Briggs 18Hp Mower Engine Ran On Water In Carburetor

New configuration of S1R wire coils assembly from 2008 turns out to really be electromagnet providing extension of timing for mower engine running on water to hydrogen from spark plug electrolysis. It also provides required magnetic field over plug wire , down to plug electrodes. Special wind of 3 wires as - #14 , 7t 90degrees over 5 turns Hi V cable, 13 turns #14 over steel core and Hi V cable. See photos on Internet. The original S1R9A9M9 (2 )You tube videos showed Inverter box in background, not hooked up. That green 400Watt box was the same one normally used with the several earlier car engine conversions. Statement said it could not be used with 4 cycle mower engine. The real reason of this, was that the SiZE of box could not be hidden in hole of cement block with engine shaft. (A smaller 300Watt unit was used.) This smaller box fits cement block hole. The other plastic deli tub of parts, hanging on side of engine, was also painted over so we could not see in. Therefore the 3 technicians did not want to reveal all their technology from 2005-2019. Part of DC current , supplies the primary side of inverter , while several amps dc runs the electromagnet. Battery start. Battery fully removed. The circuit then ran on the dual type alternators with max 15 amps output DC, after rectification. The high resistance of salt water at plug tips requires about 100 volts to get current to push through.The cars used 6-7 Peak amps at low duty cycle. Nathren used 10 amps PEAK DC as about 1 amp average current.  See videos with Briggs 18HP riding lawnmower engine on cement block running on water flow to carb. Self running using Hydrogen gas + water vapor pressure. Low power of course but works.

Proof That Nathren's Briggs Engine Had Dual Alternators!!!


   You Tube Smack investigates claims of S1R9A9M9 time  6:03

Briggs 18HP has alternator cable hangs down behind starter motor and oiling tube. See cable against metal casting, see white 2 piece wire connector, and 2 wires there.
Long time back I directly asked Nathren about engine serial number to get capabilities such as alternator. He flatly denied that it had alternator under flywheel. He even said there were no magnets under flywheel. He started protecting his + shop technicians invention.

Update Briggs Engine Ran On water In Carb 2008

More data has unfolded showing that the 2 successful demonstrations of 18HP mower engine of 2008, had been using bottled water drawn into carb in a "vacuum" condition of engine intake , as being made more volatile to external media. The increased ignition volts to 24kv was applied to spark plug that has magnetism present from electromagnet. The impressed magnetic field of S1R9A9M9 triple wire coils on plug wire forms a required late ATDC timing of Briggs engine. There is a time delay again because of opposite reversed flows of power through the coils. Positive low v 13 turns to negative ground for electromagnet at the tap, and the connected 7 turns hooks to TOP OF PLUG, (Ground when fired) and positive ground ignition jumps upwards. The negative ignition has electrons going into the water mist changes to molecules of negative ions that repel each other and form pressure to push piston , along with small amount of Hydrogen at spark plug that fires also. The main energy came from the beginning car battery that was completely removed after start mode. The on board dual alternators provided either 10amps AC or 15 amps full DC for use , so as engine self running. The 300watt Inverter was not used.

Mentioned also from old documents was resonance between the water cell of spark plug water capacitance with inductor coil as resonant frequency equal to the input frequency of ring alternators. 3uf across alternators would make them equal. There are 12 permanent magnets to run alternators under the flywheel going around .

There was a university lab test done years ago that proved the notion of ionized expansion of water vapor to pressure. It also works with discharge of high v capacitor into water with resistor RC time constant. It has to be in milliseconds, not microseconds. The test chart showed that at certain resistance in series the BLAST outward was more than the input power and verified.

If I sort of understand all this, then I'm sure I don't have enough electrical knowledge to fully grasp it. Amplify, rectify, switch, excite an electrical circuit enough to split a simple molecule and then recombine it via combustion combined with some vapor pressure, creating enough force to move a piston and do some work.
Tesla is a wind up car. Plug it in at night, then run it until the battery croaks.
Nobody complains about the inherent loss of power/work/potential through remote generation (from whatever fuel/energy source, carbon or otherwise), transmission, ac/dc rectification, chemical storage, ac/dc/ac rectification as voltages/frequencies are stepped up/down to spin the wheels run and all the associated systems. You will never get 100% of the work back out of that electrical system that you put in to get the car moving out of it's own driveway and off to Walmart.
Better still if you don't trouble yourself to think about where the raw materials for plastic, aluminum, electrical components of this machine come from.
I'll clue ya. It's typically poorer people, living not anywhere near you, whose rare earth metal/copper/hydrocarbon resources and labor can be stripped/cheaply purchased/colonized.
I live part time in Nevada. There are projects underway to strip the most valuable asset in the West, underground aquifers, and use them to strip the soils of ancient evaporative deposits of lithium to power those wind up cars. I don't remember anyone really asking Nevadans if they wanted to give that resource away to make EVs or cordless drills elsewhere possible.
Nobody complains about the potential inefficiency of the myriad of hydrogen fuel cells, likely because nobody here remotely understands them or has given any thought to their use.  
But, regenerative fuel cells exist, turning water into electricity, then reversing to turn electricity back into water. Efficiently splitting and recombining the hydrogen/oxygen bond. A potential partial solution to the variability and intermittency of renewable electrical generation.
The densest form of energy on this planet, short of nuclear fission, is hydrocarbons. IT IS ALSO THE MOST PORTABLE. But you can't get more energy  out of them than the sun and all those chemical/temp/pressure reactions put into them over the last 250 million years.
Metal/chemical electrical storage, hydrocarbons, hydrogen, wood, are all batteries, with varying efficiencies/densities of extraction/conversion.
So I fail to understand why the crying starts over the notion that the only possible pass/fail for this man's quest and therefore your judgemental approval, revolves around the idea that his system will consume more energy than it releases as work.
So?
First prove that the idea works on some scale. Then work on efficiency. If this is to be a car, then add a small storage battery to the system which could be charged at night by the same pixies winding your Tesla spring, provide regenerative braking, like any EV, or a flywheel, add a solar panel to the roof.
But don't squirt the brown lumps on this idea, like that misguided wikepedia  'article' cited, until you pause to realize that what he is really doing is trying to create a internal combustion engine that does not rely on one of the most resource intensive industries, hydrocarbons, for power.
Nobody said anything about lossless perpetual motion, medievel gold alchemy, the health of Elvis, or free energy.

Russ, with respect,your posts on this topic are not leading to much debate, analysis or agreement.  Is this serious work and testing you are citing or is it all theoretical "maybe" science?  

When we read your post most recently we see
" more data", " from old documents" and " a university lab test" ....ostensibly to bolster your opinion. Instead of ethereal thoughts without corroborating evidence, could you please include citations, links and verifiable experiments in your posts.

Otherwise I and others might be inclined to dismiss the posts as more conspiracy theories than serious science. Thanks for your consideration.

I believe that you're passionate about this topic Russ, but please go back to the questions from this thread by Phil Stevens from New Zealand.  He has made every effort to engage with you on the relevant science.... yet you do not acknowledge his kind queries, it seems you continue a monolog which leads to ...?  Please, if you want to post endlessly on this science could you read the replies, and perhaps cite "Georgia Technical Institute" or other specific schools rather than " these Georgia tests" for example.  The former is in the top 10 engineering schools globally, while the latter means next to nothing in this complex thread.