Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Water Fuel This forum is for discussion on any water fuel topic dealing with electrolysis, Stanley Meyer, hho, Brown's Gas, Puharich, etc...

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-07-2013, 05:15 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Arrow Water Fuel Secrets

I have released a brief report today called Water Fuel Secrets.

Many of you know this information is FREE in this forum as several years
back, Michael John Nunnerley, Alex (Tutanka) and a few others including
myself posted over and over and over and over about the importance
of nitrogen, ionization of the air and it was explained that Stan Meyer's
references to non-combustible gases were indisputably - NITROGEN.

Anyone is free to go look it all up and spend the time to do that.

You can get a copy here that shows 100% indisputably that what we have
all been saying all along has never been speculation. It is in Meyer's
OWN WORDS.


Water Fuel Secrets by Aaron Murakami
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 03-14-2013 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 03-07-2013, 09:42 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Water Fuel Secrets

02-20-2010, 10:12 AM
h20power
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 661


To be here or not to be here, that is the question.
Hi Everyone,

In the past few days you have seen nothing more than an abuse of power. And what happened to me can happen to each and every one of you.

Question: Do think you would see a posting of Dr. Lindemann's true age or an aireal shot of his place of business or the same information posted about JB?
The answer is NO.

What happened to me can also happen to any of you. It all started with a post I made on the, "Atomic Hydrogen" thread. I posted a lot of questions that have gone thus far unanswered by anyone involved with the other theory.

Questions like these;
1. What is the rate of the reaction to form Nitrogen Hydroxide?
2. How and where will these new molecules be formed?
3. What is the expected energy content or energy yield of the whole process?
4. In looking at the Gas Gun there is only trace amounts of nitrogen in the system coming from disolved gases in the water that is being broken down so how could nitrogen be a vital part of what Meyer calls thermo explosive energy (gmt)?


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

I won't post much from h20power, just this. There is plenty on the internet that anyone can find. He fought us tooth and nail to deny any relevance of nitrogen in the Stan Meyer process. He insulted us, called us names and even made a death threat to me. That is why I posted a picture of his work place for my own protection. We agreed to part ways and I removed the picture of his work. This is why he is not here and NOT what Bussi wants everyone to believe.

The "nitrogen hydroxide" is not a real molecule but is a reference to the nitrogen modified fuel.

For someone that claims to "FULLY" understand Stan Meyer's science, he doesn't seem to have actually read much of his work.

"
  • and other non-volatile gasses such as oxygen and nitrogen. The hydrogen gas with the attendant non-volatile gasses in a controlled ratio are fed via a line to a controlled air intake system. The combined hydrogen, non-volatile gasses, and the air after intermixing are fed to a combustion chamber wherein the mixture is ignited. The exhaust gasses of the combustion chamber are returned in a closed loop arrangement to the mixing chamber for the mixture of volatile as the non-combustible gasses.
  • [0006] More specifically, the generated hydrogen gas is fed to a gas mixing chamber, wherein the hydrogen gas is inter- mixed with non-combustible gasses. The mixture is fed to a carburator (air intake mixture) system.
  • [0007] The gas mixture is'fed through nozzle to chamber in a jet spray. Valve or gate controls the amount of air intake to the jet spray. The gasses combine with the air to form a gas mixture of hydrogen, non-volatile gas, and oxygen. The mixture now combustible, but not volatile, is entered into a combustion chamber"
Meyer defines non-volatile NITROGEN as a non-volatile gas.



He also defines the non-volatile gases as being synonymous with using the term non-combustible gases.



The gases combine with AIR to form a gas mixture of hydrogen, non-volatile gas (NITROGEN) and oxygen. The mixture now combustible, but NOT VOLATILE, is not entered into the combustion chamber.


Plain water gas from the cell is EXTREMELY VOLATILE. That is just the way the so-called HHO gas is. It becomes NON-VOLATILE by blending it with NITROGEN! And THAT is the key to how he ran an engine on water, air and electricity. He wasn't making big amounts of gas. He started off with common flat plated electrolysis cells with pulsed DC. No VIC and all the resonance business. That all came after and is NOT foundational to the real foundation of Stan Meyer's technology. the real foundation is a simple pulsed dc electrolysis cell gas production is diluted with NITROGEN. Without the nitrogen, the water gas is very volatile and is not in the preferred combustible state that is needed for an engine.



So if you see anyone claiming that the resonant circuits of Meyer's to create water gas efficiently is the place to start with Meyer's technology in order to get it to work, they actually just skipped all the foundational steps that Meyer started with and went straight to the resonant circuits without even considering that it was never what made his slow burning flame, the foundation of his work, to begin with.



Nitrogen - Nitrogen - Nitrogen


So now you know, if you already didn't, that when Meyer talks about the thermal energy, THAT is what he is talking about. Making the water gas non-volatile or slow burning.



H20Power denied all of this while claiming to FULLY understand Meyer's science.


Jon Abel claims...


"Discussioners" are wondering why your members have such poor replication success rates. It's because the last two replications were killed by talks of Nitrogen technology that doesn't exist.



"As for Aaron's advice, you will not find any "Nitrogen technology" by Stan Meyer online."


"
It looks like twice he had tried to kill discussion of Meyer's Hydrogen technology - by deflecting attention to Nitrogen gas - and then not elaborating on the technology. Aaron is full of crap - he is paid for the lies and abuse he spews. Argon gas was one of the non-combustible gases that Stan spoke of"


"
When Aaron offers suspect information about Nitrogen, ask him if he is willing to show the proof. If "No.", then that's lying. As far as I am concerned, Aaron has not read a sentence of Stan Meyer literature."


"
Why should I respect the things you have to say about an alleged Stan Meyer Nitrogen Machine? Nobody else can verify your claim, either."



"It's funny how you guys make a big deal about adding ambient air."


"Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation."


"
you will know that resonance is an initial step towards getting a Stan Meyer device to work"


So, there you have it. A few of those who are most dedicated to Stan Meyer are the most aggressive at doing their best to make sure everyone's attention is diverted AWAY from the importance of Nitrogen.



There are MANY documents of Meyer's where he spells out this nitrogen key.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-07-2013, 01:31 PM
tutanka's Avatar
tutanka tutanka is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,079
Air Not Just Nitrogen..

Today I have received an email from Aaron mailing list about the new book based on Meyer works and on nitrogen..
Reading these posts I have decided to reply for to have an clear vision on that.
Meyer do not use just nitrogen but air (oxygen and nitrogen) and do not produce another molecule as ammonia during the process but just an atomic reaction , initially inside engine after inside the wfc injector.
Is important understand that Meyer has found casually (or maybe in contact with others inventors) that an special air treatment can be used as fuel.
From my side, after I made some experiments in this direction and writing two patents, I understand that Stanley Meyer don't has clear completely the right process.

I want open your minds!!

We are born in petrol era and we have been educated to burn gasoline and think that air is only an oxydant.
I can assure that need to be revised this concept because Isn't TRUE!!
I published an my video on http://www.air4gas.com, of course without comments but this just for patent protections, but now the patents are registered.
From my video you see an fantastic transparent flame and is the result of AIR-AS-FUEL technology.. Inside my reactor have put few grams of pellet as electrons donor.
The visible flame from video is air that burn at ambient pressure producing an intense blue plasma flame with more heat >1700C.
This is not a combustion reaction but an atomic reaction of the air without emissions of alpha,beta and gamma rays and on that is based my first patent.
In my latest experiments I have found also that reactor during the process can produce few volts and an high electrical current .
My second patent is based on that producing heat and electrical current directly from the SUN without an additional fuel.
I start an Conference/Event in Florence from 8-9-10 April 2013 and in June to the Aaron Conference and in these places present the working AIR-AS-FUEL device.
__________________
 

Last edited by tutanka; 03-07-2013 at 01:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-07-2013, 07:28 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
nitrogen





This is some of Meyer's earlier work.

Anyone who actually has studied Meyer knows these diagrams well and knows this predated the VIC. AND, the original cells were very standard FLAT PLATE electrolysis cells with very simple pulsed DC - no resonance, no VIC, etc...

So, with very, very simple pulsed DC electrolysis with very low tech flat plates, no different than pulsed DC dry cell or wet cells you can get on ebay or elsewhere, you are creating "hho" in the same quantities that Meyer started with.

And you can modify it to suck in ambient air during vacuum so that the hho is diluted so that the NITROGEN - as Meyer spells it out word for word, NITROGEN blended with the hydrogen and oxygen slows down the burn rate.

It turns the volatile HHO into a non-volatile slow burning fuel.

He wasn't making a torch like a Brown's gas welder! All his burners burned like a slow flame at lower temperature. Without the nitrogen to slow down the burn rate, you get nothing but a fast Brown's gas pop that many are familiar with.

This is all BEFORE any resonant circuits, etc... You can read Meyer's own descriptions. The NITROGEN that is heavily saturated in water and comes from the ambient air will slow down the burn rate of the water fuel. That is mixed and THEN it enters the combustion chamber in non-volatile form. He is talking about use in an engine way before he ever got into tube electrodes or resonant circuits. Meaning - creating the fuel for use on an engine was about QUALITY and NOT Quantity. Moot point anyway - this KEY was used way before the resonant circuits.

So anyone trying to convince you that the VIC/WFC setup is the initial step towards replicating Stan Meyer are blowing smoke plain and simple and have never spent much time actually looking at the historical chronology of what Meyer actually did!

There is more than I'm not referencing where Meyer goes into full discussion of nitrogen about 1-2 times PER PARAGRAPH. After those docs were locked in, he removed every reference to Nitrogen and only referred to it as "non-combustible" gases.

Meyer isn't an idiot. There is a lot of investment in those patents. So he did what he could to misdirect everyone's attention away from Nitrogen and to the VIC, etc... So if you want someone to blame, blame Meyer for putting you on the wrong track. But do you blame him? It was his technology - original concept came from the Nazi's and was supposedly taken to Australia and the rest is history.

Apparently, some people have fallen so deeply for Meyer's misdirection away from Nitrogen that they will stoop to any level possible in order to maintain their delusion.

This sequence of events is not my speculation. Look at the early patents, etc... and you will see NITROGEN spelled out over and over and over. Then right after that, you can see he removed all references and only referenced "non-combustible" gas. Any individual who is openly denying this is a misinformation agent and is lying to everyone.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 03-07-2013 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-07-2013, 11:57 PM
Solarlab Solarlab is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 62
Water Fuel Secrets - Test Set and Info

Hi Aaron,

It is good you have collected some information regarding Mr. Stanley Meyer's Waterfuelcell into a book, of sorts, and are offering to the public at large.

However, you may be pushing it a bit should you claim your publication might be an authoritative "WATER FUEL SECRETS" based solely upon moderating the HHO burn with an inert gas [nitrogen].

To your credit I am pleased to see you did offer qualifying statements indicating you have not actually built a working Waterfuelcell system.

Your segmenting Meyer's work chronologically I believe is a very good approach - separate Farady electrolysis from pulsed high voltage dissociation - understanding Meyer's early dissociation from his later perfection of electronic resonance {current limiting}; cell mechanical resonance {atom/molecule collisions via electrode spacing}; and, very importantly, his recognition of the atomic hydrogen state.

Energy levels of hydrogen over that of hydrocarbon fuel for dissociation (and electrolysis) are around 3.5; whereas atomic hydrogen is about 10+. It also appears the "burn rates" of hydrogen are different as well (Meyer and others have published a variety of equivalency chats). This is where the inert gas is required to moderate the burn rate in an effort to mimmic petrol.

As a side note: refer to the Popp engine [Noble Gas Engine] where helium, hydrogen, etc. are used as a fuel by elevating the gas to an atomic state.

Anyway, to assist in your studies of Meyer's techniques here is a link to a Test Set I developed a while back:

HHO Hydroxy Test Setup :: Create the Future Design Contest

Note, in this Test Set, the para/ortho hydrogen states also refer to atomic state.

Good luck to all - the fundamentals are there, Meyer's technology has been proven - commercialization is the final stage.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-08-2013, 10:43 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Stan Meyer - nitrogen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarlab View Post
However, you may be pushing it a bit should you claim your publication might be an authoritative "WATER FUEL SECRETS" based solely upon moderating the HHO burn with an inert gas [nitrogen].
Well, the subtitle is The Key to Stan Meyer's Technology. And, Stan Meyer is very explicit about this. He talks heavily about the thermal energy and about how you can only get it with blending nitrogen into the fuel. This is the genesis of his success and all the circuits and other concepts later were only to make everything more efficient. Those are all secondary to this primary key to the whole thing - slow burning water gas.

I'm not saying this is the master secret for ever water fuel technology there is.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:27 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Nitrogen mixing to slow the burn

A picture is worth a thousand words.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:34 AM
jonabel1971 jonabel1971 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 129
Slow the burn of what, Aaron? Slow the burn of what gases?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
A picture is worth a thousand words.

__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-09-2013, 07:37 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Stan Meyer & Nitrogen

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonabel1971 View Post
You are putting the cart before the horse for most (if not all) of your followers - again. I reason I asked, was because I just wanted to see if you would actually say the word hydrogen. You are so against understanding that you need to produce hydrogen 1st - before you slow its burn - that you refuse to see or believe that most of the people on your forum haven't done ANY of it, yet.
That's fine. No more benefit of the doubt. You absolutely are dedicated to lying to people.

First of all, everything I have shown here about Meyer IS producing hydrogen and to insinuate anything different only reveals your inauthentic intentions. This FACT is spelled out throughout this entire thread.

And THEN, that hydrogen and oxygen mixture from the water gas is modified by the nitrogen process.

WAY LATER - came the tubes and resonant circuits. The tube electrodes and resonant circuits are 100% IRRELEVANT to Meyer's discovery or rediscovery of how to make water fuel with a slow burning rate.

You have misled a lot of people into believing the WFC and resonant circuits are the initial step when people can actually get the results without ever knowing what a resonant circuit is.

And, you have denied over and over and over that Meyer never talked about Nitrogen - let's not forget that!

And let's also not forget how you continue to ask, " Slow the burn of what, Aaron? Slow the burn of what gases?" Anyone should be able to see by this kind of comment of yours that you actually have never studied very much of Stan Meyer's work at all since you have denied repeatedly the existence of Meyer's explanations of the role of NITROGEN in this process.

Most manipulators are a bit more slick than you. You are overtly clumsy about your methods and ways and have left a long trail of evidence reveling your ignorance in all of this.

Jon Abel claims...

"Discussioners" are wondering why your members have such poor replication success rates. It's because the last two replications were killed by talks of Nitrogen technology that doesn't exist.

"As for Aaron's advice, you will not find any "Nitrogen technology" by Stan Meyer online."

It looks like twice he had tried to kill discussion of Meyer's Hydrogen technology - by deflecting attention to Nitrogen gas - and then not elaborating on the technology. Aaron is full of crap - he is paid for the lies and abuse he spews. Argon gas was one of the non-combustible gases that Stan spoke of"

When Aaron offers suspect information about Nitrogen, ask him if he is willing to show the proof. If "No.", then that's lying. As far as I am concerned, Aaron has not read a sentence of Stan Meyer literature."

Why should I respect the things you have to say about an alleged Stan Meyer Nitrogen Machine? Nobody else can verify your claim, either."

It's funny how you guys make a big deal about adding ambient air."

"Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation."


you will know that resonance is an initial step towards getting a Stan Meyer device to work"

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

No, resonance is NOT the initial step towards getting a Stan Meyer device to work. Very simple NON resonant pulsed DC to flat plates produces exactly what Meyer did INITIALLY and he modified it with NITROGEN to make it slow burning. Any debate from you about this is nothing but manipulation of the facts. You're not proving what you know - you're proving exactly what you don't - that is unconscious incompetence.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-09-2013, 07:50 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
evidence of severe psychosis / split personality disorder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonabel1971 View Post
That's funny, we've never denied anything. Slowing hydrogen's burn can be done with water vapor, or non-conbustible gases, or both.

Plus, you are trying to hide the fact that you don't have a scientific background, by erasing all my threads about your fraudulent education.
Here are your denials:

Jon Abel claims...

"Discussioners" are wondering why your members have such poor replication success rates. It's because the last two replications were killed by talks of Nitrogen technology that doesn't exist. "

"As for Aaron's advice, you will not find any "Nitrogen technology" by Stan Meyer online."

It looks like twice he had tried to kill discussion of Meyer's Hydrogen technology - by deflecting attention to Nitrogen gas - and then not elaborating on the technology. Aaron is full of crap - he is paid for the lies and abuse he spews. Argon gas was one of the non-combustible gases that Stan spoke of"

When Aaron offers suspect information about Nitrogen, ask him if he is willing to show the proof. If "No.", then that's lying. As far as I am concerned, Aaron has not read a sentence of Stan Meyer literature."

Why should I respect the things you have to say about an alleged Stan Meyer Nitrogen Machine? Nobody else can verify your claim, either."

It's funny how you guys make a big deal about adding ambient air."

"Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation."



You win the fruitcake award - you denied over and over that non-combustible gases is nitrogen and that Meyer never talked about Nitrogen and now you act like you knew all along how to slow the burn of fuel by mixing it with non-combustible gases, which Meyer says is Nitrogen. The only thing slowing the burn of all of this is NITROGEN.

I hope I'm not the only one who can see the games you are playing.

I posted your DENIALS several times. It is not debatable. You denied this many times and now you're acting like you knew it all along!

And about my education? I deleted it in other threads because you're wasting space. I LEFT YOUR POST about that in this thread and responded about my education.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-09-2013, 09:01 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Brown's gas

Somebody (a good friend of mine) skyped me claiming Brown's Gas is a controlled burn. That is not a slow burning fuel at all and is NOTHING like what Meyer was running his car on. Brown's Gas unmodified with nitrogen dilution/ionization is a TORCH when you have enough production of it and it is under some pressure.

The water fuel without being modified is absolutely incredible as a welding flame for some very interesting applications. I've been a fan of it ever since I found out about it and have bought several of books on it from George Wiseman because I think he has the best info. If you are interested in that kind of application, visit: DIY energy saving methods and devices but please don't confuse that with getting the thermal energy out of the water fuel like what Stan Meyer is talking about. Completely different.

It is fine as a fuel supplement to mix with gas/air in an engine because the reactive oxygen molecules will break the hydrocarbons into smaller molecules increasing the BTU you get from the same amount of fuel. That is where the increase comes from, not from the hydrogen in the "hho".

As a SOLE fuel for an engine, you CAN run an engine on it but you are at a serious net loss because you lose the ability for it to truly combust while it is volatile and only detonates. Tero and others showed this. Filled up a balloon ahead of time and ran an engine until the fuel ran out. You will never use the plain hho like that and expect a gain in energy.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 03-09-2013, 04:40 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
the reactive oxygen molecules will break the hydrocarbons into smaller molecules increasing the BTU you get from the same amount of fuel. That is where the increase comes from, not from the hydrogen in the "hho".
I came to the same conclusion
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-09-2013, 09:15 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
hho "catalyst"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I came to the same conclusion
I think George Wiseman may have to - I recall him saying something like the hho as a supplement just acts as a catalyst. But don't quote me on that.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-10-2013, 04:12 PM
cplouffe cplouffe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 24
Transmutation

I would think the ambient air / especially nitrogen is important because you are working with transmutation IMO. Moving nitrogen to hydrogen or lower octave more combustible gases using electricity and pressure changes. See Walter Russell.


Also Tesla claimed to ignite nitrogen with HV which was done by manipulating the "nucleus" of the atom using fields. Ala Russell. Russell used conical coils to either oblate or prolate the atom moving it from one element to the other. Just change the current and angles.
__________________
http://lightcoalition.org/ my site for Walter Russell info...webinars, glossary, my thoughts etc...

Last edited by cplouffe; 03-10-2013 at 04:16 PM. Reason: Tesla
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-10-2013, 09:35 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
transmutation

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplouffe View Post
I would think the ambient air / especially nitrogen is important because you are working with transmutation IMO. Moving nitrogen to hydrogen or lower octave more combustible gases using electricity and pressure changes. See Walter Russell.


Also Tesla claimed to ignite nitrogen with HV which was done by manipulating the "nucleus" of the atom using fields. Ala Russell. Russell used conical coils to either oblate or prolate the atom moving it from one element to the other. Just change the current and angles.
It's related but is another concept than what Meyer did in my opinion.

You can search Andreyev and AUTOTHERMIA. Turning air into fuel. Tutanka makes reference to someone else with similar theories.

Can oxygen be split into an atom of nitrogen and hydrogen?

I think Lyne's Free Energy Surprise discusses the HV and nitrogen. I don't know anyone that has replicated it through.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-11-2013, 11:54 AM
cplouffe cplouffe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
It's related but is another concept than what Meyer did in my opinion.

You can search Andreyev and AUTOTHERMIA. Turning air into fuel. Tutanka makes reference to someone else with similar theories.

Can oxygen be split into an atom of nitrogen and hydrogen?

I think Lyne's Free Energy Surprise discusses the HV and nitrogen. I don't know anyone that has replicated it through.
Ah gotchya. I will check into the info.

I think rather than split you just change the spin/pressure-octave/center-"nucleus" from oxygen to it's lower octave of Hydrogen. I was keying in on nitrogen as it is most abundant in air. You are manipulating the north/south or e/w poles of the atom which are centripetal or centrifugal vortices. Winding up matter or unwinding matter we just adjust the stage it is in.

I am familiar with Lyne's device thx. I don't know of any replications at the moment either. Interesting concept when you go back and look at Tesla though. Fun stuff!
__________________
http://lightcoalition.org/ my site for Walter Russell info...webinars, glossary, my thoughts etc...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-13-2013, 09:22 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
fresh discussion

I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-13-2013, 01:34 PM
tutanka's Avatar
tutanka tutanka is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
Hello Aaron, Im not able to reply into your new forum..

However I want explain these informations ....

These patents are initial approach of Meyer to understand a new way for obtain more thermal energy.
The explaination of combustion is wrong because the engine is in fact an mechanical atomic reactor..
When reaction is started you obtain as result an change of state of molecules that you sent inside thanks to the compression.
You start the combustion mixing the fuel (CxxHxx molecule) with air (oxygen/nitrogen) obtaining COx and NOx as exaust gas.
The main problem is that the energy produced from compression does not have enough power for dissociated the nitrogen molecules, as result you have inert gas into the exaust gas.
You need to understand that combustions reactions have different levels:

1) humans for live need just air in molecular state
2) engine suck air and split just oxygen molecules into atoms
3) air as fuel tech split all air into atoms

We are born in petrol era and we know that your car for run need gasoline or diesel.
At today an endothermic engine use the oxygen, present in air, just as the oxydant of fuel, this explaination is correct in part because the process of combustion isn't understand completely..
Returning to Stan Meyer.. probably during some tests has found that air have enough power and the initial researchs using exaust gas (nitrogen and water vapour) with watergas are changed ionizing the air and mixing with watergas.
But Stan Meyer don't has clear the reaction because sometimes works and sometimes not.
From that reason Stan have the idea to wfc injector, an all in one device. Good intuition but with more electrical and mechanical problems.
After we know all that Stan is died and this technology is was lost..
In this year 2013 an italian team has found the right way for transform air into fuel because this is the year of energy revolution for the benefit for all peoples.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-14-2013, 03:43 AM
Ein~+ein Ein~+ein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Since Jon's no longer around to answer the cold, hard, factual questions I asked him, I've decided to turn my attention to Aaron's argument:

"...it doesn't matter how efficient an electrolysis cell is, it's not going to create a suitable fuel for burning in an engine or cooking your food!"
We are talking about burning, are we not? Isn't rocket fuel just liquified hydrogen and oxygen? It's all about energy density. Do others accept Aaron's assertion that nitrogen is 'KEY'. Even in liquified form, nitrogen has only 1/30 the energy density ratio of gasoline whereas the energy density of hydrogen in its gaseous state isn't even a third of methane's--still not high enough to power a vehicle unless it's pressurized. Isn't that the 'big secret' or is Aaron onto some largely-unknown alchemical reaction?
"I am NOT claiming I have a car running on water - so please make sure you undertand this in no uncertain terms. And, I'm NOT claiming I have "duplicated" or "replicated" Stan Meyer ... What I AM claiming is to have Stan Meyer's own words explaining the nitrogen importance in one of his own legal documents and how it makes a useful fuel instead of having a quick "Brown's Gas" pop using HHO, which in an engine is completely worthless for anything other than a fuel supplement."
Anyone know how to set my profile so this permanently appears:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!
"I have spent thousands of hours and a lot of money over the years figuring out what Stan Meyer did ..."
...and you still haven't been able to replicate it? That proves...
a) Stan Meyer was just another run-of-the-mill FE scammer;
b) the nitrogen 'key is but one of MANY missing keys you conveniently fail to mention to a mystery that remains locked away in some CIA vault (you do claim this technology is suppressed);
c) you are technically incompetent;
d) you are not being completely up front and honest with us;
e) much of the above.

All I can say, Aaron, is: 'Build it and they will come!'

If you can't do it yourself, why not use this website to recruit the talent you need to build a prototype engine? Seriously! You're peddling a book of useless information about some worthless engine, or are you?
"YOU WANT THE WATER FUEL TO BURN SLOWLY AND GIVE UP ITS THERMAL ENERGY INSTEAD OF A QUICK FAST BURN THAT TURNS BACK TO WATER AND SHRINKS IN VOLUME AND GIVE YOU NO REAL NET WORK THAT CAN RUN AN ENGINE."
What kind of engine are you referring to, a steam engine? It's obviously not an internal combustion engine.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-14-2013, 09:21 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Stan Meyer - non combustible gases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-14-2013, 02:21 PM
Ein~+ein Ein~+ein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
What happened to my post and page 2 of this thread?

Guess I asked the wrong questions again, huh? ( Avoid the 'n' word, everyone! )
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 03-15-2013, 12:56 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Stan Meyer nitrogen non-combustible gases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ein~+ein View Post
What happened to my post and page 2 of this thread?

Guess I asked the wrong questions again, huh? ( Avoid the 'n' word, everyone! )
Your post is below - I thought it was condescending.

Anyway, I did say I'll continue here: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-15-2013, 03:14 AM
Ein~+ein Ein~+ein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Aaron, what's with all the new threads? Anyway, this post is indeed relevant to the topic and conversation on this thread.

Was I condescending? It's the nature of informal textual conversations with strangers that we tend to drop our social graces. I've already admitted my ignorance--but if my questions appear too blunt or disrespectful of your experience and knowledge, then imagine instead you're putting together an FAQ for the skeptical.

Anyway, here's my argument in a nutshell. You make a theoretical claim about the importance of nitrogen in Stanley Meyer's WFC, but as vast as your experience and knowledge is, as sound as your reasoning might be, neither you* nor anyone else has yet proved it in practice. Am I not right--it's only just theory? Yes, or no?

For many of the 'faithful', that's enough unfortunately. They're the ones contributing to the perceived credibility, hype, and fortunes of the likes of Steorn, Keshe, Rossi, Heins, Willis, et al whose devices have never been independently tested or verified, remaining perpetually at the 'close-to-market' stage in the words of PESN's Sterling Allen. Not surprisingly, along with Smart Scarecrow's G. Hendershot, he openly admits to having blindly (unintentionally) endorsed scammers in the past. That's why I'm saying that, especially in the realm of FE, if you make a claim, even in theory, you better be prepared to back it up with cold, hard evidence... or it's only speculation. You'll recall I was the only one attempting to awaken Jon from his 'eureka' euphoria by asking for such.

*From that link on page 1 you wrote:
[INDENT]"I am NOT claiming I have a car running on water - so please make sure you undertand this in no uncertain terms. And, I'm NOT claiming I have "duplicated" or "replicated" Stan Meyer - so please also be clear that you understand this as well. This is NOT a How-To guide telling you how to build anything either. So please also understand that. What I AM claiming is to have Stan Meyer's own words explaining the nitrogen importance in one of his own legal documents and how it makes a useful fuel instead of having a quick "Brown's Gas" pop using HHO, which in an engine is completely worthless for anything other than a fuel supplement."[/INDENT]
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-15-2013, 05:00 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
@E

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ein~+ein View Post
Aaron, what's with all the new threads? Anyway, this post is indeed relevant to the topic and conversation on this thread.

Was I condescending? It's the nature of informal textual conversations with strangers that we tend to drop our social graces. I've already admitted my ignorance--but if my questions appear too blunt or disrespectful of your experience and knowledge, then imagine instead you're putting together an FAQ for the skeptical.

Anyway, here's my argument in a nutshell. You make a theoretical claim about the importance of nitrogen in Stanley Meyer's WFC, but as vast as your experience and knowledge is, as sound as your reasoning might be, neither you* nor anyone else has yet proved it in practice. Am I not right--it's only just theory? Yes, or no?

For many of the 'faithful', that's enough unfortunately. They're the ones contributing to the perceived credibility, hype, and fortunes of the likes of Steorn, Keshe, Rossi, Heins, Willis, et al whose devices have never been independently tested or verified, remaining perpetually at the 'close-to-market' stage in the words of PESN's Sterling Allen. Not surprisingly, along with Smart Scarecrow's G. Hendershot, he openly admits to having blindly (unintentionally) endorsed scammers in the past. That's why I'm saying that, especially in the realm of FE, if you make a claim, even in theory, you better be prepared to back it up with cold, hard evidence... or it's only speculation. You'll recall I was the only one attempting to awaken Jon from his 'eureka' euphoria by asking for such.

*From that link on page 1 you wrote:
[INDENT]"I am NOT claiming I have a car running on water - so please make sure you undertand this in no uncertain terms. And, I'm NOT claiming I have "duplicated" or "replicated" Stan Meyer - so please also be clear that you understand this as well. This is NOT a How-To guide telling you how to build anything either. So please also understand that. What I AM claiming is to have Stan Meyer's own words explaining the nitrogen importance in one of his own legal documents and how it makes a useful fuel instead of having a quick "Brown's Gas" pop using HHO, which in an engine is completely worthless for anything other than a fuel supplement."[/indent]
The new thread in the other forum is where more will be posted.

In practice, I've already proven it by reducing propane usage in a most significant manner on my jet engine. Why is it that I posted what I posted and mysteriously, I've never put it to practice according to you. "neither you* nor anyone else has yet proved it in practice"

First of all, it is not a theory, associates of mine have taken it beyond what I have and reducing propane usage on a jet as I said is a phenomenal achievement by itself. Several others have gone all the way. The red car in the OZ nitro cell documents is owned by a friend of someone I know. It runs on 100% water with a pinch of salt, a coil around the cell and a vacuum on the cell but also ambient air comes into mix with the hho. It has a lawnmower carb on the engine and runs on this fuel exclusively. There are others.

Second of all, you are twisting and manipulating the context of what my claim actually was whether you are trying to or not. The claim was - Stan Meyer explained in his own words the importance of nitrogen and the role it plays in making a useful fuel for an engine that is non-volatile. THAT is not theoretical and is NOT debatable. I've proven this 100% conclusively, with Meyer's own documents - his own words - that he did indeed explain this very clearly over and over. Others denied the existence of these documents and I backed my claims that these documents exist and I've shown them, period.

For the umpteeth time, and you even quote me saying it: "What I AM claiming is to have Stan Meyer's own words explaining the nitrogen importance in one of his own legal documents and how it makes a useful fuel instead of having a quick "Brown's Gas" pop using HHO"

Is it theoretical whether Stan Meyer discussed the nitrogen as I said he did? The answer is NO. Did I prove with Meyer's own documentation that HE made these claims? YES.

For my own work, it is irrelevant to me whether anyone believes anything I say or not. But for the sake of the entire context of what people are looking for in terms of water fuel and what Stan Meyer was up to - I absolutely believe it is CRUCIAL for everyone to understand exactly what Stan Meyer said about nitrogen despite the claims that Meyer never said it. I put multiple excerpts from Meyer's patents in this thread already and anyone can verify that proving that I have been telling the truth about this matter for the last 3-4 years.

You have a lot of questions, but DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT COPY AND PASTE THOSE QUOTES FROM MEYER INTO A SEARCH ENGINE IN ORDER TO FIND OUT IF MEYER ACTUALLY SAID THOSE THINGS IN HIS PATENTS? If the answer is no, you are wasting everyone's time including mine because you are not even following up on the references given.

And for proving anything to skeptics - for the most part, skeptics are simply ignorant and have no rational critical thinking skills. Most are pseudo-skeptics trying to act as some impartial objective viewers who are only trying to get answers, but they're full of it. Nothing I say or anything else anyone else says made them skeptical - they bring their skepticism with them wherever they go because they have fooled themselves into believing they are actually qualified to analyze what is presented to them. There is a name for these skeptics - AKA "Skepticlowns" and I could care less if they are convinced of anything or not. To make real progress, it is an effort in futility to spend time convincing people who already have their mind made up. And I should have stopped posting in the other thread the moment Jon and Bussi started attacking me as a lying misinformation agent calming that Stan never said those things. But if you understand how much time and effort was put into getting people on the right track a few years ago, you may understand why I was insistent on proving the point.

Just have to focus on attracting people that are smart enough to not analyze things with a pre-conceived idea about how things should be. They see things as they are but don't dismiss things just because they don't believe it already. They wait and see - that is a trait of someone with intelligence who has rational critical thinking skills.

You saw with your own eyes how many people started to scream BS, scam, crap, misinformation and called me a liar when it came to me saying that Stan Meyer discussed word for word the importance of nitrogen. It wasn't what I said that made them "skeptical" - they already had their minds made up. Even AFTER presented with the evidence, they still denied it. THAT is the kind of mentality you are expecting me to satisfy by creating some FAQ for skeptics.

There is no such thing as an open-minded skeptic - they're all fakes. There is no such thing as "healthy skepticism". Skepticism has no place in science, it only prohibits progress. It's arrogant and asinine. If I'm the world leading scientist in plasma electrolysis for example and someone comes along and claims to have found something that I was unaware of in my field, the only authentic open-minded scientific response I could give is to simply look at it for what it is - it will make sense or it will not. But if the ideomotor response kicks in and makes words come out of my mouth before my mind can think what they are such as "That's impossible - everything I read on the subject never mentioned anything like that." - then I'd be a moron - not a scientist.

In any case, you're questions in your previous post is filled with things that have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Bringing up what the energy density of nitrogen is proves my point. Where do you get off bringing that up when it has been clearly explained to you what the role of nitrogen is in the world of Stan Meyer? Obviously from his explanations, it is not about liberating energy in nitrogen. Whether there is some alchemical reactions happening that Stan Meyer was unaware of, and there certainly was and is, that is irrelevant to the point that the energy density of nitrogen has absolutely NOTHING to do with getting the thermal energy from the HHO IN MEYER'S WORDS. The principle of slowing the burn rate was explained to you so why bring up such a concept that has nothing to do with anything discussed?

My statement about not claiming to have replicated Meyer is to keep my foot out of my mouth and others ought to learn the concept.

Where are these many missing keys? I said the key to Meyer's water fuel was the nitrogen and he also admits that is what allows him to get a combustible fuel that is non-volatile like the HHO. CIA vault? Pretty dramatic.

This is foolishness you're talking about : "What kind of engine are you referring to, a steam engine? It's obviously not an internal combustion engine. "

Not sure where you get off on this. If you are able to open your eyes and see the light, I posted a very clear diagram from Meyer's patents in regards to slowing the burn rate of the water fuel and it shows a combustion chamber arrangement with a spark plug - an internal combustion engine. But you claim "obviously not an internal combustion engine".

The only thing you are proving is that you actually are not here to want clarification on anything and are here to disrupt and mislead people into thinking I said something I didn't. "Obviously not an internal combustion engine"? Are you for real?????? Why don't you scroll to the BIG image in this thread that is so big is fills up the entire width of your monitor.

To miss that and tell everyone we're obviously not talking about an internal combustion engine tells me you're up to no good.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 03-15-2013 at 05:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-15-2013, 07:30 AM
tutanka's Avatar
tutanka tutanka is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
The new thread in the other forum is where more will be posted.

In practice, I've already proven it by reducing propane usage in a most significant manner on my jet engine. Why is it that I posted what I posted and mysteriously, I've never put it to practice according to you. "neither you* nor anyone else has yet proved it in practice"

First of all, it is not a theory, associates of mine have taken it beyond what I have and reducing propane usage on a jet as I said is a phenomenal achievement by itself. Several others have gone all the way. The red car in the OZ nitro cell documents is owned by a friend of someone I know. It runs on 100% water with a pinch of salt, a coil around the cell and a vacuum on the cell but also ambient air comes into mix with the hho. It has a lawnmower carb on the engine and runs on this fuel exclusively. There are others.

Second of all, you are twisting and manipulating the context of what my claim actually was whether you are trying to or not. The claim was - Stan Meyer explained in his own words the importance of nitrogen and the role it plays in making a useful fuel for an engine that is non-volatile. THAT is not theoretical and is NOT debatable. I've proven this 100% conclusively, with Meyer's own documents - his own words - that he did indeed explain this very clearly over and over. Others denied the existence of these documents and I backed my claims that these documents exist and I've shown them, period.

For the umpteeth time, and you even quote me saying it: "What I AM claiming is to have Stan Meyer's own words explaining the nitrogen importance in one of his own legal documents and how it makes a useful fuel instead of having a quick "Brown's Gas" pop using HHO"

Is it theoretical whether Stan Meyer discussed the nitrogen as I said he did? The answer is NO. Did I prove with Meyer's own documentation that HE made these claims? YES.

For my own work, it is irrelevant to me whether anyone believes anything I say or not. But for the sake of the entire context of what people are looking for in terms of water fuel and what Stan Meyer was up to - I absolutely believe it is CRUCIAL for everyone to understand exactly what Stan Meyer said about nitrogen despite the claims that Meyer never said it. I put multiple excerpts from Meyer's patents in this thread already and anyone can verify that proving that I have been telling the truth about this matter for the last 3-4 years.

You have a lot of questions, but DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT COPY AND PASTE THOSE QUOTES FROM MEYER INTO A SEARCH ENGINE IN ORDER TO FIND OUT IF MEYER ACTUALLY SAID THOSE THINGS IN HIS PATENTS? If the answer is no, you are wasting everyone's time including mine because you are not even following up on the references given.

And for proving anything to skeptics - for the most part, skeptics are simply ignorant and have no rational critical thinking skills. Most are pseudo-skeptics trying to act as some impartial objective viewers who are only trying to get answers, but they're full of it. Nothing I say or anything else anyone else says made them skeptical - they bring their skepticism with them wherever they go because they have fooled themselves into believing they are actually qualified to analyze what is presented to them. There is a name for these skeptics - AKA "Skepticlowns" and I could care less if they are convinced of anything or not. To make real progress, it is an effort in futility to spend time convincing people who already have their mind made up. And I should have stopped posting in the other thread the moment Jon and Bussi started attacking me as a lying misinformation agent calming that Stan never said those things. But if you understand how much time and effort was put into getting people on the right track a few years ago, you may understand why I was insistent on proving the point.

Just have to focus on attracting people that are smart enough to not analyze things with a pre-conceived idea about how things should be. They see things as they are but don't dismiss things just because they don't believe it already. They wait and see - that is a trait of someone with intelligence who has rational critical thinking skills.

You saw with your own eyes how many people started to scream BS, scam, crap, misinformation and called me a liar when it came to me saying that Stan Meyer discussed word for word the importance of nitrogen. It wasn't what I said that made them "skeptical" - they already had their minds made up. Even AFTER presented with the evidence, they still denied it. THAT is the kind of mentality you are expecting me to satisfy by creating some FAQ for skeptics.

There is no such thing as an open-minded skeptic - they're all fakes. There is no such thing as "healthy skepticism". Skepticism has no place in science, it only prohibits progress. It's arrogant and asinine. If I'm the world leading scientist in plasma electrolysis for example and someone comes along and claims to have found something that I was unaware of in my field, the only authentic open-minded scientific response I could give is to simply look at it for what it is - it will make sense or it will not. But if the ideomotor response kicks in and makes words come out of my mouth before my mind can think what they are such as "That's impossible - everything I read on the subject never mentioned anything like that." - then I'd be a moron - not a scientist.

In any case, you're questions in your previous post is filled with things that have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Bringing up what the energy density of nitrogen is proves my point. Where do you get off bringing that up when it has been clearly explained to you what the role of nitrogen is in the world of Stan Meyer? Obviously from his explanations, it is not about liberating energy in nitrogen. Whether there is some alchemical reactions happening that Stan Meyer was unaware of, and there certainly was and is, that is irrelevant to the point that the energy density of nitrogen has absolutely NOTHING to do with getting the thermal energy from the HHO IN MEYER'S WORDS. The principle of slowing the burn rate was explained to you so why bring up such a concept that has nothing to do with anything discussed?

My statement about not claiming to have replicated Meyer is to keep my foot out of my mouth and others ought to learn the concept.

Where are these many missing keys? I said the key to Meyer's water fuel was the nitrogen and he also admits that is what allows him to get a combustible fuel that is non-volatile like the HHO. CIA vault? Pretty dramatic.

This is foolishness you're talking about : "What kind of engine are you referring to, a steam engine? It's obviously not an internal combustion engine. "

Not sure where you get off on this. If you are able to open your eyes and see the light, I posted a very clear diagram from Meyer's patents in regards to slowing the burn rate of the water fuel and it shows a combustion chamber arrangement with a spark plug - an internal combustion engine. But you claim "obviously not an internal combustion engine".

The only thing you are proving is that you actually are not here to want clarification on anything and are here to disrupt and mislead people into thinking I said something I didn't. "Obviously not an internal combustion engine"? Are you for real?????? Why don't you scroll to the BIG image in this thread that is so big is fills up the entire width of your monitor.

To miss that and tell everyone we're obviously not talking about an internal combustion engine tells me you're up to no good.


"All know since childhood , that this and that is impossible.

But always there is an "ignoramus", who doesn't know about it.

He makes a discovery."

Albert Einstein.


Is important understand clearly as an phenomen work, referring to combustion our scientist are blocked to the year 1900 as explaination.
However in part is right because the engine or your jet engine "split" just oxygen and not nitrogen but the scientist must, however, never put a brake on research.

The major composition of the air is formed by 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and the nitrogen is the screen of oxygen..

If nitrogen is an protective screen you can understand the importance to process not just oxygen but also nitrogen.

Meyer has understand that but just in part!

We know that the major reactions need to have pressure and/or temperature (heat) and if you want increase speed of reaction you need an catalyst.

If today you know that air is real fuel and not just an oxidizer with the above informations you can think at the right way for process and burn the air.
__________________
 

Last edited by tutanka; 03-15-2013 at 07:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-17-2013, 04:38 PM
Ein~+ein Ein~+ein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by tutanka View Post
\But always there is an "ignoramus", who doesn't know...
...that air is real fuel and not just an oxidizer...
Take a break, tutanka. Those NOx fumes are starting to get to you... and me too! (What evidence can you provide that air alone is fuel?)

-----------------------
Aaron:

To quote Stan Meyer is one thing, but since you accept it as fact, I wanted to know what evidence existed? (I assumed nitrogen might be needed to reduce pre-ignition combustion (before the pistons reach TDC). That's why I asked for evidence. As for skeptics, we're not all evil. Isn't Farmhand one?

BTW: Can you explain the discrepancy between what I've bolded in your posts:
First of all, it is not a theory, associates of mine have taken it beyond what I have and reducing propane usage on a jet as I said is a phenomenal achievement by itself. Several others have gone all the way. The red car in the OZ nitro cell documents is owned by a friend of someone I know. It runs on 100% water with a pinch of salt, a coil around the cell and a vacuum on the cell but also ambient air comes into mix with the hho. It has a lawnmower carb on the engine and runs on this fuel exclusively.
But on that OZ Nitro cell thread, you state:

high mileage with lawnmower carburetor - but low power
I remember you going into all of that.

With this old car: https://www.google.com/search?q=376mpg+opel+shell

376 miles per gallon Opel - had a lawnmower carburetor, was stripped down to bare essentials and actually did 376 miles per gallon. This test was done by Shell Oil Company. It was very low power but did prove the point about vaporizing the gasoline.

We don't have the details, but I'm sure gasoline vaporization is part of the red car but they don't discuss that. They make it look like water fuel, but 2 gallons of gas an 2 liters of water - sounds to me more like a very efficient water vapor injection system and all the nitrogen part of it could be a red herring.

I understand that nitrogen can play a key role but looking at the fact that the red car has a lawnmower carburetor, I'm inclined to believe it was a snail using gasoline vapor and water vapor supplement.


...and then:
I posted everything I know about it right here in this thread, which is mostly taken from the websites that I could find discussing it. I never noticed the lawnmower carburetor part of the story until relatively recently.
Now you see why I'm so skeptical about 'water fuel cells'?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-17-2013, 09:17 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
good luck!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ein~+ein View Post
Now you see why I'm so skeptical about 'water fuel cells'?
Sounds like you need to find a hobby in a different area. I have no interest in spending any time convincing you of anything. You continue to contort my words, etc... I'm through with you. Good luck.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-27-2013, 02:03 AM
jonabel1971 jonabel1971 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 129
Sounds like Aaron is having trouble with a number of researchers.

Here's a laymen's article, describing a journal paper on modelling water molecule's behavior in an electric field.

Physics - Water Molecules, Unite!

Enjoy people. I will continue to point others to some of the real scientific research that has been published.

Oh, here's my latest video. New water fuel technology. I had moisture in my flow-guage, but, it's been fixed. This is an induction cooktop - converting and transferring 2 frequencies to a Tesla pancake coil. This is very similar to Meyer's work.

1st GEGENE demonstration - making hydrogen. - YouTube

I got the idea from Naudin's site - The JLN Labs home page

Every time I point people to this stuff, however, Aaron calls me a fraud - and then points to his OWN BOOKS as proof that I am a fraud. As you can see above - he uses HUGE fonts to get his point across.

Nitrogen, indeed.
Stan talked about air-tight systems that didn't need ambient air in his videos.

Nitrogen mixed with Oxyhydrogen is going to create ammonia (NH3) and Nitrous Oxides (NOx). Liquid and gaseous pollutants.

Nitrogen is not needed. Water has the only 3 parts that are needed in an air-tight system.

1. Hydrogen - the burnable gas
2. Oxygen - the oxidizer
3. Water vapor or steam - the buffer

That's all you need.

Aaron is simply mad that I give away better information then the useless mis-information that he sells.

He isn't trying to be a scientist. He isn't doing research. He's simply selling books with "Secrets" in the title. Ooooo, secrets!

Folks, it's the internet. The days of secrets are over, unless Aaron is making up his own.

He has a degree in natural health - he doesn't appear to have much of a background in ANY of this tech.

Money motivations are the real drivers of fraud. How does giving it away make someone a fraud?

Legally, Aaron has many things to worry about. I don't sell anything, so, I can say that.

If the mentality of most of the people here is to "sell, sell, sell", then I have a book to sell, too - and a bridge. (just kidding)

Aaron needs to become a minister, not a quack. It appears he is posing as different users on his own forum, as well - to make it look like he has a backing.

Ugh, disgusting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Sounds like you need to find a hobby in a different area. I have no interest in spending any time convincing you of anything. You continue to contort my words, etc... I'm through with you. Good luck.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-27-2013, 03:20 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
Jon Abel's false claims

@All, read this dufus' quotes - JON ABEL said everyone one of these things - some repeatedly. And he is too blind to see that the "air tight system" that uses water - water has 17% nitrogen saturated in it - right out of Meyer's patents.

Jon Abel's famous quotes:

"Discussioners" are wondering why your members have such poor replication success rates. It's because the last two replications were killed by talks of Nitrogen technology that doesn't exist. "

"As for Aaron's advice, you will not find any "Nitrogen technology" by Stan Meyer online."

It looks like twice he had tried to kill discussion of Meyer's Hydrogen technology - by deflecting attention to Nitrogen gas - and then not elaborating on the technology. Aaron is full of crap - he is paid for the lies and abuse he spews. Argon gas was one of the non-combustible gases that Stan spoke of"

When Aaron offers suspect information about Nitrogen, ask him if he is willing to show the proof. If "No.", then that's lying. As far as I am concerned, Aaron has not read a sentence of Stan Meyer literature."

Why should I respect the things you have to say about an alleged Stan Meyer Nitrogen Machine? Nobody else can verify your claim, either."

It's funny how you guys make a big deal about adding ambient air."

"Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation."

"The proof of my fraudulent claims is your OWN BOOK?"
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-27-2013, 04:01 AM
Ein~+ein Ein~+ein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
But at least Aaron allows for dissent--you have to grant him that. He reinstated my post questioning his statements, and I thought you'd been banned?

------
Jon: My interest in your work boils down to the following Q's:

Would your system even need to exceed 100% efficiency (energy output > energy input) to be commercially viable? Given the auto industry's recent announcement of an R&D shift toward hydrogen, wouldn't improving upon conventional electrolysis be sufficient to apply for patent protection? In addition, of the terawatts of electricity generated globally, how much is unused simply because we lack a way of storing it, an 'energy currency' as Jeremy Rifkin describes it.

I'm unconvinced Stan Meyer's WFC ran on nothing but water, especially given that Aaron, who claims to know Meyer's work well, doesn't see the need to clarify the discrepancy between his posts on the topic (they appear to be the same car--both red and both with lawnmower carbs):
"It runs on 100% water with a pinch of salt..."
"They make it look like water fuel, but 2 gallons of gas an 2 liters of water..."
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers