At 03:42 PM 1/12/2013, Alex wrote:
This second link says much about the possibilty of this microwave motor.
But in the end I am not really able to try it, because once they
were speaking about electrolysis from water into hydrogen then about
splitting water with microwaves and then about making steam with
microwaves and this should give a overunity.
BUT what is the Conclusion in the end?
Because I want to convert a internal combustion engine which uses
petrol as fuel to use hydrogen. Well that is possible with a
elecrolysis engine. But what about the steam generated by a magnetron?
I dont want some fake answers, just answers which are correct.
How about "there is no answer there"? Is that correct?
The idea described does not use water as a fuel, it uses water as a
"working fluid." The water described is vaporized by microwave
energy, supplied by a magnetron. There was no evidence provided that
any energy was released over what was put in, electrically, by the
magnetron. There were, though, some possibly confused or confusing statements.
It's a fancy kind of electric motor. As was ultimately described, you
could, if you wanted, recycle the water. If the steam is allowed to
exit the cyclinder on the return of the piston, with new water (as an
atomized mist, presumably) sprayed into the cylinder for the next
cycle. The exhaust water need be cooled only enough that it
condenses, and if the water entering the cylinder is hot, it would
take less energy to vaporize it.
However, TANSTAAFL. There will be waste heat, and any energy
converted to work by the piston must come from the magnetron.
A little more below.
Discussion: microwave motor.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/magnet.html
When other users asked the message-poster "Tim Chandler" whether
his claim was a joke, he stopped posting...
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U?
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
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.
Actually, Tim Chandler posted again, 20 July, 1996.
>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...
[...]
Tim
May 13, Rick Monteverde had written:
[...] 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. [...]
Before that, Tim Chandler had written:
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.
This is a striking claim. From other discussion and a report of a
phone conversation with Tim, they used a "magnatron," note the
spelling difference. This ignition device generates an impulse of
power from rotation of a permanent magnet or magnets past a coil. If
the engine actually ran and maintained rotation even without load,
this would be a remarkable achievement, apparently violating
conservation of energy. (Some energy must be lost in heating of the
components, so the available energy to "recycle" would decline.
Unless there was other energy storage (or supply) in the system,
continuing to run at the same rotational rate (or increasing) would
demonstrate a perpetual motion machine. Rick's suspicion was
well-founded (whether true or not).
It appears that the schematic was never posted.
May 4, Tim Chandler had posted:
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 did have to make quite extensive modifications on the ignition coil of
the Briggs & Stratton engine we used, inorder to keep it running
continuously. [...] These modifications took use about 2 weeks to
get right before the engine
would fire/run continuously.
[...]
As for being overunity, ours surely was not, but I suppose it could be done.
He claims continuous running, but not "over-unity." Because there
would be losses due to friction, transfer of heat from the magnetron
impulse to exhaust and the engine walls, and heating of the
electronic components, and if it ran continuously, without energy
input, it would indeed be "over unity."
His signature gave affiliations:
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 [munged] |
o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
With an MS in Physics, I'd certainly expect Mr. Chandler to recognize
the implications of what he had written.
There is a Timothy A. Chandler listed in a bulletin of Tau Kappa
Epsilon, Spring 2012, as having donated $500 or more, lifetime
accumulation. There is a TKE fraternity at George Mason University. I
was not able to find anything other than some posts with the same
signature block as above, from a few months earlier. The trail is
cold. The posts were 16 years ago.
Essentially, he contradicts himself, but we could imagine that he
didn't know what "over unity" meant.
I see that Bill Beaty wrote this:
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.
Great minds think alike.
Tim responded:
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.
Yes, Tim gave correct analytical details, as far as I can see. He went on:
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 [...]
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.
Okay. Properties that violate the laws of thermodynamics? Water
either has stored energy or it doesn't. He says "doesn't," but then waffles.
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.
If course it does. The magnetron pumps energy into the water, causing
a state change.
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.
Yes. It absorbs energy from the EM wave. He then goes into a complex
explanation of this.
[...] 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.
Yes. Like, say, fusion, or hydrinos, or zero point energy, or gremlins or ...
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.
The first. Any excess energy, output exceeding input, is over unity.
We usually mean, by overunity, that there is an excess power
generated by the device, over what it takes to run the device. Usage
may vary, but technically a gasoline-powered engine is "over unity,"
if it runs, that is! The excess energy is chemical in origin. The
online dictionary gives the definition:
The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical
device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.
He then wrote, being very specific:
(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. [...].
Indeed. Remember, the guy allegedly has an MS in physics. Did this
engine run continuously?
He went into detail about the ignition source, how it requires no
battery. And then:
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?
If the energy is being extracted from water, sure, water would be the
fuel. But, earlier, he accepted the description of water as a
"working fluid." He's making a spurious argument about the water
being necessary for the engine to run. The source of energy for your
air conditioner is not the "working gas/fluid," it is the electrical
or motor power that runs it. In the *described* motor, if it does run
continuously, there must be a power source. But why would we make
that the water? Why not the magnetron itself, maybe *it* is running
over-unity. Once we have an apparent violation of the laws of
physics, why would we focus on the working fluid? Maybe a plasma is
being formed in the cylinder, and it is somehow extracting zero-point
energy. Or whatever we want to make up.
However, with no demonstration, no actual experimental documentation,
we have about zero reason to think this possible. We have someone
claiming to be a physicist, and who does show some knowledge of
physics, who seems to not realize the issues. No wonder the question
about "joking" was asked. Since the signature appeared to be a real
name signature, I looked for the person. I saw no clear sign that the
individual who wrote to Bill's list existed outside of a few posts to
a different discussion list, a few months before.
Now, I'd better find my tinfoil hat, since maybe the Men in Black got
to him. Poor fellow. All he did was blab about what he'd done years before.
Alex, there is about zero chance that the engine actually ran. But
not *zero*. Maybe the Men in Black are holding him in a secret camp
in the Nevada desert. Trying something like this can be an education
in physics and engineering. Do it for fun, if you want to do it. Be
careful. Some of this could be dangerous. Especially if the Men in
Black find out.
Chandler was asked how long it ran on the "battery." That person was
asking in response to a post that had not yet explained that they had
replaced the battery. Chandler did not respond to the *real
question,* which was how long the thing ran.
[...] So we
really had no battery, to go dead, the power was generated and used...
He then said he'd spoken with the person who had designed the
ignition system, and he'd get back to post the schematic.
Chandler never answered the question about how long the engine ran.
Something he did not mention: how was the engine *started*? Starting
an engine, especially if it has a flywheel attached, can give it a
fair amount of energy, so it might not just stop dead, it would
continue turning for a while.
Dead end. As far as we know, the schematic never showed.
See Bill's advice for inventors. Don't shut down an "amazing free
energy device" that seems to work until you have *thoroughly*
documented it. Famous last words: "Gee, it worked last month, and all
we did was improve the ignition system!" Or whatever. Lack of full
control (i.e., applied knowledge) of the experimental conditions has
been the bane of cold fusion.
