1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 23, 2004 09:27PM
<HTML>What do you think of this ?
From: Pat_Pelletier@mindlink.bc.ca (Pat Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.engr
Subject: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - NEW INVENTION
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:54:05 - 0700
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
I am posting the following for a friend who does NOT have access to Internet.
Comments welcomed.
NOTICE
The prupose of this notice is to place into public domain something which I
invented so that it may be patented and in order to prevent it's use from
being restricted in any way.
The device is an engine in which small quantitites of water are turned into
steam by the use of a magnetron (as found in microwave ovens).
Interested parties may wish to try this test: Place a few drops of water into a clear plastic 35mm film roll holder and put the cap on the film roll holder. Place in a microwave oven and turn the oven on. The 'pop' is the result of the water turning suddenly into steam.
The engine I have invented is far more efficient than any other steam engine because the efficiency of the magnetron in turning water into steam. In fact, the water droplet 'explodes' very much like air/gasoline explodes in a conventional internal combustion engine.
This engine was first tested in 1992. I am however unable to invest the
required capital to produce a more sophisticated model and therefore unable to patent it. Even though I may not be able to profit from this technology, it is too good to be kept to myself and I would like to spread it around so that others may be able to use it.
The following is an outline of how to construct the device and a few cautions:
PARTS NEEDED:
1. Magnetron from medium power microwave oven.
2. Small 4-stroke single cylinder lawn mover engine or similar engine with
'old style' points and ignition system.
3. Automotive alternator with built-in rectifier and regulator, also a 12
volt auto battery.
4. "Trigger" mechanism from an aircraft "strobe" landing light.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. The magnetron fits into the spark plug hole.
2. The distributor points are modified so that the contact is closed when the piston is at the top dead center and this contact is used to activate the aircraft strobe mechanism.
3. The high voltage from the strobe is connected to directly fire the
magnetron which in turn produces steam which moves the piston.
4. The engine turns the alternator which keeps the battery charged, which
supplies the electrical power for the magnetron.
CAUTION AND TIPS:
WARNING!!! DANGER!!!!
1. Be careful around the magnetron. KEEP IT SHIELDED WITH METAL. IT CAN CAUSE SEVERE BURNS THAT MAY NOT BE READILY VISIBLE WHEN THEY FIRST OCCUR.
2. The 'strobe' trigger delivers a very high voltage which can jump to ground. WEAR RUBBER SOLED SHOES AND INSULATE WELL.
3. Be sure to modify the distributor points so they close at the top dead
center. Timing advance depends on the power of the magnetron used and the amount of water. Try different carb jet sizes -- drill out if needed.
4. Due to variables, don't expect high engine speeds without a little
experimentation due to variables.
5. Start with a fully charged battery or your alternator won't work.
6. The energy produced is in excess of the power required to run the
alternator but until you get the RPM up, and the parts wrking in harmony, it may be best to use a battery charger instead of an alternator.
7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the alternator on line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the battery. You will see that the battery stays charged even with the lights on and the motor keeps on going.
8. Although I have not tried it, the idea of vaporizing water with microwaves should also work well in a converted turbine.
SPREAD THIS TECHNOLOGY - IT IS FREE!!
PRINT THIS BEFORE IT IS DELETED FROM THE NET!
MY CODE FOR FUTURE IDENTIFICATION IS PANGURBAN</HTML>
From: Pat_Pelletier@mindlink.bc.ca (Pat Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.engr
Subject: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - NEW INVENTION
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:54:05 - 0700
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
I am posting the following for a friend who does NOT have access to Internet.
Comments welcomed.
NOTICE
The prupose of this notice is to place into public domain something which I
invented so that it may be patented and in order to prevent it's use from
being restricted in any way.
The device is an engine in which small quantitites of water are turned into
steam by the use of a magnetron (as found in microwave ovens).
Interested parties may wish to try this test: Place a few drops of water into a clear plastic 35mm film roll holder and put the cap on the film roll holder. Place in a microwave oven and turn the oven on. The 'pop' is the result of the water turning suddenly into steam.
The engine I have invented is far more efficient than any other steam engine because the efficiency of the magnetron in turning water into steam. In fact, the water droplet 'explodes' very much like air/gasoline explodes in a conventional internal combustion engine.
This engine was first tested in 1992. I am however unable to invest the
required capital to produce a more sophisticated model and therefore unable to patent it. Even though I may not be able to profit from this technology, it is too good to be kept to myself and I would like to spread it around so that others may be able to use it.
The following is an outline of how to construct the device and a few cautions:
PARTS NEEDED:
1. Magnetron from medium power microwave oven.
2. Small 4-stroke single cylinder lawn mover engine or similar engine with
'old style' points and ignition system.
3. Automotive alternator with built-in rectifier and regulator, also a 12
volt auto battery.
4. "Trigger" mechanism from an aircraft "strobe" landing light.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. The magnetron fits into the spark plug hole.
2. The distributor points are modified so that the contact is closed when the piston is at the top dead center and this contact is used to activate the aircraft strobe mechanism.
3. The high voltage from the strobe is connected to directly fire the
magnetron which in turn produces steam which moves the piston.
4. The engine turns the alternator which keeps the battery charged, which
supplies the electrical power for the magnetron.
CAUTION AND TIPS:
WARNING!!! DANGER!!!!
1. Be careful around the magnetron. KEEP IT SHIELDED WITH METAL. IT CAN CAUSE SEVERE BURNS THAT MAY NOT BE READILY VISIBLE WHEN THEY FIRST OCCUR.
2. The 'strobe' trigger delivers a very high voltage which can jump to ground. WEAR RUBBER SOLED SHOES AND INSULATE WELL.
3. Be sure to modify the distributor points so they close at the top dead
center. Timing advance depends on the power of the magnetron used and the amount of water. Try different carb jet sizes -- drill out if needed.
4. Due to variables, don't expect high engine speeds without a little
experimentation due to variables.
5. Start with a fully charged battery or your alternator won't work.
6. The energy produced is in excess of the power required to run the
alternator but until you get the RPM up, and the parts wrking in harmony, it may be best to use a battery charger instead of an alternator.
7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the alternator on line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the battery. You will see that the battery stays charged even with the lights on and the motor keeps on going.
8. Although I have not tried it, the idea of vaporizing water with microwaves should also work well in a converted turbine.
SPREAD THIS TECHNOLOGY - IT IS FREE!!
PRINT THIS BEFORE IT IS DELETED FROM THE NET!
MY CODE FOR FUTURE IDENTIFICATION IS PANGURBAN</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 24, 2004 03:49AM
<HTML>Hey, not only is the technology free, but the energy is too! LOL
Peter</HTML>
Peter</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 24, 2004 02:13PM
<HTML>I think you might have found a cheap alternative to Texas A&M's "quamtum steam engine".Scully uses lasers instead of a magnetron.
Major DOE funding at this time.....</HTML>
Major DOE funding at this time.....</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: March 24, 2004 02:38PM
<HTML>Peter,
Hard to believe but I havent been to the website yet. Basically if one had a one killowatt magnetron of 100% efficiency it could generate 3412 watts of heat or about 2.5# steam per hour. Even if we had an ideal steam engine with a steam rate of 10#/HP-HR it would produce 1/4 horsepower. 1/4 horsepower will generate about 125 watts of electricity---where does the other 875 watts come from for this system to be self generating?? Sounds too much like a perpetual motion scheme to me.
George</HTML>
Hard to believe but I havent been to the website yet. Basically if one had a one killowatt magnetron of 100% efficiency it could generate 3412 watts of heat or about 2.5# steam per hour. Even if we had an ideal steam engine with a steam rate of 10#/HP-HR it would produce 1/4 horsepower. 1/4 horsepower will generate about 125 watts of electricity---where does the other 875 watts come from for this system to be self generating?? Sounds too much like a perpetual motion scheme to me.
George</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: March 24, 2004 05:15PM
<HTML>Hi All,,I 'm just gonna set sail into the wind,,,Just paint one side of the sail black,,[as in radiometer],,,an sail off,,,, an ' I still dont believe in JUCE brakes,,,On Global warming,,er ah ,,Ocean temp at Portland Me just lost 2 deg,,,,this week,,,now at 35* An if the oil prices get worse I may put a wood grate under the old Stanley,,,,after all , Oscar York ,,,bless him,, did just that during the war,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2004 12:35AM
<HTML>Ben,
Lift up by the bootstraps...yup!
I've been working on a new vaporizor for my Model 60. The fuel prices are so high that I'm testing used Fryolator grease from fast food resturants. The good part is that they let me have it for free, the bad news is that each time the burner comes on, it smells like a "Jack in The Box" on fire! I've also modified my pilot to produce a nice yellow flame without too much soot by using "Schmaltz" (rendered chicken fat). Too bad I didn't have a Jewish mother.
Sorry you had to shovel 3 inches of "partly cloudy" on the first day of spring!
Hi! the George too!
Best regards,
Dick</HTML>
Lift up by the bootstraps...yup!
I've been working on a new vaporizor for my Model 60. The fuel prices are so high that I'm testing used Fryolator grease from fast food resturants. The good part is that they let me have it for free, the bad news is that each time the burner comes on, it smells like a "Jack in The Box" on fire! I've also modified my pilot to produce a nice yellow flame without too much soot by using "Schmaltz" (rendered chicken fat). Too bad I didn't have a Jewish mother.
Sorry you had to shovel 3 inches of "partly cloudy" on the first day of spring!
Hi! the George too!
Best regards,
Dick</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2004 03:51AM
<HTML>Don't think either of you ole boys would be very popular with the fuel scare fanatics....pushing super expensive fuel alternative cars.</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2004 01:53PM
<HTML>This is a good one.
Just like the old days when the EPA and DOE funded the PhD types with hairbrained ideas who didn't know which end of the screwdriver to hold, on how to make steam cars. Remember that? Not one did anything of any use at all.
This is called the GOVERNMENT GRANT BUSINESS gentlemen, and nothing less.
Should give you an idea of the mental ability of government to direct science.
This almost makes Lee Hall look good. What nonsense!!
JC</HTML>
Just like the old days when the EPA and DOE funded the PhD types with hairbrained ideas who didn't know which end of the screwdriver to hold, on how to make steam cars. Remember that? Not one did anything of any use at all.
This is called the GOVERNMENT GRANT BUSINESS gentlemen, and nothing less.
Should give you an idea of the mental ability of government to direct science.
This almost makes Lee Hall look good. What nonsense!!
JC</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2004 03:44PM
<HTML>Jim,,,,The gov't directing business,,,,oh my **** just try foreign policy or governing within the budget,,,,what we all,, almost get done daily,,,Vote Bullmoose !!! [thats Teddy Roosevelts's 3rd party of 1912 [to the kids on the site,,,,] Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2004 05:12PM
<HTML>Yep, if anybody offers you a subsidy for your steam ideas, especially the government, RUN. Make like Scooby Doo -- "Raggy! Relp!". Not only do they have incredibly poor judgement -- long topic, political/magical versus technological/scientific thinking -- but once you get in that subsidy mind-set, all serious thinking about how to design and build things for the real world is gradually crowded out of your head. Why do any hard thinking, when you're running on guaranteed grant money? The easier it is, the dumber we get. Money will buy a lot of stupidity.
Three words. Bill Lear's millions.
If I were a little more paranoid, I'd be tempted to think that this is the real reason for govt subsidies. However, I don't think they're that smart.
Peter</HTML>
Three words. Bill Lear's millions.
If I were a little more paranoid, I'd be tempted to think that this is the real reason for govt subsidies. However, I don't think they're that smart.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Hot Head
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 25, 2004 06:17PM
<HTML>Hi Ben,
Until that gang of criminals is removed from Washington, things are only going go get worse. How can the American people stand for this?
I would even vote for Sharpton over Bush, at least we would get a better grade of vaudeville out of it.
JC</HTML>
Until that gang of criminals is removed from Washington, things are only going go get worse. How can the American people stand for this?
I would even vote for Sharpton over Bush, at least we would get a better grade of vaudeville out of it.
JC</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Political Hot Head
Posted by: Peter Heid (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 12:53AM
<HTML>Gee, I thought this topic would stir some people up but I really wasn't talking politics. But Jim, you are right, we need political change.
I really intended to get people thinking about other ways to produce and control steam. Is the conventional burner the most efficient way to convert to heat energy ? After all we use light, microwaves and sound waves to make heat in many applications. Sound waves are very good at vaporization of fuels also.
Peter Heid</HTML>
I really intended to get people thinking about other ways to produce and control steam. Is the conventional burner the most efficient way to convert to heat energy ? After all we use light, microwaves and sound waves to make heat in many applications. Sound waves are very good at vaporization of fuels also.
Peter Heid</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Political Hot Head
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 03:20AM
<HTML>We need to vote ABBA!
"Any Body But Bush Again"!
Dick Vennerbeck,
a proud veteran.</HTML>
"Any Body But Bush Again"!
Dick Vennerbeck,
a proud veteran.</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Political Hot Head
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 07:33AM
<HTML>In a previous post, I stated that "money will buy a lot of stupidity". I hereby apologize for inadvertently bringing to mind the Bush Administration.
Peter</HTML>
Peter</HTML>
Re: Microwave not Political Hot Head
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 11:07AM
<HTML>Ben is Right! "What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!" "The Music Man" or "Li'l Abner" - can't remember which.
Got to go now and roll out the old hot air engine and plug it into this thread!!!!
Can' stand the thought of wasting all this free energy!</HTML>
Got to go now and roll out the old hot air engine and plug it into this thread!!!!
Can' stand the thought of wasting all this free energy!</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 11:07AM
<HTML>Jim, Dick,Peter,
Now that we have heard the political frustrations of the California contingency why not keep thread discussions on the phorum on steam topics.
George</HTML>
Now that we have heard the political frustrations of the California contingency why not keep thread discussions on the phorum on steam topics.
George</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 01:47PM
<HTML>George
OK! OK! better than a sharp stick in the eye.
Peter asked,
"I really intended to get people thinking about other ways to produce and control steam. Is the conventional burner the most efficient way to convert to heat energy ? After all we use light, microwaves and sound waves to make heat in many applications. Sound waves are very good at vaporization of fuels also."
Peter,
Sound waves are my business. <www.prosysmeg.com> We make sonic cleaning equipment that operates in the radio frequency. Typical ultrasonic baths operate at 47 KHz. We make stuff the runs at 1 MHz. This does a lousy job on Harley carburetors but an excellent job on submicron particles as required by the semiconductor and medical industry. We can take a liquid and put enough energy into it to turn it into a fog. There are a number of "sonic nozzles" on the market that will do the same thing. I showed this to the great Crank a couple of months ago. You could make a killer efficient burner using this technology. The unfortunate part is that the materials, (Lead Zirconate Titanate) Piezo Electric crystals and the associated RF electronics drive the costs up. I think a comercially available nozzle is in the neighborhood of $4-5 K. I'd be glad to supply more info or photos of this stuff in action.
Dick</HTML>
OK! OK! better than a sharp stick in the eye.
Peter asked,
"I really intended to get people thinking about other ways to produce and control steam. Is the conventional burner the most efficient way to convert to heat energy ? After all we use light, microwaves and sound waves to make heat in many applications. Sound waves are very good at vaporization of fuels also."
Peter,
Sound waves are my business. <www.prosysmeg.com> We make sonic cleaning equipment that operates in the radio frequency. Typical ultrasonic baths operate at 47 KHz. We make stuff the runs at 1 MHz. This does a lousy job on Harley carburetors but an excellent job on submicron particles as required by the semiconductor and medical industry. We can take a liquid and put enough energy into it to turn it into a fog. There are a number of "sonic nozzles" on the market that will do the same thing. I showed this to the great Crank a couple of months ago. You could make a killer efficient burner using this technology. The unfortunate part is that the materials, (Lead Zirconate Titanate) Piezo Electric crystals and the associated RF electronics drive the costs up. I think a comercially available nozzle is in the neighborhood of $4-5 K. I'd be glad to supply more info or photos of this stuff in action.
Dick</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 02:10PM
<HTML>Dick, Peter, George,
George, you are right, let's stick to the subject at hand.
Peter, there are many ways to boil water; BUT when you are talking about evaporating 1-2,000 lbs/hr to produce 1,000 psi steam at 800°F, I never saw any means that worked except burning fuel in a steam generator. The rest have such a lousy conversion rate that they are just not worth talking about. Lasers, microwaves, and all that would be so very costly and inefficient that you would need a huge generator on a trailer to power even a Locomobile.
A physics experiment on the bench is a long way from packaging a system in a car. It is a matter of RATE of evaporation.
Dick's ultrsonic "evaporator" was more than just interesting. An instant cloud of water particles so fine the cloud just floated in the air above the plate.
Is there no 50 Kc transducer that would keep going at high temperature?
This is a real clue to making a clean startup burner, sub micron particle size.
Seems to me that we should really try to come up with something, or at least give it a hard try. Lear's guys made several nozzles with ultrasonic whistles incorporated in them that were very interesting. I think I may even have one in my junk box, if I could find it, we could try it out. If one could work at something like 25 gph, this might be a way to go.
Whatever, something that would give sub micron fuel particle size is definitely needed to make a really clean burner. Dick, lunch, call me.
Jim</HTML>
George, you are right, let's stick to the subject at hand.
Peter, there are many ways to boil water; BUT when you are talking about evaporating 1-2,000 lbs/hr to produce 1,000 psi steam at 800°F, I never saw any means that worked except burning fuel in a steam generator. The rest have such a lousy conversion rate that they are just not worth talking about. Lasers, microwaves, and all that would be so very costly and inefficient that you would need a huge generator on a trailer to power even a Locomobile.
A physics experiment on the bench is a long way from packaging a system in a car. It is a matter of RATE of evaporation.
Dick's ultrsonic "evaporator" was more than just interesting. An instant cloud of water particles so fine the cloud just floated in the air above the plate.
Is there no 50 Kc transducer that would keep going at high temperature?
This is a real clue to making a clean startup burner, sub micron particle size.
Seems to me that we should really try to come up with something, or at least give it a hard try. Lear's guys made several nozzles with ultrasonic whistles incorporated in them that were very interesting. I think I may even have one in my junk box, if I could find it, we could try it out. If one could work at something like 25 gph, this might be a way to go.
Whatever, something that would give sub micron fuel particle size is definitely needed to make a really clean burner. Dick, lunch, call me.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 04:47PM
<HTML>Dick,
Thanks for the info on your piezo fog generator, do you think a simple one could be used in conjunction with a carburetor venturi so that the best of two worlds could be achieved--very small fuel particle size and a burn rate determined by the fan velocity input. It was one of the good things about the Doble carb burner although it didn't like heavier fuels. Would be a wonderful thing.
George</HTML>
Thanks for the info on your piezo fog generator, do you think a simple one could be used in conjunction with a carburetor venturi so that the best of two worlds could be achieved--very small fuel particle size and a burn rate determined by the fan velocity input. It was one of the good things about the Doble carb burner although it didn't like heavier fuels. Would be a wonderful thing.
George</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Andy Patterson (IP Logged)
Date: March 26, 2004 05:13PM
<HTML>Hi All
I started a thread on fuel atomization. This piezo fog generator sounds like a great thing. Continuing on new topic.
Andy</HTML>
I started a thread on fuel atomization. This piezo fog generator sounds like a great thing. Continuing on new topic.
Andy</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: Alex "Thunderbucket" (IP Logged)
Date: May 30, 2004 09:39AM
<HTML>Greetings, My name is Alex.
I live in Mission, British columbia, Canada.
I came across this board through a roundabout journey via Peter Brow's Website.
I currently own classic Thunderbirds, and a Tri-Magnum Trike.
At present i do not own, nor have i ever owned; a steam powered vehicle.
Although i do own a "Still" which i purchased very cheap in the summer of 2003. "well with one thing leading to another i got to thinking of ways to generate motor fuel using my "Still" but sadly my containment vessell is not big enough at present to make it a worthwile endeavour.
But then i got to thinking again of alternative methods of propelling a vehicle, which of course led me here. My interest in alternative modes of power and transportation go deep,"I guess i got the bug from my father, Who was the typical unsatisfied inventor" And so ,,,nite after nite iv'e been on the computer, researching various methods and means of steam generation.
I read that post on the Microwave method of steam generation, and i think it holds great merrit, My reasoning is this;
The heating of water molecules via the use of Microwaves is extreemly Rapid, whereas the heating of water to steam through "boiler-burner combinations" take considerably more time to accomplish.
The question is: How much power would the "Magnetron" require to generate enough steam to drive a 20 horse power steam engine, via the methods described in the post by Peter Heid?
This would be the true test of the metal"so to speak"
<a href="mailto:hihobmw@netheaven.com?subject=Microwave Head not Hot Head">Peter Heid</a> wrote:
>
> What do you think of this ?
>
> From: Pat_Pelletier@mindlink.bc.ca (Pat Pelletier)
> Newsgroups: sci.engr
> Subject: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - NEW INVENTION
> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:54:05 - 0700
> Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
>
>
> I am posting the following for a friend who does NOT have
> access to Internet.
> Comments welcomed.
>
> NOTICE
>
> The prupose of this notice is to place into public domain
> something which I
> invented so that it may be patented and in order to prevent
> it's use from
> being restricted in any way.
>
> The device is an engine in which small quantitites of water
> are turned into
> steam by the use of a magnetron (as found in microwave ovens).
>
> Interested parties may wish to try this test: Place a few
> drops of water into a clear plastic 35mm film roll holder and
> put the cap on the film roll holder. Place in a microwave
> oven and turn the oven on. The 'pop' is the result of the
> water turning suddenly into steam.
>
> The engine I have invented is far more efficient than any
> other steam engine because the efficiency of the magnetron in
> turning water into steam. In fact, the water droplet
> 'explodes' very much like air/gasoline explodes in a
> conventional internal combustion engine.
>
> This engine was first tested in 1992. I am however unable to
> invest the
> required capital to produce a more sophisticated model and
> therefore unable to patent it. Even though I may not be able
> to profit from this technology, it is too good to be kept to
> myself and I would like to spread it around so that others
> may be able to use it.
>
> The following is an outline of how to construct the device
> and a few cautions:
>
> PARTS NEEDED:
>
> 1. Magnetron from medium power microwave oven.
>
> 2. Small 4-stroke single cylinder lawn mover engine or
> similar engine with
> 'old style' points and ignition system.
>
> 3. Automotive alternator with built-in rectifier and
> regulator, also a 12
> volt auto battery.
>
> 4. "Trigger" mechanism from an aircraft "strobe" landing light.
>
> INSTRUCTIONS:
>
> 1. The magnetron fits into the spark plug hole.
>
> 2. The distributor points are modified so that the contact is
> closed when the piston is at the top dead center and this
> contact is used to activate the aircraft strobe mechanism.
>
> 3. The high voltage from the strobe is connected to directly
> fire the
> magnetron which in turn produces steam which moves the piston.
>
> 4. The engine turns the alternator which keeps the battery
> charged, which
> supplies the electrical power for the magnetron.
>
> CAUTION AND TIPS:
>
> WARNING!!! DANGER!!!!
>
> 1. Be careful around the magnetron. KEEP IT SHIELDED WITH
> METAL. IT CAN CAUSE SEVERE BURNS THAT MAY NOT BE READILY
> VISIBLE WHEN THEY FIRST OCCUR.
>
> 2. The 'strobe' trigger delivers a very high voltage which
> can jump to ground. WEAR RUBBER SOLED SHOES AND INSULATE
> WELL.
>
> 3. Be sure to modify the distributor points so they close at
> the top dead
> center. Timing advance depends on the power of the magnetron
> used and the amount of water. Try different carb jet sizes --
> drill out if needed.
>
> 4. Due to variables, don't expect high engine speeds without
> a little
> experimentation due to variables.
>
> 5. Start with a fully charged battery or your alternator
> won't work.
>
> 6. The energy produced is in excess of the power required to
> run the
> alternator but until you get the RPM up, and the parts wrking
> in harmony, it may be best to use a battery charger instead
> of an alternator.
>
> 7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the
> alternator on line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the
> battery. You will see that the battery stays charged even
> with the lights on and the motor keeps on going.
>
> 8. Although I have not tried it, the idea of vaporizing
> water with microwaves should also work well in a converted
> turbine.
>
> SPREAD THIS TECHNOLOGY - IT IS FREE!!
>
> PRINT THIS BEFORE IT IS DELETED FROM THE NET!
>
> MY CODE FOR FUTURE IDENTIFICATION IS PANGURBAN</HTML>
I live in Mission, British columbia, Canada.
I came across this board through a roundabout journey via Peter Brow's Website.
I currently own classic Thunderbirds, and a Tri-Magnum Trike.
At present i do not own, nor have i ever owned; a steam powered vehicle.
Although i do own a "Still" which i purchased very cheap in the summer of 2003. "well with one thing leading to another i got to thinking of ways to generate motor fuel using my "Still" but sadly my containment vessell is not big enough at present to make it a worthwile endeavour.
But then i got to thinking again of alternative methods of propelling a vehicle, which of course led me here. My interest in alternative modes of power and transportation go deep,"I guess i got the bug from my father, Who was the typical unsatisfied inventor" And so ,,,nite after nite iv'e been on the computer, researching various methods and means of steam generation.
I read that post on the Microwave method of steam generation, and i think it holds great merrit, My reasoning is this;
The heating of water molecules via the use of Microwaves is extreemly Rapid, whereas the heating of water to steam through "boiler-burner combinations" take considerably more time to accomplish.
The question is: How much power would the "Magnetron" require to generate enough steam to drive a 20 horse power steam engine, via the methods described in the post by Peter Heid?
This would be the true test of the metal"so to speak"
<a href="mailto:hihobmw@netheaven.com?subject=Microwave Head not Hot Head">Peter Heid</a> wrote:
>
> What do you think of this ?
>
> From: Pat_Pelletier@mindlink.bc.ca (Pat Pelletier)
> Newsgroups: sci.engr
> Subject: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - NEW INVENTION
> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:54:05 - 0700
> Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
>
>
> I am posting the following for a friend who does NOT have
> access to Internet.
> Comments welcomed.
>
> NOTICE
>
> The prupose of this notice is to place into public domain
> something which I
> invented so that it may be patented and in order to prevent
> it's use from
> being restricted in any way.
>
> The device is an engine in which small quantitites of water
> are turned into
> steam by the use of a magnetron (as found in microwave ovens).
>
> Interested parties may wish to try this test: Place a few
> drops of water into a clear plastic 35mm film roll holder and
> put the cap on the film roll holder. Place in a microwave
> oven and turn the oven on. The 'pop' is the result of the
> water turning suddenly into steam.
>
> The engine I have invented is far more efficient than any
> other steam engine because the efficiency of the magnetron in
> turning water into steam. In fact, the water droplet
> 'explodes' very much like air/gasoline explodes in a
> conventional internal combustion engine.
>
> This engine was first tested in 1992. I am however unable to
> invest the
> required capital to produce a more sophisticated model and
> therefore unable to patent it. Even though I may not be able
> to profit from this technology, it is too good to be kept to
> myself and I would like to spread it around so that others
> may be able to use it.
>
> The following is an outline of how to construct the device
> and a few cautions:
>
> PARTS NEEDED:
>
> 1. Magnetron from medium power microwave oven.
>
> 2. Small 4-stroke single cylinder lawn mover engine or
> similar engine with
> 'old style' points and ignition system.
>
> 3. Automotive alternator with built-in rectifier and
> regulator, also a 12
> volt auto battery.
>
> 4. "Trigger" mechanism from an aircraft "strobe" landing light.
>
> INSTRUCTIONS:
>
> 1. The magnetron fits into the spark plug hole.
>
> 2. The distributor points are modified so that the contact is
> closed when the piston is at the top dead center and this
> contact is used to activate the aircraft strobe mechanism.
>
> 3. The high voltage from the strobe is connected to directly
> fire the
> magnetron which in turn produces steam which moves the piston.
>
> 4. The engine turns the alternator which keeps the battery
> charged, which
> supplies the electrical power for the magnetron.
>
> CAUTION AND TIPS:
>
> WARNING!!! DANGER!!!!
>
> 1. Be careful around the magnetron. KEEP IT SHIELDED WITH
> METAL. IT CAN CAUSE SEVERE BURNS THAT MAY NOT BE READILY
> VISIBLE WHEN THEY FIRST OCCUR.
>
> 2. The 'strobe' trigger delivers a very high voltage which
> can jump to ground. WEAR RUBBER SOLED SHOES AND INSULATE
> WELL.
>
> 3. Be sure to modify the distributor points so they close at
> the top dead
> center. Timing advance depends on the power of the magnetron
> used and the amount of water. Try different carb jet sizes --
> drill out if needed.
>
> 4. Due to variables, don't expect high engine speeds without
> a little
> experimentation due to variables.
>
> 5. Start with a fully charged battery or your alternator
> won't work.
>
> 6. The energy produced is in excess of the power required to
> run the
> alternator but until you get the RPM up, and the parts wrking
> in harmony, it may be best to use a battery charger instead
> of an alternator.
>
> 7. An easy way to measure net power output after you have the
> alternator on line is to run a few 12 volt lights from the
> battery. You will see that the battery stays charged even
> with the lights on and the motor keeps on going.
>
> 8. Although I have not tried it, the idea of vaporizing
> water with microwaves should also work well in a converted
> turbine.
>
> SPREAD THIS TECHNOLOGY - IT IS FREE!!
>
> PRINT THIS BEFORE IT IS DELETED FROM THE NET!
>
> MY CODE FOR FUTURE IDENTIFICATION IS PANGURBAN</HTML>
Re: Microwave Head not Hot Head
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: June 02, 2004 11:26AM
<HTML>The plate efficiency of the very best cavity magnetrons is about 50 %. That power must be at about 1500 Volts. The power required to keep the cathode hot is extra. You would get much better boiling efficiency by using a British electric tea kettle!
To run a 20 hp Stanley engine with a microwave boiler would require a magnetron with an output of 125,000 Watts. Forgetting for the moment whether you could even get such a beast of a vacuum tube, you would need a power supply of about 300,000 Watts to run it.
You will also need a license from the FCC to run it! Very few military radars have this kind of power.</HTML>
To run a 20 hp Stanley engine with a microwave boiler would require a magnetron with an output of 125,000 Watts. Forgetting for the moment whether you could even get such a beast of a vacuum tube, you would need a power supply of about 300,000 Watts to run it.
You will also need a license from the FCC to run it! Very few military radars have this kind of power.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.