Why are people upset from a post I made?

Lamare

I have a very open mind, you have no idea how open, If I didn't I would not be doing what I do, so lets get that straight to start with.

The post I made was to HELP and not anything else, experience and working in a lab covers many things, and my quote of my title was due to this from jdcproducts:-

Quote:

I am a design engineer, I would rather build a fully functional on demand hho catalytic heater without worrying about how efficient or inefficient it is for the simple fact I have never seen one built, tested, or used. For me nobody can place any type of efficiency numbers on that unless it has been built and tested for the purpose of space heating and not for the purpose of mathematical models which is just multiplied out to obtain a theoretical basis for something larger in scale.

I do not normally quote my title unless I am asked, but there you go, I should have kept my mouth shut.

Don't quote me on Meyer's work, I know more on that than you have had hot diners, I have access to all of the original items, papers etc, including his buggy, and if Aaron wants to he can post a photo of me in that buggy taken a few years back.

Anyway, I'm sorry if for some wierd reason I have upset certain people, I will keep the help to myself in the future.

Good luck with your project, I hope it works out and I will not post here again

regards

Mike

Well, all right. Let's not get into a flame war here. Sorry if I upset you.

I just wanted to point out that there is more to that "HHO" stuff than that it is "just H2 / O2" and gave some links for more information.

Regards,

-- Arend --

Hello Mike,

I would love to pick your brain on the circuit that Meyers used on his cell. I asume that would work on a dry cell as well?

Thank you for your help and contribution! Its greatly appreciated!!!



-Altrez

hho - a whole soup of atoms and molecules

That actually isn't what you are seeing with the soap bubbles - its too fast to see at thousands of feet per second.

First it explodes, then combines into water and shrinks in volume - that is what the "implosion" is that you are seeing - that follows up AFTER the explosion. It's always been a myth that "Brown's gas" just implodes.

I vaguely recall that George Wiseman had some video online with browns gas in a container and it had a pressure guage and when ignited, the reading goes positive first demonstrating that it does not just implode. It might have been a bit different but that is the point that was made. It might have been someone else too but from my own experiments, it is a fact that it initially explodes.

This explosion then implosion is why it isn't suitable as a stand alone fuel because of the explosive shock to the pistons, etc... that gasoline engines are not designed for since it detonates instead of combusts - then it forms water and shrinks in volume sabotaging all the outward push.

For a stand alone fuel, that is where the whole ionized nitrogen concept comes into play that has been discussed in detail in this forum. If ionized nitrogen is there, it prevents the formation of the water molecule and you get the thermal energy out of it since the h and o will preferably go to the atomic nitrogen since it is the strongest attractor.

"HHO" is fine as a fuel supplement because the reactive oxygen species produced pulls electrons from the gasoline molecules and breaks them down into propane, methane, etc... and you get more btu from the gas by creating a higher btu fuel - that is where the gains come from not the hydrogen in the hho because there isn't enough to account for the improvement.

This is the same reason that air ionizers can do the same thing by themselves when injecting that into the intake, ozone and other reactive oxygen species will break the hydrocarbon fuel into smaller pieces, which turns cetane into methane, propane, etc... that all have more btu per unit. There are countless patents on just this concept alone.

HHO is a mixture of about a dozen molecules, not just "BG contains H, H2, O, O2, H2O (as water vapor) and a special 6th 'structured' gas that Yull Brown called a 'Fluid Crystal'," as you quote.

This has also been in the old literature going back over 200 years.

These are all created with electrolysis of water in a commonly ducted cell: o2, h2, h2o2, h+, o2-, ho2, o3, h-, oh-, singlet o2, ho-, this has been analyzed and verified by associates of mine who have other applications so it isn't theoretical and it cost them a fortune. I don't know about these Yull Brown claims - that was a long time ago and the ability to measure all of this has come a long way to know more accurately what is going on.

About half are negatively charged hydrogen based and the other half are positively charged mostly oxygen based reactive oxygen species. The atomic h and o are there, but react very quick so don't last long but they are there for a bit. That entire mixture of about a dozen atoms and molecules in reality is what "hho" is.

Keeping all the mysticism in the whole HHO field just holds it back because it is not really a mystery and when people see that, it is easier to engineer applications for it since we know what we're dealing with.

Meyer subject

My vote would be for Mike on the Stan Meyer subject - multiple corroborated verifications that he is right on the money in regards to what Meyer was doing. That is what put me on the right track and actually found all of Meyer's documents in his own words spelling out the entire nitrogen concept, which all the self-proclaimed Meyer experts are in denial about even when they see them.

I have to find those pics!

I've read this about the implosion:

Eagle-Research:

As far as I understand this, Brown's gas is a mixture of most likely H2 gas and some kind of other gas, which I believe to contain a crystalized form of "water", which is negatively charged because the H+ ions binding these same kinds of layers in ice are missing.

If that is true, then does not seem to be far fetched that this gas is indeed heavier than air and that the H2 molecules, which are also present in the gas, can escape a can when the lid is off and thus the only gas remaining after a while is this special form of "water" which can perhaps best be described as gaseous ice-like crystals. And apparently, *that* gas implodes when ignited, which makes sense, because as we know ice-like crystals are lighter than water because the atoms are spaced more widely from one another compared to liquid water.

So, you might very well be correct about the behavior of the "complete" output of an electrolyzer, while at the same time it is possible to make an implosive gas by removing the H2 and other light gases from the mixture.



According to Patrick Kelly's book, the behavior of the gas output from an electrolyzer can be changed by mixing the gas with tiny water droplets, "cold water fog":

Practical Guide to Free-Energy Devices - Chapter 10


The molecules you mention are all small and thus should be lighter than air. The report by George Wiseman I quoted suggests it is possible to create a gas component that is heavier than air and thus should consist of relatively large molecules.

BTW, Wiseman also suggests BG can possibly be used for neutralizing radio active waste when combining the stuff with termite:

Brown's Gas and Radioactivity | www.eagle-research.com
Either way, as far as I can tell, "real" Brown's gas can only be created with pulsed electrolysis and I assume it is very closely related to the work of Prof. Pollack, which has done quite a lot of research into this "EZ" zone, which consists of a crystalized form of water according to him.

All in all, there are a lot of questions and uncertainties, but all things considered, I believe there is definitely something to this "fluid crystal" idea, because if Pollack's layers are indeed negatively charged and thus repel one another, then these crystal layers will be quite unstable and it is therefore likely you can manipulate them with changing electric fields and thus push the layers apart from one another after forming. Hence the need for pulsed electrolysis.

However, the bottom line with the gaseous crystal idea is that it is a hypothesis which has not been proven nor disproven at this moment. In other words: it is an educated guess based on attempting to connecting a number of dots.

The intriguing thing about Meyer's car is that the only footage I have been able to find showing the car actually being driven originates from the period around 1980-1985, when the car was running on a rather large electrolyzer which does not look anything like the later models intended for production:


Why has this electrolyzer been shown to work, even on TV, and is there no footage to be found of the Buggy actually being driven after around 1985?

Why did he have his steel tested for it's contents in 1982?

I believe this is because there was something special with the steel of his first actually working prototype: anodes of electropolished stainless, creating a dielectric layer very similar to the dielectric layer in any ordinary electrolytic capacitor.

Remember what Bedini's chargers do with ordinary electrolytic capacitors? Remember his/your cold boiling batteries?

What I'm essentially saying is that this white coating is a dielectric and that you can create such a layer very efficiently using a process very similar to the process used in the industry to create dielectric layers on ordinary capacitors. For stainless steel, this process is known as "electropolishing", although the reason it is performed in the industry is not for creating a dielectric layer suitable to make an electrolytic capacitor, but for creating a smooth surface. It is essentially the same process, though.


However, at this moment the idea that electropolished stainless is benefitial for Meyer cell replications is also a hypothesis which needs to be either proven or disproven in practice.

hho properties

With an implosion w/out an explosion first, I suppose that is possible but the entire concept of on demand hho production with "boosters", etc... is that the moment the gas is created, it is used and doesn't sit around for 15 minutes to change into something else. I haven't produced it and contained it to sit around to see if it does this myself so I can't say. But under normal circumstances of igniting it soon after production, it definitely explodes, turns into water then implodes.

Maybe you can fill a balloon of fresh made hho and see if it sinks or floats. It will have the same sum total of what water is made of but at a 1600 times more volume or whatever the electrolyzed volume is. I think steam can be 1600 cubic feet per cubic foot of water or something like that and HHO might be about the same - can't recall at the moment. That balloon can destroy your hearing if it goes off so be careful! lol

I had one cell being tested in a shop before and there was one bubble that formed that was about an inch in diameter. One guy there went to light that in the open top cell and I was about 10 feet away and it dropped me to my knees. A very high pitch ping that sounded like a high pitch version of an M-80. That was more stronger than "average" hho, so I have seen that there are definitely different strengths of HHO that can be produced. My friend lost his hearing in that ear for a few days.

I don't know about pulsing being necessary to create Brown's gas. Easy enough to test with a steady DC power supply to see if that makes a suitable hho welding gas or not. I do however believe that the properties of the hho can definitely be changed by various pulsing methods.

The atoms and molecules I quoted are definitely created during the electrolysis and if the cell is turned off and left to sit for a while, almost all of it just neutralizes each other since they're unstable in each other's presence and just turns back to water. There can however be traces of hydrogen peroxide, etc... in the water bath even after a long while.

Are you going to be doing the catalytic converter hho experiment?

If this concept can be optimized, Michael also happens to be the patent holder for the world's most efficient heat exchanger, which would come in handy for an efficient heater.

Stan Meyer

Michael, skype me when you can.

Here's Michael in Stan Meyer's dune buggy during a trip where because of his qualified background, he was asked to analyze everything. Can tell you all the self-proclaimed Meyer experts out there are completely lost in fantasy land as to what Meyer was really doing.



To my understanding, in the later stages when Stan Meyer wanted to go to the injectors instead of the wfc, the injectors actually never worked.

Testing the steel? There were multiple variations of the water cells, but early on in his patents, he started off with flat plates like everyone else then evolved to the tubes - the type of metal I think only matter for longevity and some efficiency but still does not make the suitable fuel.

Meyer did mention some delrin encasements around the tubes in some of the tech manual - acting as a dielectric insulator to lock in the capacitance of the tubes. With the tubes without that, which appear to be bare, he would have had coatings of corona dope as far as anyone knows - a xylene based dielectric coating that can hold back around 4kv per mil - but I don't think any of that is necessary and I'm not claiming he had that coating, but he could have and it would be in plain view with nobody wise to the fact.

If we look at the Meyer patents, the early ones and the ones from Europe that I actually show in my Water Fuel Secrets book, we can see in the early development, all the resonant circuits, etc... were not part of his success. That all came later as ways to simply create the water gas more efficiently - that's it.

He wasn't running his engines on "hho", he was running it on a synthetic gas, which is created by blending ionized nitrogen with the hho. As it keeps condensing around by recycling the exhaust, he winds up with a fair quantity of nh3 ammonia in the system, which happens to be the most dense carrier of hydrogen.

The idea he was creating a synthetic fuel is not my opinion, it is in his own words WORD FOR WORD "synthetic fuel" and is what I explained before about modifying the electrolyzed water gas with nitrogen to slow down the velocity of the flame and lower the temp so it burns slow - similar to gasoline. The Meyer "experts" out there are all 100% wrong when they debate this point as I said, I show this in Meyer's own words.

It was because of Michael John Nunnerley and a couple of other people posting about some of these concepts that I looked at it with an open mind no matter how many experiments I did with the regular thinking and the more I dug, the more I came to saw that they were all telling the truth. It was right there in plain view in Meyer's early patents.

There is some electret effect if the negative tubes get the coating like I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiag4h7H-TQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VLYufVSJL8 - there would be a constant 2vdc potential between the pos and neg tubes. No matter how many times you shorted them out and let go, it would not kill the potential difference. So with a pulsed circuit, that electret effect would help keep the molecules polarized with no power input I believe and just adds to the efficiency, but not so sure Meyer ever had a coating. He talked about it, but that still doesn't make the suitable fuel.

This isn't a scientific measurement, but in this video it is very visually obvious, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphxVYYnEvA I get more gas from one tube setup and lower power than many Meyer "experts" get with all their tubes combined at higher power. No resonant circuit and no magical fairy dust.

Compare my single tube test to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJPE6d2R9uo that is Edward Mitchell a fraud who has repeatedly claimed he figured out what Meyer did. He is banned from this forum because he made a death threat and claimed I posted his address online plus he insulted all the members in this forum who ever dare mentioned the word NITROGEN. That is what you deal with when people are so egotistical that they won't let their belief system go once it is established - they're incapable of READING what Stan Meyer said in his own words.

They think they key is all the resonant circuit business or stripping electrons from oxygen, but it's not. It is about changing the quality of the fuel with nitrogen - it is not a mystery.

Stan Meyer even admits that in all the documents I provide. So many people see those, in his own words, and they go off to figure out what he did or maintain that he never did anything with nitrogen.

Stan Meyer even told Michael back in the early 90's in the UK that his exhaust smelled like ammonia (nh3) - if that doesn't wake people up then they need to stop wasting time with Stan Meyer technology because they will never get it.

Anyway, all the stuff about the quality of the metal, resonant circuits, etc... are all red herrings and have nothing to do with the right fuel to run an engine completely on water gas. Early on, he admitted in simple English what he did to create his synthetic gas by mixing nitrogen with the water gas. Later on, he changed all his references an only said "non combustible gas", etc... anyone that looks at his work in the proper SEQUENCE can see with common sense that he moved towards a lot of deception to hide the simple nitrogen key because that is the goose that lays the golden eggs. After that much time, money and effort in the patents, etc... why would he leave the key right out in the open for all to see? He wouldn't because that would be completely stupid after millions are spent to give it all away. He had serious investments to protect.

-----------------------------

We should probably move this conversation to another thread because it is off topic from putting hho into a catalytic converter to make heat, which is completely fascinating.

Yes, I agree. It ran a little out of hand.

In the end, it is experiments and practical stuff that works which really matters and the catalytic converter is fascinating indeed. I'm sure experimenting with that will teach us many lessons. I look forward to reading the results of various experimenters.

For the moment, my objective is to see whether or not I can get an engine running on my Cramton replication with electropolished anodes. I have shared my reasoning and arguments about why I think this should be beneficial and now I just have to test it and get to the bottom of this "electret effect". As far as I am aware, no one has tested this publicly, so no matter what the result will be we will have learned something.

Either way, I talked the talk and now it's time to walk the walk.

Recycling of exhaust gasses is certainly something I keep in mind, although I want to leave that for a later stage. For now I don't need to slow down the burn rate, because I'm making the ignition system adjustable during operation, but there may be other benefits which we don't know of.

Mixing the gas with "cold water fog" is also something I want to experiment with. Your experiments with the "water spark plug" and others (like Graneau ) suggest this is also beneficial (also see Patrick Kelly's chapter 10) and I intend to use an ordinary moped carburetor with adjustable nozzle for that.

To put something on topic: It may also be interesting to find out if mixing the gas with "cold water fog" has any effect on the catalytic reaction and, if yes, under which circumstances.

Either way, when I have something to report, I will post on a Meyer thread or start a new one.

Once I get my cell up and running, I might experiment with a catalytic converter too, but first things first.


BTW, Stan did get his engine running on the injectors, but only stationary AFAIK (a/o at 13:20 in the video):
Stanley Meyer and his brother on how the water fuel injection system works. (NEW RELEASED) - YouTube

Please keep this thread clean without unnecessary clutter . Stan Meyers technology is fascinating in and of itself , but I believe that discussion belongs somewhere else . Thank you .

Stanley Meyer

Yet another thread on Stanley Meyer. Starting this so I can move some posts form the HHO Catalytic Converter thread so that can stay on topic.

Yes, on page 46 of this WFC report we find the results of a chemical analysis of steel samples provided by Stan, dated December 22, 1982:

Of course, one cannot conclude from the existence of this report that the tubes Stan had tested must have originated from an unknown source (scrap) nor that they must have been electropolished. But when one starts at the idea that the "electret effect" observed with Bedini chargers and "conditioned' WFC pipes is likely caused by a polarized dielectric, one adds the idea that a "static" electric field as emitted by a polarized dielectric contains energy and thus concludes that this is most likely the source for excess energy (Prof. Turtur), then things start pointing in the same direction.

I had some tubes electropolished and there is no visible layer of some kind on the tubes, but we know it's there and that it consists mostly of Cr2O3, which has a dielectric constant in the order of 10, just as Aluminum oxide, the most common dielectric used in electrolytic capacitors. The tubes just look very shiny, if one does not know it's stainless steel one would probably guess it's made of chromium. That's what it looks like.

In other words: when one starts with the idea that the electret effect is what makes the electrolyser efficient, because it draws in energy from the vacuum / zero point field, and one comes to the conclusion that the dielectric layer being deposited on the stainless with an electropolishing process is similar to the dielectric in an electrolytic capacitor and should thus be capable of providing this electret effect, then we get a completely different picture of what might have happened.

Given the time frame of the surviving footage showing a running buggy, equipped with an electrolyser which appears to have been made with stainless tubes and one notes that the samples tested are also tube samples, it is tempting to speculate that there must have been something special with this first set of tubes which has not been understood by Stan. And if that is the case, then one can also speculate that these tubes must have been obtained as scrap, because otherwise it would have been known which alloy they were made of. The fact that the composition of the tubes tested is different for both diameters also supports that assumption.

Now since the "passivation" layer on stainless steel, consisting mostly out of Cr2O3, is invisible to the naked eye and electropolishing "only" makes this layer more smooth and thicker, one would not become any wiser by testing the steel for it's alloy. So, IF the tubes were indeed obtained as scrap and one of the sets happened to have been electropolished, enabling the electret effect, which would result into unexplained behavior, this would NOT show up in a test for the composition of the alloy.

All things considered, I concluded that it is likely that Stan's first working prototype with the electrolyzer made out of stainless tubes, as shown on the picture in this thread above, happened to have contained a batch of electropolished stainless, probably originating at some food processing plant or something.

And if the electret effect is indeed the mechanism by which we can extract energy out of the vacuum along Turtur's theory, then we have not only an explanation for where the energy comes from, but also an explanation for why on the only footage we can find of the buggy actually being driven the buggy is powered by this large cell, consisting of what looks like ordinary stainless steel tubes.


IF he happened to have obtained a batch of electropolished stainless as scrap and used that for his first prototype, there would have been an invisible, relatively thick, dielectric layer consisting of Cr2O3 and he would likely never have known. The testing report suggests there indeed was something special with the tubes of his first prototype, but the results of the test did not make him any wiser.


Yes, he talked about changing the burn rate and I have no reason to doubt that can be done with nitrogen. While this certainly has advantages in the sense that one can adapt/tune properties of the gas to a certain application, it does not explain excess energy. And if changing the burn rate is the only effect obtained by mixing nitrogen, one can just as well adapt the timing of the engine such that ignition occurs about 10 degrees after TDC. As long as you have an exploding gas ignited at the right moment in the engine cycle, the engine should run just fine.


As far as I can tell, the effect of the nitrogen has to do with changing the burn rate of the fuel, which means you can use it in an engine without the need for adapting the ignition timing. However, as far as I can tell, this does not make much if any difference in terms of COP.


I'm afraid that if I am correct and the electret effect is essentially the energy source and that we can obtain the electret effect by electropolishing our anodes, that we are looking at a "lucky hit" with his first prototype, which he has never been able to repeat. A story which resembles the story of Edwin Gray. He also had a working "lucky hit" engine once, which they have been unable to repeat.

I really doubt Stan ever got anything even close to the performance of his first working prototype and it appears that his first prototype stopped working because the tubes wore out over time, since in 1994 when the BBC made this documentary, the buggy was not running:

Stanley Meyers amazing water powered car - YouTube

The buggy is shown running in there, but that is old footage.

What you show about the electret effect clearly is significant. A lot of similar experiments and data point into the direction of the presence of a polarized dielectric layer, in your case at the negative plate, probably consisting of calcium carbonate or some other chemicals present in tap water. Calcium carbonate has a dielectric constant of about 6-9, which falls in the same range as aluminum oxide and Cr2O3:

http://www.rafoeg.de/20,Dokumentenar...tric_chart.pdf

So, if indeed the dielectric is our power source, then resonance, etc. is not the key ingredient, nor is the adaption of the burn rate to make a fuel suitable to run an unadapted engine with.

However, maintaining acoustic resonance within the cell fluid will likely have a beneficial effect, because the fluid will then be in constant motion, thus preventing gas bubbles to "stick" to the metals and increasing the amount of water molecules which comes into contact with the dielectric in a given time frame.

If indeed Pollack's "EZ" layer consisting of negatively charged crystalic structures plays an important role in the formation of HHO, whatever it may be, then pulsing plays an important role in manipulating that layer. This layer is likely also the mechanism which makes an aluminum - water interface act as a diode in old school rectifiers, which are very similar in construction to electrolytic capacitors, as shown by Nyle Steiner:

Borax or Baking Soda Rectifier and the glow.
Baking Soda Variable Electrolytic Capacitor.

If these mechanisms and phenomena are indeed the key ingredients to making an efficient electrolyzer, which makes a certain mixture of gases, then the choice and optimization of the dielectric layer is one of the most important parameters in the whole system.

The question whether or not Cr2O3 is a suitable dielectric for the application is still an open question, but the data I have been able to find as well as the history of Stan's buggy suggest it may very well be. And if it is, surely a lot of pieces of the puzzle would drop into place.