel,
built hundreds of years ago.
Analysis of all the information I
could find on this wheel convinces
me that I had reinvented this
particular gravity wheel. BTW, all
the pictures of internals of Gravity
Wheels I've seen to date do NOT
match my geometry.
Have
fun with these links to Bessler
Wheel information: http://www.besslerwheel.com
http://www.padrak.com/ine/BESSLER.html
http://www.free-energy.co.uk
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/bessler.htm
http://www.cybrtown.com/~mike/
http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/astro1/jan/default.htm
I
talked about my Gravity Wheel in a
previous newsletter:
www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/archive/2000/2000_12.html
I
am anxious to build my wheel. I
already have acquired all the
components. What I don't have is the
time. To all those that requested
drawings, I will send them, I'm just
not sure when.
The
Brown's Gas project is currently
taking all my time. This is a 'side
effect' of being a one man
operation, doing everything myself.
In this innovation, literally no one
else has my aptitude, knowledge,
experience and expertise. On the
other hand, the advantage of being a
'one man show' is that I can rapidly
develop practical innovations.
Luckily,
I am blessed with help from my
multitalented wife. We found each
other on the Internet in 1997. Since
then, in addition to providing much
joy in my heart, she has (and is
still in the process of) revamping
our businesses so that people are
trained to do things that were
taking our time. Of course, this is
a balance with income, so with more
money eventually comes more time for
me to get back to
research.
Hint:
If you want our projects to get
finished, buy our current literature
and products. You'll enjoy the
product as you finance future
research.
-------------------------------
Copied
from Free Energy egroup
posts:
Objects
have inertia that is directly
proportional to their
mass.
The
principle of equivalence states that
effects of gravity and
inertia
are the same (See Einstein's famous
thought experiment about
the
elevator). Objects with more mass
require a greater force to
accelerate
them because they have more inertia.
Inertia can be
considered
to be the opposition a mass has to a
change in velocity.
Since
the force of gravity is greater for
more massive objects and
this
exactly balances the increased
inertia, all objects will fall at
the
same rate.
You
are thinking of gravity as a force.
It isn't a force. I don't
pretend
to
understand what gravity is, or why
or how it works. But whatever it
is,
it
shows up as a force between two
masses that is proportional to
the
product
of their masses.
That's
Observed Fact About The Universe
number one.
When
you apply a force to a mass, that
mass starts to move. The
acceleration
it experiences is inversely
proportional to the mass of
the
moving
object.
That's
Observed Fact About The Universe
number two.
Put
those two Facts together, and you
find that any object dropped in
a
gravitational
field will be seen to accelerate at
the same rate as any
other
dropped
object. The masses cancel out.
Double the mass and you double
the
force
-- but you also halve the
acceleration per unit force -- the
result:
acceleration
stays the same.
----------------
I
do not know much about this
one...
GURBAKHSH
SINGH MANN (INVENTOR)
S.C.O.-277,Sector-35/D,
CHANDIGARH,(INDIA).
Ph-(0172)660263.
E-mail
:
<gurbakhsh_mann@yahoo.com>
Date:
Sat Sep 15, 2001 5:53am
Subject:
MANN GLOBAL ENERGY
SOLUTIONS
http://www.pugmarks.com/biz/gsmann/
The
three machines invented by me on
dates mentioned against
each
1.
MANN GRAVITY MACHINE (M.G.M.)-
29/10/1997
2.
MANN BUOYANCY MACHINE (M.B.M.)-
29/10/1997
3.
MANN GRAVITY -CUM-BUOYANCY MACHINE
-03/05/2001
---------------------------
=====================================================
|
|
Note:
I drive older vehicles because I
believe in getting everything out of a
vehicle that it is capable of
giving.
There
is a significant environmental cost to
manufacturing a vehicle.
Having
the vehicle on the road for twice as
long saves tons of pollution by only
needing to produce half the new
vehicles.
Jobs
and resources that are now used to
build new vehicles could be used to
maintain the ones already on the
road.
Of
course, vehicles could be designed that
would not break down for hundreds of
thousands of miles, which would free
people and resources for other
purposes.
|
|
FUEL
SAVER NEWS:
(top)
I've
done two HyCO 2A installations to
make the video. One on a Carbureted
and one on a Fuel Injected vehicle.
I haven't actually done an
installation for years, having been
busy on many other projects. I wrote
the books so that people could
install their own HyCO 2A systems. I
used the HyCO 2A Manual and it's
update (as they exist now) to do the
installations. I'm pleased to note
that the instructions seem to be
complete.
People
have been installing HyCO 2A systems
for over 10 years. The application
techniques have come a long way
since then, thanks to the feedback
our customers have given. Thank you
to all of you who did it, figuring
it out from my poor writing :)) I am
currently rewriting the HyCO 2A
Manual, incorporating the update
information into it. At the moment,
the Update is included free with the
Manual and it's costing us extra
money to print.
The
HyCO 2A has proven to be an
excellent pollution reduction
system; which incidentally gets
great mileage gains because it helps
the engine burn the fuel in the
cylinders instead of in the
exhaust.
•
Next Stage Of Fuel Saver Technology
On The Honda
I
did not complete the next stage yet.
I have been entirely consumed by the
ER1200 WaterTorch manufacturing
project. I should have people
trained in the manufacturing and be
back to my research by the end of
the year.
See
archived
newsletters
for previous
stages.
=====================================================
|
|
Eagle-Research
defines 'free energy' as usable
energy that comes directly from the
environment (you did not pay anyone
for it).
Eagle-Research
tends to ignore 'traditional'
sources of free energy such as wind,
solar, water power and geothermal
because such technologies do not
need our innovation. With the
exception of technology that
increases the efficiency of
traditional sources or makes
traditional sources 'more practical'
for people.
We
concentrate on energy sources that
are not yet developed, such as
gravity, ambient heat, ambient
electrical potentials, orgone
energy, etc.
-------
Eagle-Research
defines an 'over-unity' system as a
system that produces more measured
output energy than measured input
energy.
This
does not mean we get 'something for
nothing', it simply means that we
did not measure all the input
energy.
In
some technologies (such as orgone
energy), we do not yet know how to
measure the input
energies.
|
|
FREE
ENERGY COMMENTS
(top)
Dear
Readers,
I've
included a portion from the latest
newsletter from http://www.altenergy.org
they so a pretty good job of keeping
up with events going on in the free
energy world.
Find
out more about the below articles:
http://www.altenergy.org/news/newsletter84/newsletter84.html
(not
active)
Search
AEI's publication archives at:
www.altenergy.org/News/news.html
***********************
THE
GOOD, THE BAD & PATENT
LAW
Inventors
often spend years of their life and
huge amounts of money to get an
invention patented, only to finally
give up in resignation and disgust
at the barriers that an efficient
bureaucracy can put in the way of
anything new.
Small
wonder that some inventors bitterly
decide that mankind is really not
yet ready for their invention, and
that many a good invention, instead
of being used to the benefit of all,
dies with the inventor.
Patent
laws, although made with good
intent, have proven to be inadequate
to provide acceptable protection for
the inventor. For one thing, the
laws are too complicated and the
procedures for examining an
invention and granting a patent too
arbitrary. Read about some of the
difficulties associated with patent
law, recently posted by Josef
Hasslberger, an independent writer,
researcher and philosopher.
**********************
BLAST
FROM THE PAST
Tom
Valone, president of the Integrity
Research Institute, has scheduled a
two-day new energy conference for
November 9 & 10, 2002, in
Washington, D.C.
Among
the prominent new energy researchers
and scientists expected to attend
are David Hamilton, Stephen Greer,
and Gene Mallove. Hamilton, Greer
and Mallove gave excellent
presentations at the legendary First
International Conference on Future
Energy, held in Maryland in 1999.
The Alternative Energy Institute
co-sponsored the conference and
produced a review of the speakers
and topics, including photographs.
Check out
the
COFE symposium on the AEI website
and then book your reservations with
Tom at the Integrity Research
Institute.
***********************
AEI
ALLY SPOTLIGHT: AETHMOGEN
TECHNOLOGIES: NEW ENERGY
SCIENTISTS
New
Zealander Dr. Robert Adams of
Aethmogen Technologies has recently
published several papers that reveal
vital information and discoveries
following many years of intensive
work in the realm of a new dimension
in magnetism.
In
the articles, Dr. Adams covers
magnetism as it relates to the Adams
Aether
Technologies as well as how his
Adams Global Power Technology
relates to Tesla Radiant Energy. The
Adams technologies involve reverse
engineering and impulsive
techniques, which evolved from the
combination of experience gained
from empirical knowledge, intuition
and vision.
*************************
GREENLIGHT
AWARD: PUBLIC CITIZEN
The
Public Citizen‚s Critical Mass
Energy and Environment Program works
to protect citizens and the
environment from the dangers posed
by nuclear power and seeks policies
that will lead to safe, affordable
and environmentally sustainable
energy. They also advocate creation
of an agricultural and food
distribution system that guarantees
safe, wholesome food and are working
to protect the world‚s fragile
water resources.
=====================================================
|
|
Brown's
Gas is defined as: "The mixture of
gasses coming out of an electrolyzer
designed to electrolyze (split)
water and does not separate the
resulting gasses from each
other."
Brown's
Gas is a ratio of about 2 parts
hydrogen to 1 part oxygen and
usually contains a significant water
vapor component.
|
|
BROWN'S
GAS NEWS (top)
Dear
readers, here is some correspondence
from the 'free energy'
egroup:
--------------------------
>>---
In free_energy@y..., George Wiseman
<wiseman@e...>
wrote:
>>We
work hard to dispel the Myth that BG
can power vehicles.
>One
major missing fact is missing from
Bob Parks story.
>How
many joules of electricity does it
take to electrolysise the water.
This
is exactly right. This is where
people have gotten 'taken' in the
past,
because they didn't understand the
relationships between how much
power
it takes to make BG compared to how
much usable power you can get
out
of it. We get such questions a lot.
We work hard to dispel the Myth
that
BG can power vehicles. It is true
that internal combustion engines
run
extremely well on a diet of pure BG
(which is explosive used this
way).
However, with the most efficient
technology I know, the amount of
power
required to produce the BG is still
several times more than the
power
the engine can produce while
operating on BG.
Our
retail machines operate at about 3
watt-hours per liter of Brown's
Gas
STP. This has been independently
tested by a renowned research lab
in
Toronto. This is measuring the TOTAL
power drawn from the wall and
contains
all power supply inefficiencies.
This is considerably more
efficient
than the obsolete technology
promoted by Dennis Lee, which
(according
to my tests) runs close to 6
watt-hours per liter of
BG.
NOTE:
Brown's
Gas can be used to increase the
efficiency of combustion of
carbon
based fuels. This has been well
proven with many studies, many of
them
by NASA. A tiny amount of BG,
created by the engine's alternator
can
improve combustion efficiency so
significantly that the power used is
more
than made up for by the power
gained. Typically this gain was
somewhere
about 5%, not enough to get excited
over. With our
innovations,
people can expect 10% gains; this is
enough to be
interesting.
This technology can increase the
efficiency of external
combustion
too.
>Right.
Converting electrical energy to
mechanical energy by
>electrolyzing
water and then feeding the resulting
hydrogen to an
>internal
combustion engine is always going to
be inefficient because
>of
the heat conversion step. Electric
motors do the job far
more
>simply,
and at very high
efficiency.
Exactly.
Further, although Brown's Gas can be
used to create a very pure
vacuum,
mechanical vacuum pumps (driven by
electric motors) do so several
times
more efficiently. So I add
'potential' applications that simply
use
vacuum, like food dehydration, to
the 'impractical' list.
>So,
while we're dispelling myths about
"Brown's Gas", how about
>dispelling
the persistent myth that it consists
of monatomic hydrogen
>and
monatomic oxygen? Even when pure,
monatomic hydrogen and
oxygen
>are
both *far* too reactive to be stable
at anything approaching
>standard
temperatures and pressures, much
less when mixed with
each
>other.
I'd
love to prove or dispel this myth.
So far, tests have been
inconclusive.
Gas spectrometer does show bumps at
1 and 16, indicating
monatomic
hydrogen and oxygen. We also find a
substantial bump at 18,
(indicating
water moisture) in a gas that was
dried. So far, the only
thing
I can say with certainty is that we
are producing about 30% more
gas
volume than we should, assuming
diatomic hydrogen and oxygen
according
to Faraday equations. 1 liter of
water (from our
electrolyzers)
will make about 1200 liters of BG
STP. Since we cannot
explain
this consistent anomaly, we are
examining any theory we come
across,
without prejudice, till we can
actually find out what's going on.
I
suspect it won't take too much
longer, maybe a year or so.
Brown's
Gas has been used commercially since
the early 1960's, mostly in
the
jewelry industry as micro-torches.
We are the first to make a large
commercially
viable machine, highly efficient and
user-friendly at a
reasonable
cost. So this is the first time
there has been a serious
reason
for testing to find out gas
characteristics. In the meantime,
what
is actually happening doesn't really
matter. What matters is that
it
is practical for our customers,
doing what it is advertised to
do.
>I
am not a part of the conspiracy
suppressing free
>energy.
I hate seeing this pipe dream sold
to people
>who
spend the rest of their lives
chasing ghosts of
>someone
who had free energy. I can give you
stories
>of
people greatly injured by chasing
this pipe dream.
Brown's
Gas gets a lot of negative publicity
because it is being promoted
by
entities that do not fully disclose
it's disadvantages with the
advantages,
generally promoting Myths. We are
doing our best to find the
places
that Brown's Gas is clearly a
superior option to existing market
choices,
then provide the knowledge and
equipment for people to take
advantage
of those opportunities. There are
many astonishing
applications
that are NOT Myths and are being
proven by independent
testing.
>One
other minor point about Brown's gas.
If it really
>implodes.
Why doesn't it stop the piston suck
to the
>top
of the compression stroke and
stop.
That
is a semi-Myth. BG is implosive only
in very specific, nearly
impossible
to achieve situations. Consider it
explosive. After an
explosion,
in a sealed container, there will be
a net vacuum as the
oxygen
and hydrogen convert to water,
reducing volume by about 1800
times.
There has been proposed an
'atmospheric' engine, where BG makes
a
vacuum
in the cylinder and atmospheric
pressure pushes the piston up to
the
head. While this would 'function',
it isn't practical, because the
power
needed to create the BG is many
times more than the power you'd get
out
of the 'implosion'
engine.
NOTE:
A
BG flame burns with what I call a
'net' implosion, creating a
very
long thin flame as it makes a
'tunnel' in the air. The flame is
exploding,
then imploding, on a continuous
basis, creating a net vacuum
that
draws in nearby smoke.
>So-called
"Brown's gas" is nothing more than a
stoichiometric
>H2-O2
mixture.
That
is our position at this time, until
we have proof otherwise.
However,
testing has shown that the available
energy in the gas is higher
than
using bottled H2:O2. Again, an
anomaly we have not figured out but
a
boon for our customers.
>
It's not even a particularly good
for welding, as
>acetylene
yields much more energy per unit
from the breaking of its
>triple
bond.
This
comparison is apples and oranges.
True, acetylene yields (if I
remember
correctly) about 20 times more heat,
(mostly in radiant energy)
per
volume of gas. However, in our
testing, Brown's Gas flame has
several
advantages over any other
carbon-based torch fuel.
Some
examples below:
On
a BTU to BTU basis, BG heats
materials faster and hotter than
acetylene.
BG seems to heat the material
'directly' instead of wasting
large
amounts of radiant heat.
BG
exhaust is pure water (usually
steam), totally nonpolluting and
environmentally
compatible.
BG
does not burn oxygen from atmosphere
(taking operator oxygen) and can
burn
in blind holes or
vacuums.
BG
is created 'on-demand' so no storage
of torch gas bottles is needed.
And,
except for cutting thick iron, no
oxygen bottles are needed either.
Cutting
thin materials can be done with just
the flame, no 'preheat'
oxygen
needed.
BG
can be created at a fraction of the
cost of all bottled torch gasses.
It's
only costs are water and
electricity.
BG
can cut iron faster than acetylene,
using about 30% less
oxygen.
Except
for iron, BG welds far faster and
easier than any other torch gas.
However,
when it comes right down to it, no
torch gas (including BG) can
compete
against electric welding techniques.
People don't weld with
torches
if they have arc.
BG
is a superior TORCH gas, that's why
we call our machines
'WaterTorches'.
Our competition calls their machines
Water Welders,
which
I think causes people to assume
application at which BG cannot
compete.
As a TORCH fuel, BG cuts, solders,
preheats, brazes, flame
drills,
flame polishes, plasma spray, etc.
far faster, cleaner, easier
and
less expensively than ANY other
torch fuel.
So
the statement (above) that BG isn't
particularly good for welding is
true,
in my opinion, but not because of
the energy available by breaking
atomic
bonds (compared to acetylene).
Except for iron, BG actually welds
materials
(like copper, aluminum, cast iron,
quartz, etc.) faster (with
the
same sized torch tips) than
acetylene.
Note:
BG can't make good welds in iron
because it tends to oxidize the
weld.
This disadvantage is actually an
advantage because few people
actually
weld iron with any torch fuel (they
use arc); people use torch
fuels
to CUT iron, where the oxidation
effect of BG causes it to cut iron
faster
than any other torch
gas.
So,
BG is extremely marketable, once we
were able to substantially reduce
the
price of the machines. In addition
to the use as a torch fuel, many
other
practical applications are now being
developed, all because it is
now
affordable.
>
So what makes it different for
"Brown's Gas" vs. regular
electrolysis?
Brown's
Gas electrolysis is usually more
efficient than traditional
electrolysis
because the BG electrolyzers are
designed NOT to separate
the
hydrogen and oxygen. When you
separate the gasses, the very
apparatus
required to do so causes additional
resistance in the machine,
which
lowers efficiency.
Our
electrolyzers use a modified form of
an electrolyzer design called
'bipolar',
where each plate actually produces
both hydrogen AND oxygen,
while
acting as cell separators. This
technique (combined with
Capacitive
Amperage Limiting technology) allows
us to make quiet, simple,
low
cost, smaller, lightweight,
extremely efficient high voltage and
low
amperage
electrolyzers.
>
How many watt hours of energy can be
recovered
>from
a liter of "Brown's
Gas"?
That
depends on the means of energy
recovery and (at this time) is
entirely
standard. Assume using a
stoichiometric 2H2:O2
mixture.
=====================================================
|
|
Dear
readers,
We
appreciate the emails sent to us.
To
keep the newsletter shorter, we
select only a few representative
ones.
Your
comments help us in many ways. We
welcome each and every
one.
Thank
you :)))))
|
|
READER
COMMENTS (top)
>Mr.
Wiseman -
>
>Thanks
for your very informative manuals. A
few paragraphs in the bubbler
>revision
manual caught my eye where you
describe double mileage just by
>venting
the
>pickup's
dual tanks with 1/2" lines up to the
air cleaner. I've removed
>the
tank on my test car and would like
to know where and how you plumbed
>into
the tank. Thanks
>a
lot for your time.
That
was done on a fuel injected vehicle.
Using a simple water heated heat
exchanger, I heated the fuel that
was being returned to the fuel tank
and then took the resulting vapors
into the air cleaner.
I
put the vapor-out hoses in the fuel
tank filler tube (you want the vapor
-out to be as high as possible to
prevent fuel being pulled up), then
I put in a liquid-vapor separator,
then a backfire filter. In some
applications I needed a fuel pump
(signaled with a float switch) to
pump the fuel out of the
liquid-vapor separator. Finally, you
need an electronic air-fuel
controller to cut back on the fuel
used by the regular fuel system when
vapors are available.
This
simple technique often doubled my
mileage. While I don't have a book
specifically on this, the technology
to do it exists in my
books.
--------------------
>George
this looks very similar to your
devices... So I thought I would
>send
it your way for a look see by
you.
>THANKS
for all of you efforts That I never
see.... but know that you do
!
>Marv
http://www.utexas.edu/admin/opa/news/01newsreleases/nr_200101/nr_pollution010108.html
(link has gone )
=====================================================
|
|
|
|
COMING
UP (top)
December/2002
will feature Electric
Vehicles
*********************************************************************
|
   
Copyright
©
1998-2008
Eagle-Research,
Inc.
|
|
