||Available in HTML @: www.eagle-research.com/newsletter/archive/2003/2003_04.php
EAGLE-RESEARCH NEWSLETTER: April, 2003
WHAT'S NEW Issue Feature: H.E.A.T. Technology 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) With the rise in gas prices, fuel saving has become more important in people's minds. The increased order volume combined with supplier delays and training new people has caused a few delays in shipping orders. We have spent time and money increasing our inventory and training more people. We have only the EFIE device backordered and it will be taken care of in the next couple of weeks. Thank you for your patience as we worked this out.
I have been having work done on our Gravity Wheel project. It is nearly completed but will now be put on the shelf until we move our shop. Our lease was up and the landlord wants to use the space in other ways. It will take a couple of months to build up a larger inventory (WaterTorches mostly), move the shop and then rebuild inventory. Then we'll have time to complete the Gravity Wheel.
(3) The last Chat, talking about H.E.A.T. Technology, is posted at: http://www.eagle-research.com/chat/chat.php In the next Chat we'll be talking about air powered vehicles.
Issue Feature: H.E.A.T. TECHNOLOGY (top)
Everyone seems to agree that the world's environment is changing. Here are a few reference links: http://www.climate.org/ http://www.pewclimate.org/
There seem to be three views:
#1 The environment normally changes and the recent changes are not the result of our pollution. #2 The environment normally changes and the recent changes are partially the result of our pollution. #3 The environment normally changes but not this fast and the recent changes are the result of our pollution. Based on research I've done, I think in view #3. I think the most #2 people will sway to #3 as more evidence is gathered and the situation continues to get worse because inadequate action is being taken. I think there will always be #1 people. I've met people who still believe the world is flat. Burning fossil-fuel is changing our environment. We no longer have to worry about running out of fossil-fuel; If we were to burn all that we now know exists, there is enough to totally pollute the planet. The issue is that we are taking carbon that the planet has 'stored' over billions of years and are putting it all into the atmosphere in a matter of a couple of centuries. This will change the climate of the world into 'who really knows what?' The scenarios I've seen are not inviting. Our worry now is, "How are we going to survive?" The planet will survive us, that is not an issue. The issue is that we may be changing the environment into something that WE cannot survive in. It is happening and will continue to get worse unless we can stop putting trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. We will be OK, but our children's children are going to be living (or dying) with the choices we make today. Note: Burning 'bio-fuel' does not put excess carbon into the atmosphere. For example, burning a tree will release exactly the same carbon that the tree took from the air as it grew. To stop the pollution caused from burning fossil-fuel, we first need to answer the question "How much power do we need to replace fossil-fuel?" I did a search online (I love the Internet) and found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/sep/us/frame.php In 1999 the USA used 80.8 Quadrillion BTU of fossil-fuel. All other alternatives (including nuclear) accounted for 14.7 'Quads'. To stop using petroleum as fuel today, we need to be able to produce 80.8 'Quads' with some other alternative. This is just to maintain our civilization at it's current economic level. So the second question we need to ask is "Where is the energy going to come from?". At the moment, the most viable alternative I see is nuclear power. I'm not going to discuss pro-con on nuclear right now, I'm torn about this issue myself. I do not like the danger of radioactivity and potential explosions. On the other hand, recent innovations in reactor design are much safer and (I think) viable. I also know that Brown's Gas (proven by Canadian Government testing) can neutralize radioactive waste in seconds, inexpensively, safely and right at the reactor. Eagle-Research is actively trying to answer the "where" energy question by researching eco-friendly energy alternatives which seem to be ignored by conventional science. We are looking at potential energy sources like gravity, ambient heat and ambient electricity. We are a small organization with limited resources. Yet we are proving that common sense and innovation can achieve large results. First, in the process of researching energy alternatives, we are rethinking the way energy is currently used. This results in 'spin-off' innovations which dramatically increase efficiency. Another organization that is specifically looking for ways to increase the efficiency of energy use is Rocky Mountain Research Institute: http://www.rmi.org/ L. Hunter Lovins and Amory B. Lovins have my deepest respect for their wonderful work. Their suggestions and advice are based on facts and are applicable with technology available 'off-the-shelf'. They 'coined' the word 'NegaWatts' to account for energy saved. If you can do the same work for 500 watts that you used to take 1000 watts to do; then you have saved 500 watts. This means that the power plant that was putting out 1000 watts now only has to put out 500 watts; yet can still produce 1000 watts. You have just increased the ability of the power plant to do work, without increasing its size; thus NegaWatts instead of MegaWatts. Rocky Mountain Research Institute does not yet know of Eagle-Research innovations. Eagle-Research has 'spin-off' applications are viable NOW and available for anyone who wants to use them. You CAN significantly increase the mileage of your vehicle. You CAN replace torch fuel-gasses with a gas made from water and electricity. You CAN reduce your electric and heating bills. You CAN supply all your own energy without being hooked to the 'Grid'. Second, we are finding 'spin-offs' that are most practical if applied at an OEM level. It is possible to eliminate 'phantom loads' from electronic appliances (wastes billions of watts). Build electric appliances, (like arc welders), that will do the same work with half the power. Build furnaces that produce the same heat output with half the energy input. Build homes that use 10X less energy to keep warm and cool. Build vehicles that go 10X further on the same energy input. All of these alternatives help answer the "where" question by reducing the need for 80.8 Quadrillion BTU. Third, we are finding energy alternatives that are practical RIGHT NOW, mostly using components and technology that is right 'off-the-shelf'. One of these is our subject for today: H.E.A.T. Technology Traditionally, thermodynamic cycles require large temperature differences to achieve reasonable thermodynamic and engine efficiency. These traditional ways of producing power are unable to take advantage of the huge energy potentials available in small temperature differences. H.E.A.T. stands for Heat Energy Available Today. It addresses technology for making thermodynamic cycles/machines/apparatus that make practical power from small temperature differences. H.E.A.T. technology is the name we use for research done specifically by Eagle-Research. Other researchers have other names for similar technologies. There are many places in the world that are beginning to use similar technology. These links are for research only, we are not endorsing any of them. Example websites donated by Marcus and Gary: http://cooltech.iafrica.com/science/219667.htm http://www.xenesys.com/english/news.php http://www.nrel.gov/otec/ http://www.infinite-energy.com I have heard rumors of large prototype power plants based on gathering energy from ocean temperature differences being built in Australia and Hawaii. Eagle-Research is dedicated to making practical energy alternatives applicable to individual home owners. H.E.A.T. Technology seems to be reasonably practical right now. By 'reasonable' I mean, with only a small investment in research to make it practical, 'off-the-shelf' technology already exists to build the apparatus at a reasonable cost. And its 'cost per watt generated' will be comparable or better than existing solar-cell technology. A big advantage is that it will make power day or night and in any weather conditions. This technology is applicable anywhere you can get a consistent temperature difference of at least 20°F. It would be applicable as a 'bottoming' cycle to increase the efficiency of normal furnaces/power plants by using the 'waste' heat to make power. It is also applicable when you have any kind of waste (preferably bio-waste) that you can burn to make heat. It would work very well with solar parabolic. H.E.A.T. Technology also works with ambient/environmental heat differences; such as the difference in temperature between water in a lake and air above the lake. This example is particularly good because many places in the world use water reservoirs for both fresh water supply and for power generation. A current problem is that when water is used for hydropower, it is no longer available to be used as fresh water because it 'dropped' to a lower level and no longer has gravity pressure to provide the water pressure. If you use a pumps to 're-pressurize' the water, you end up using more electricity than you gained by 'dropping' the water in the first place. So cities in places like California are buying power from Canada, so that they can keep their water for drinking. This is where H.E.A.T. Technology can really help. There is much more potential energy in the 'temperature' of water than there is in the kinetic potential. If you drop 1 liter of water 10 meters (the height of a typical dam), you get 98 joules. If you lower the temperature of the water by 1°C, you get 4184 joules. You can generate power while leaving the water in the reservoir. The water is still available for fresh water use. The keys to making H.E.A.T. systems practical are: 1) Find and/or develop a thermodynamic cycle that will operate efficiently with a temperature difference of only 20°F. 2) Develop an engine that will operate efficiently on above cycle. A very important thing that we have discovered in our research is that any thermodynamic cycle that uses phase change is too inefficient to apply H.E.A.T. technology. Huge amounts of heat flow through the system that are used exclusively to change the fluid's state. That's why we've been researching single phase cycles; like the Sterling cycle. Our research led us to develop a new thermodynamic cycle we call the 'Wise Cycle'. It is a single phase gas cycle that puts the (single phase inert) expanding/contracting gas (like nitrogen) in direct contact with heat exchange fluids, thereby reducing inefficiencies, expenses and time delays caused by temperature drops across heat exchangers. The Wise Cycle is our best thinking (at the moment) and is how we're going to proceed with our experimentation. One of the reasons we chose where we live now is because it is next to a large and deep lake. We hope to be able to power the entire valley from heat stored in the lake. There will be no significant environmental impact because water can 're-warm' itself quickly and efficiently from solar, air and ground. The 'Wise Cycle' and an engine designed to operate on it are described in the 'Wise Cycle Report'. We have not yet built a model to test. When we do build the engine, it will be a prime mover. Heat from the environment will cause the engine to turn (the fuel). The engine can turn a generator to make electricity. It could also pump water from a lower level to a higher level to 'store' the potential energy. It can also directly power a heat pump, heating or cooling a home. The greater the temperature difference between the air and water, the greater the potential power production of the H.E.A.T. power plant. So as the air gets hotter (and people turn on air conditioning), the power plant can generate more power. And as the air gets colder (and people turn on heating), the H.E.A.T. power plant can generate more power.
FUEL SAVER NEWS: (top)
We are continuing to upgrade the original versions of our books to the newer format. We expect that it'll take a couple of years. I'm a great inventor and a poor writer; so Tenaj (a very accomplished editor) is having to wade through lots of ____ to make my writing and presentation readable. Those of you,who are buying our newer books, will see the difference between them and the originals. I doubly appreciate her editing because she is taking time from her own (very important) work to do this favor for us. Next Stage Of Fuel Saver Technology On The Honda We still have not completed the next stage. I'm getting readers that say "If you can't get it done, then what chance have I?" This is a very good point. As anyone else, I'm a very busy man. I'm the president of three small businesses, wearing all the 'hats', preparing for and looking after several projects, dealing with at least 100 emails a day, trying to do at least a couple of hours of writing, trying to get some research done on several projects and still get time for 'ordinary' home life. So I've needed to find ways to balance/prioritize all that needs to be done in ways that gets it done. One way is to delegate projects to others, assuming they already have the knowledge of how to do it or I have time to train them. Another way is to schedule time (on a consistent basis) to particular projects; obviously working on a priority basis. In this case, the Honda has a low priority in our lives, it costs us about $25/month in fuel. We are upgrading the fuel system because it can be done (we know how) and should be done (for the planet). I am detailing the progress here because it shows the steps we recommend our customers to take. This delay also shows one of the advantages of our technology. You can install the projects over an extended time with no loss of vehicle use. So, to report, we're in the process of building a Carburetor Enhancer, with electronic upgrade, and a HyZor system for the Honda. The man I delegated the project to went on a trip for over 4 weeks. Before he left, we had accumulated all the components except the HyZor chamber itself and had assembled the electronic circuits on test boards, ready for debugging and adjustment. Once past that stage, we hardwire the circuit on a board and assemble everything in the car. =====================================================
FREE ENERGY COMMENTS (top)
Alternative Energy Institute has done an excellent job finding resources of interest to anyone interested in energy alternatives. Their latest newsletter 'quick links' are available at: http://www.altenergy.org/ -------- WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Jan 03 Washington, DC 1. FREEDOM FUEL: CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush ranked promoting "energy independence while dramatically improving the environment" as one of his top goals. In addition to "clear skies" legislation that would mandate a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over 15 years, Bush proposed $1.2B in research funding for the Freedom Car "powered by hydrogen and pollution free." But where will the hydrogen come from? 95% of the hydrogen currently produced in the U.S. comes from steam methane reforming, a catalytic process that also produces copious quantities of CO2. No green points there. What about electrolysis? It's not as efficient, but the only bi-product is oxygen. Oops, 65% of our electric power is generated by burning fossil fuel; no green points there either. Hydroelectric dams are being torn down to save the rivers, and other renewables are not up to it. Turn to nuclear? Whoa! The public is terrified by nuclear fission. But what about fusion? 2. ITER: SPENCER ABRAHAM DISCOVERS A HYDROGEN WELL. In a speech yesterday at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Secretary of Energy Abraham officially announced that President Bush has decided the United States will join negotiations on ITER. It's not like we haven't been there before (WN 2 Oct 98). "Fusion power," the Secretary said, "produces no troublesome emissions, it is safe, and has few, if any, proliferation concerns. It creates no long-term waste problems and runs on fuel readily available to all nations. Moreover, fusion plants could produce hydrogen...our ultimate freedom fuel...to power hundreds of millions of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the U.S. and abroad." In short, it's the greenest program of them all. And better yet, fusion is nowhere near working. Detroit can go right on making humongous gas-guzzling SUVs, while building a couple of fuel-cell concept cars on government grants as a hedge, just in case we have a breakthrough in fusion. Meanwhile, the President gets to wear green. All this for a measly $1.2B spread over five years. --------- Thanks to: http://www.mediaresource.org/news.shtml for the source of this story U.S. AND EUROPE IN FUEL CELL PACT from The New York As part of the Bush administration's recent high-profile push to develop hydrogen as the fuel of the future, the Energy Department and the European Union agreed yesterday to start a cooperative effort aimed at bringing hydrogen-powered cars and electricity generated from fuel cells to market over the next two decades. But important differences emerged in their approaches to the energy technology, largely driven by a much greater urgency in Europe than in the United States to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases scientists say contribute to global warming. The European Union, for instance, plans to derive significant quantities of hydrogen from water using renewable energy sources, while the Bush administration is focusing on experimental coal technology. More significant, the European Union has set aggressive goals, including a plan to replace 20 percent of the fuel now used to run vehicles with alternative energy sources by 2020, while the Bush administration has not. The European Union also plans to develop the hydrogen technology while trying to reduce gasoline consumption now by sharply tightening vehicle fuel efficiency standards, an effort that has stagnated for more than a decade in the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/business/worldbusiness/07ENER.php
BROWN'S GAS NEWS (top)
Dear readers, Incredible information continues to come in from around the world about the unique applications of Brown's Gas. In addition to the uses we've already proven and are developing, we now have reports on an application so extraordinary (and politically hot) that I cannot even tell you what it is until we have verified it for ourselves. A very good and competent scientist is now gathering the information to independently verify and produce a preliminary report. Several of our WaterTorch buyers are already experimenting with it. This application's potential is so beneficial that every home will want a Brown's Gas electrolyzer to take advantage of it. We hope to be able to tell you more by the next newsletter.
READER COMMENTS (top)
Here is a link to an article sent in by a reader who says "interesting link". I think a couple of the statements are skewed a bit but the point of view seems valid to me. If you are interested on what may be the real reason the USA went to war, you might want to print this one out. http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?PID=1181 ---------------- >After reading some of the theory behind your devices, I as a layperson, >would really like to believe they work. Your website provides > "testimonials"by untraceable individuals, and your products are not > patented. Your website notes," We believe that writing books insures that > these energy-saving technologies will be secured public knowledge, and >that our patent-free philosophy promotes increasingly better energy > solutions." > This is plausible and again I want to believe, but patented devices free for > public use are not uncommon, and patents are not usually granted items > that don't work at least to some degree. That's very untrue. I've discovered from long experience, most patents in the field of fuel savers and alternative energy don't work. They may have a valid point or two but are 'designed' to not work, to 'protect' the inventor. Patents cost money and time. Since I'm telling people exactly how to do the projects a patent is redundant. > Un-patented and/or non-working products are all too common these days >and careful consumers must research - somewhat more than >in days past - anything they intend to put money or time into. Very true. >What would for me, increase the believe-ability quotient would be the > names and phone numbers of two Canadian residents; people who are >currently using your devices successfully, and are willing to testify to >their utility. Do this and I will sing the praises of Eagle Research to all > those who will listen, and, I will purchase product. >Regards; G.Lacoste You have no idea what you are asking. Remember that I'm a single inventor dealing with thousands of customers. Just maintaining this business takes all my time. I do not give out peoples names/contact information without their express written permission, which I need to keep on file by law. I've been investigated over7 times by government agencies and MUST follow the law very carefully. I intend to hire someone to go through all my testimonials and put something like you ask together. This takes time that I haven't got, so it's been delayed for years. I want to do it; when is the big question. In the meantime those people who trust enough to try are keeping me busy. If you want unbiased opinion on my technologies. Log onto Yahoo's egroup 'supercarbs' and ask them. -------------- >Hi Mr. Wiseman, > >I spoke with you a number of years ago about Brown's gas. Suffice it to >say I've had some experience with the gas (I'm NOT involved with anything >to do with Dennis Lee or that bunch). > >I wanted to ask this question...with all the interesting aspects >associated with the gas, and with the commercial possibilities, why in the >heck has nothing really happened? Is it because Brown kind of turned >things over to Lee, who was so over-the-top and their machines were junk, >or is it merely that no one has thrown a few million into this? >I can't imagine someone hasn't, at some point, put in a large chunk of >money into investigation of the gas...has that ever really been done to >your knowledge? Do you think that's the reason it still hasn't gotten much >further than a novelty? All of the above and much more. I could write a whole book on this (and am in the process of doing so). To answer your question, the main issues are: 1) The marketing that has been done has been a comedy of errors. It seems that the technology has had every possible form of bad marketing technique. We are developing proper marketing programs to teach people about the technology and its fabulous uses. 2) Although much testing (of the gas) has been done, it has been kept secret and/or suppressed. We are doing everything in our power to unveil and/or duplicate the testing so that we can make it public domain. We have only scratched the surface and what we are finding out is astonishing. 3) Tens of millions of dollars have been invested (in machine design) by several major companies. But they were investing in technology that has been around for 150 years. It is difficult to market those noisy, heavy, big, inefficient and unreliable machines. Electrolyzer technology needed a complete 'rethink' from the ground up. We have invented machines that are small, quiet, super-efficient, reliable and user-friendly. >You say you've come up with a better mousetrap as far as the efficiency of >your machine, is that right? Very very right :)) >Rik Wahlrab ----------- >George, >I guess you have seen this? Will you comment in a forthcoming newsletter? >http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/genesis_world_energy.htm >Ian le Cheminant These people are making extraordinary claims that I cannot confirm or deny. In short, they seem to be saying that they can split water with significantly less energy than it normally takes. If they have what they are implying, it could solve the world's energy problem in a single stroke. They are not supplying data that can be checked. There is no independent testing of the apparatus. They do not have a single product available to the public. They claim to have hundreds of scientists associated with the development of the technology, and not one single scientific fact is made public to back up their claims. Personally, as a scientist, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with such poor presentation. At Eagle-Research, when we make 'claims', we provide actual working plans and/or apparatus that customers can test/use. I do not see that happening at Genesis. Pictures are not proof, I have lots of very nice pictures of projects that didn't work. I cannot tell you if the technology they have works or not, they have not provided anything that even looks like proof. I would NOT advise investment in Genesis without a verifiable independent apparatus/technology testing report made public. It does not have to say HOW its done, just prove that it does work as claimed. ------------- >Dear George, > I'd like to get on board to reduce my gasoline costs. > Can you refer me to a knowledgeable person who would install a gas > saving device into my car? >Bill Leisner I wish I could. I get asked that a lot. I plan to set up an installer list but just haven't got to it. The new books and videos are quite good. Any local mechanically inclined person could do it. We are not in the fuel saver installing business. I actually invented these technologies for my OWN use, and so many people wanted me to install that I wrote the books to help fill the need. I am going to implement an 'installer training' program but have no idea when I'll be able to.
COMING UP (top)
Aug/2003 will feature Air Powered Vehicles
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: < email@example.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: <