Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2019 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ONLY 150 118 99 71 63 SEATS AVAILABLE!

2019 Energy Science & Technology Conference
ONLY 150 118 99 71 63 SEATS AVAILABLE - LIMITED SEATING
Get your tickets now: http://energyscienceconference.com


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 02-05-2014, 11:17 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
My point is if you have to produce the H2 and O2 from electrolysis will you get more heat energy than the energy used to produce the H2 and O2 in the first place? and don't tell me it is not H2 and O2 from electrolysis of water "it is diatomic and not monatomic", the name HHO is a fallacy from 2 parts H plus 1 part O makes H2O, the reaction is 2H2O+ energy=2H2+O2. That is the final reaction in micro secounds, true it starts as monatomic H and O, but they are highly reactive and form H pairs and O pairs instantly when there is no other atom with an electron to grab.

I would take Chet's (RAMSET) advice and do his test. If you can split water into H2 and O2 using less energy than you recover, then all well and good, recombining H and O to create energy is "not the problem", making the H2 is.

I hope I have made myself clear, and by the way I am an industrial design engineer and a B.Sc of 63yrs, with ref: to your qualifications, and I do know what I'm talking about and only trying to help, so don't try to shoot me down.
Hi Mike,

You may want to open your mind up just a little bit and at least consider the possibility that there might be another form of water which is not a mixture of H2 and O2 gas.

As a matter of fact, the research of Prof. Gerald Pollack makes more than clear that another state of "water" indeed exists:

Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff - Meyer WFC Replication Project
Batteries Made from Water - YouTube

The work of Prof. Pollack and Chris Eckman suggest that a shape of water exists, consisting of the same honey-comb like structures which exist in ice, with the difference that the H+ ions which bind the these layers in ice are absent and move to "the bulk water" which becomes acid and positively charged, while the EZ layer becomes negatively charged.

In other words: there is reason to believe a crystalized form of (almost) water exists which appears to be cabable of existing not only in Pollacks' "EZ" layer, but also in a gaseous form, which is a/o known as "Brown's gas" or "HHO", but has other names as well.

Frequently Asked Questions - Brown's Gas | www.eagle-research.com

Quote:
Research indicates that Brown's Gas has characteristics that cannot be achieved by simply mixing bottled hydrogen and oxygen in a stoichiometric ratio.

BG contains H, H2, O, O2, H2O (as water vapor) and a special 6th 'structured' gas that Yull Brown called a 'Fluid Crystal', George Wiseman calls 'Electrically Expanded Water' (ExW) and professor Ruggero Santilli calls 'Magnecules'.

BG is also known under brand names of: Common-Ducted Gas, Rhode's Gas, Spirig Gas, Hydroxy, Brown Gas, Green Gas, Klein Gas, Aquygen, HHO, SG Gas, Ohmasa Gas, Knallgas, HNG and (erroneously by WikiPedia) OxyHydrogen.
Chris Eckman has done some research on Brown's gas:

Plasma orbital expansion theory for Brown's gas


Another researcher is Graneau, who investigated "water arc" explosions:

Directory contents of /pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolysis_Water_Arc_and_Dielectric_Breakdown/

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...20-%202000.pdf



So, IMHO it's too short around the corner to call all things related to the term "HHO" a fallacy and conclude that it must be simply a mixture of H2 / O2 gas. I personally witnessed what happens when you ignite soap-bubbles filled with HHO gas. These implode instead of exploding, which makes it absolutely clear to me that it is NOT simply H2 / O2 gas. It may be something like a 'normal' water molecule in a different 'stretched' state, as Chris Eckmann suggested, it may be a gaseous form of Pollack's "EZ" layer, and it may yet be something else. I personally think it is likely that HHO is indeed a gaseous form of "ice cristals without the H+ atoms in between", because it appears the "HHO" are negatively charged, but one cannot conclude such things without proper investigations.

As for the source of the energy, IMHO one needs to consider the work of Prof. Claus Turtur. I find it highly unlikely that all these kinds of "cold fusion" actually have anything to do with nuclear fusion, as I explained in this video:

How Stan Meyer's "Car on Water" as well as "Cold Fusion" actually works. - YouTube

Oh, and for the record: I hold a master's degree in Electrical Engineering.

-- Arend --


Update: a sample of Pollack's book.

Last edited by lamare; 02-07-2014 at 10:03 AM. Reason: typo; wrong YT link; added a bit about charge of the layer
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

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

  #2  
Old 02-05-2014, 12:43 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-05-2014, 01:01 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
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.
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 --
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-05-2014, 08:04 PM
altrez's Avatar
altrez altrez is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
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
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-05-2014, 09:12 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
Arrow hho - a whole soup of atoms and molecules

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
I personally witnessed what happens when you ignite soap-bubbles filled with HHO gas. These implode instead of exploding, which makes it absolutely clear to me that it is NOT simply H2 / O2 gas. It may be something like a 'normal' water molecule in a different 'stretched' state, as Chris Eckmann suggested, it may be a gaseous form of Pollack's "EZ" layer, and it may yet be something else. I personally think it is likely that HHO is indeed a gaseous form of "ice cristals without the H+ atoms in between", because it appears the "HHO" are negatively charged, but one cannot conclude such things without proper investigations.
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-05-2014, 09:19 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
Meyer subject

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
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.
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!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-05-2014, 10:33 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
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.
I've read this about the implosion:

Eagle-Research:

Quote:
In my personal experience I discovered the 'heavier than air' ExW aspect/component of BG by accident.

I was grinding on an ER1150 WaterTorch frame and some sparks flew over the waterfill hole, which I had covered with a cloth to prevent impurities from falling in. The hole had been open for over a day and I had no concern about igniting hydrogen, but SOMETHING went WHOOSH as sparks ignited it.
Note that it didn't go BANG like a hydrogen explosion would. It went whoosh like an instant vacuum had happened and air was rushing in to fill the area.

I subsequently discovered that if I fill a 2 liter transparent pop bottle with BG, then leave it sit for at least 15 minutes (with the lid off), the remaining mixture is implosive. If you ignite it too soon the result is VERY explosive because the hydrogen has not had a chance to escape.

So, the ExW is heavier than air and will stay in the bottle as the hydrogen escapes. If the quality/quantity of the ExW is high enough to support combustion, it will IMPLODE with no pre-explosion.

It burns as a 'slow' imploding donut shaped flame as it moves down inside the bottle; quite interesting to watch.
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.


Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
It is tempting to conclude that the power gained from water droplets inside an engine cylinder are caused by the water turning into flash-steam and nothing else. However, that is probably not the case, nor is it the case that energy placed in the water by the sun heating it is extracted (which does happen) and that is the only additional source of energy.

In the scientific paper entitled "Possibility of Liberating Solar Energy via Water Arc Explosions" by George Hathaway and Peter Graneau, they discovered that when they produced an electric arc discharge in cold water fog: "The principal discovery made in the past two years was that it is a collection of fog droplets in the water which explodes and not the liquid water itself. The term 'fog' is meant to include not only the tiny droplets which float in air but also larger droplets which fall in the atmosphere and would be more correctly described as 'mist'. The sole explanation of the explosions so far put forward contends that the intermolecular bonding energy in fog is less than 540 callg, the latent heat of bulk water. The bonding energy difference is then liberated in a quantum jump when the fog is formed in micro-seconds". Summing up their experiments, they conclude that "virtually all the kinetic energy developed by the explosion must be internal water energy"

In the earlier scientific paper "The Anomalous Strength of Cold Fog Explosions Caused by High-Current Water Arcs" by N. Graneau, he comments: "The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge in his early high-voltage laboratory at Harvard University. When he passed as arc through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in ordinary laboratory air. During the Second World War, Frungel measured the strength of water arc explosions and published his results in 1948. He concluded that they were not caused by heat and steam and freely admitted that he was unable to explain the phenomenon. In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In one experiment, the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Centre noticed that the energy output was apparently 156% of the input. This result was reported but treated as an experimental error".

The bottom line appears to be that using cold water mist droplets in an internal combustion engine has a minimum of the following energy additions:

1. Reduction of the energy required during the compression stroke due to the water droplets absorbing some of the heat generated by the compression and so reducing the increase in air volume during the compression.

2. On ignition, the very rapid conversion of the droplets to steam, caused by their massive surface area, produces a very rapid rise in pressure inside the cylinder.

3. The internal energy of the water caused by absorbing energy from the sun before entry into the engine may well be contributed to the power generation process.

4. Surprisingly, it has been shown that under these conditions, at the moment of explosion, the water itself contributes energy, and this process is one which most people are at a loss to explain, in spite of observing and measuring it happening.

The conclusion has to be that it appears possible that an internal combustion engine could be made to operate using cold water mist as the fuel, if a sufficiently powerful ignition plasma spark is provided using something like one of Robert Krupa's "FireStorm" spark plugs described below. Alternatively, with a lesser spark from an ordinary spark plug and the addition of quite a modest amount of a gas mix of hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of water, the same effect can be produced. Consequently, although it appears so unlikely to a quick glance, that an internal combustion engine could be run on a mix of hydroxy gas, air and cold water mist, the reality is that the process is actually based on sound scientific principles and readily understood processes.

Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
Iron and aluminum make thermite (research thermite to learn the optimum quantities to use), and the BG provides the special transmutation energy. BG exhibits transmutative characteristics in other applications too, like processing ore.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-05-2014, 10:53 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
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!
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Lamare,

I have showed this for years. Imhotep even mentioned it about a cap
that seems to not be able to die because it keeps itself charged up like
an electret - from a conditioning effect. Anyway, there is something to
it.

[...]

The "boiling" effect isn't necessarily unwanted when charging batteries
with the Bedini method. They will COLD boil, even up to an hour after
the charger is disconnected if using for example, high capacitance low
voltage discharges.

Also, a cap can be charged with pure radiant and no measurable
"electron" current. A charged cap doesn't need to have electrons
piling on plates, etc...

You may find this interesting.
Eric Dollard Notes (1986--1991)
See page 26 of the pdf.

Batteries are water electrolysis cells. A water molecule is either
created or destroyed depending on if it is powering or being charged
and that what all the complicated battery chemistry comes down to.

And the concentric tubes ARE capacitors.

I have seen batteries charged with radiant that get a white coating
on the plates...batteries with clear see through walls so you can see
the liquid and plates inside. Just like the conditioning that has been
observed on many of the Meyer experiments. This is the observation
I brought to the table a long time ago.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-06-2014, 02:24 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
hho properties

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
I've read this about the implosion:

Hence the need for pulsed electrolysis.
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-06-2014, 08:16 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
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 did he have his steel tested for it's contents in 1982?

What I'm essentially saying is that this white coating is a dielectric

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.
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-06-2014, 11:23 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
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

Last edited by lamare; 02-06-2014 at 11:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 02-07-2014, 02:06 AM
rosehillworks's Avatar
rosehillworks rosehillworks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 175
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 .
__________________
William Reed
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-07-2014, 04:17 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
Arrow 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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-07-2014, 09:21 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

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.
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:

Quote:
SUBJECT: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STAINLESS STEEL FOR CERTAIN CONDITIONS

A spectrographic chemical analysis of the 0.50-inch and 0.750-inch outside diameter tubing samples provided to the offices of Materials Joining Consultants has been performed. The results of this chemical analysis and other supporting material characteristics are summarized in the report.

The tubing material can be classified as general purpose austenitic type 304 Stainless Steel. 304 is considered the standard or basic 300 series stainless steel alloy. The material is austenitic, face-centered cubic and paramagnetic. Many of the other 300 alloys such as the acid resistance 316 stainless are modifications of the 304 material. The 300 series is known for its good notch toughness.
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.


Quote:
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 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.


Quote:
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.
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.


Quote:
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.
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.


Quote:
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-07-2014, 09:56 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

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.

[...]

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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-07-2014, 10:11 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
That actually isn't what you are seeing with the soap bubbles - its too fast to see at thousands of feet per second.
You can't see it, indeed. You do hear a very distinct "click" sound and see no ripples on the water. There may very well be different mixtures of gases behaving differently, depending on the electrolyser, pulsing, electrolyte, etc. etc.

Quote:
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.
According to Patrick Kelly's guide, the mixing of "cold water fog" with the gas has a the effect of turning the mixture into an exploding gas, while having minimal effect on the burn rate, as far as I can tell. In that case, all that's needed to make an engine run smoothly is to retard the ignition to something like 10 degrees after TDC, instead of like 20 degrees before TDC.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-07-2014, 10:29 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
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.
At least it's clear that there is an imploding reaction, the occurence of which depends on the mixture of the gas. The reason I believed HHO is mostly implosive is because of this comment by Weiseman. The idea that some kind of fluid/gaseous crystalic component in the mixture can implode makes sense, since the atoms are more widely spaced in ice crystals.

So, I assume that the implosive force is caused by imploding, negatively charged, crystalic structures, whatever the details may be. Either way, it appears that this behavior can be influenced by changing the mixture of the gas, be it by adding nitrogen or 'cold water fog", or by adapting paremeters like voltage, pulse frequency, electrolyte, etc., etc.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-07-2014, 10:39 AM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Away at the moment

Hi Aaron

I am away at the moment and typing this at an internet cafe, will be back on Monday next week.

You found the photo, don't the years fly by!

By including nitrogen "possibly not the only gas that can be used", at the right time, which is at the production stage, there is a very complex chemical change. This change creates electron emission from certain atoms, not only gas atoms but metal atoms as well. It is right that in time the stainless steel electrodes are transformed, but this only happens if the system is alined the right way.

I have a very simple video of this happening and uses an alternating current in a special way and I will post this on my return.

Keep in mind that certain chemical changes create huge amounts of energy, I have over the years stated this and the example was explosives, they are nearly all nitrogen based and work on interchanging of electrons. This does not go against science, it is all known, it is just how it is done that matters.

All will come out in the wash sooner or later

Best regards

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-07-2014, 11:34 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post

By including nitrogen "possibly not the only gas that can be used", at the right time, which is at the production stage, there is a very complex chemical change. This change creates electron emission from certain atoms, not only gas atoms but metal atoms as well. It is right that in time the stainless steel electrodes are transformed, but this only happens if the system is alined the right way.

I have a very simple video of this happening and uses an alternating current in a special way and I will post this on my return.

Keep in mind that certain chemical changes create huge amounts of energy, I have over the years stated this and the example was explosives, they are nearly all nitrogen based and work on interchanging of electrons. This does not go against science, it is all known, it is just how it is done that matters.

All will come out in the wash sooner or later

Best regards

Mike

I have no problem believing interesting effects can be obtained by mixing HHO with other gases. George Wiseman even talks about cleaning up nuclear waste:

Brown's Gas and Radioactivity | www.eagle-research.com

Quote:
What can BG do to help?

To answer that you need to understand that the only effective radioactive neutralization protocol I currently know of, that uses BG, is to mix the radioactive material with approximately equal quantities of iron and aluminum (by volume) and heat the whole mixture to liquid (using a BG flame). When the mixture is hot enough it will explode... not like a bomb, more like a firecracker.

Iron and aluminum make thermite (research thermite to learn the optimum quantities to use), and the BG provides the special transmutation energy. BG exhibits transmutative characteristics in other applications too, like processing ore.

Most materials are radioactive because the electrons have been stripped off the molecules; the nucleus then ejects particles of various kinds (radioactivity) to try to 'balance' the 'weight' (and transmute to a lighter, glasslike, material). Somehow, the molecules are able to use the special energy in the BG to complete this transmutation in seconds (instead of millennia), when the material is molten and given the shock of the thermite explosion.

So it's impractical to use BG, as far as I know, on anything that you don't want to destroy. The BG 'explodes' the material and does the neutralization during the explosion. You need to affect the material on an atomic level to neutralize the radioactivity.

Also it's impractical to use BG on any material that isn't concentrated radioactive. It takes electrical power to make the BG, plus quantities of iron and aluminum to make the explosive reaction.

Thus, BG works well to neutralize CONCENTRATED nuclear waste, like spent fuel rods or decommissioned warheads, but practically useless at remediation of radioactive materials that have dispersed into the general environment.

However, for these interesting effects to occur such that one gains energy, one needs an energy source. From Prof. Turtur's work, we know that a static electric field can convert energy from the vacuum / zero point field and can thus provide energy. For that to occur, one needs to have an electric field, such as created by a polarized dielectric. So, when we can use the energy from a polarized dielectric to make our HHO gas mix and thus get a gas mix which has a certain amount of energy stored, we can convert that energy into something else using all kinds of chemical reactions.

As far as I am aware, chemical reactions cannot convert energy out of the vacuum / ZP field into useable energy. Explosives do not create energy out of nothing, they release energy which has been "stored" into the geometrical structured molecules in the shape of dipoles. Whenever that energy is being made available, the dipole is destroyed, which in the end is an energy neutral exercise, as explained by Tom Bearden, which I quoted and explained further in my article at Pes a while ago:

Quote:
However, the power system engineers use just one kind of circuit. In the standard "closed current loop" circuit, all the "spent electrons" (spent after giving up their excess energy in the loads, losses, etc.) are then forcibly "rammed" back through that little internal section between the ends of the source dipole (between the terminals). These "rammed" electrons smash the charges in the dipole away, and destroy the dipole then and there.

It can easily be shown that half the "caught" energy in the external circuit is used to destroy that source dipole, and nothing else.

For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses.

So half the caught energy in the power line is used to kill the source dipole (kill the free energy gusher), and less than half is used to power the loads. It follows that our electrical engineers are trained to use only those power circuits that kill themselves (kill their gushing free energy from the vacuum) faster than they can power their loads.

Well, to get the energy gusher going again, the dipole has to be restored in order to extract the energy and pour it out again.
Chemical reactions are exactly the same as "closed current loops" circuits. Charges are seperated and dipoles are created, which are capable of "catching" EM energy from the vacuum, BUT when performing a chemical reaction, de dipoles are destroyed and in the end this is an energy neutral exercise, no matter what kind of chemical reaction you might have.

The only way I know of to extract net energy out of the vacuum with a "static" dipole is to use the field to do work on *other* molecules than the molecules which make up the dipole. And that is why IMHO the electret effect, caused by a polarized dielectric, is the key into making a system like this with a COP > 1.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-07-2014, 12:58 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,382
Where are we?

Lamare
I do not see these posts on the page I aleays visit .
are we somewhere else?

BTW You shared alot of interesting water info which is not relevant to either thread ,however for newcomers it would be good to study as well as experiment with..[the 4th phase]
thx
Chet
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-07-2014, 01:04 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
Lamare
I do not see these posts on the page I aleays visit .
are we somewhere else?

BTW You shared alot of interesting water info which is not relevant to either thread ,however for newcomers it would be good to study as well as experiment with..[the 4th phase]
thx
Chet
The 4th phase gives you some basic clues about what HHO is and how it is generated, which explains why it is heavier than air and why it implodes: it has a crystalic structure.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 02-07-2014, 08:08 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
water fuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
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.

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.
T304 is the only steel I have ever used for my tubes. It's been a long time since I looked into what kind of passivating process they've gone through, etc... that is a whole science on its own but I think it is more simple than that but I'm open to whatever works.

I would make a distinction on the dielectric layer - instead of calling it polarized since the layer itself is not polarized, it just has its own potential difference in relation to the positive tubes that have no coating. This then creates a dipole of a high and low potential with a connection through the water. This then polarizes the aether in the local environment around the tubes and then we have a visible voltage potential available at the tubes of about 2 volts. The positive aetheric potential sitting at the positive tube radiates its electrostatic field through the water to the lower potential ground tube without current flowing in the opposite direction. So any water molecules in the gap sitting in that 2 volts electrostatic potential are going to polarize without us having to expend any watts to do it. That is getting something accomplished without actually using any energy to do so.

I would also say the aether in this situation in the gap of the tubes (electrostatic 2v potential) is not energy but still just voltage potential and energy as a measurable joule second reality is only going to happen when the potential is reduced to a lower potential through the positive aetheric potential (Heaviside flow) meeting any resistance and that resistance is work.

So that electret effect is really able to polarize the water molecules without work since it is just voltage potential that is not being reduced to a lower potential through resistance - therefore it's not dissipating back to the active vacuum.

Then when we pulse those tubes that puts the tug-a-war on the water molecules to yank them apart and on the off pulse, the water molecules remain polarized in the 2v electric field, which I believe remains a bit higher because the on pulse brought the potential difference to a higher voltage and on the off pulse - it does not decay all the way to 2v because there isn't enough time.

With the setup you see in those vids, I could run it for a bit and after the power was turned off, the water would continue to split for 5 minutes or so because it remained polarized for at a bit higher voltage than just the "electret" effect voltage.

I don't know who Prof Turtur is, but your description of what he is saying is accurately describing the results of what is happening, but I think there could be some corrections to the actual distinctions of how he is saying it - such as a polarized dielectric layer when it is not polarized, it is just one pole that will have a potential difference in relation to another pole and the layer itself is not polarized - just a lower potential difference.

Another concept that I think possibly comes into play is hydrogen loading on that negative tube. It would be along the lines of the Roger Billings hydrogen/metal compounds to safely store hydrogen in tanks for example. I don't immediately recall what that is referred to, but in his applications, you could put an armor piercing bullet through that tank and there is no explosion. The tank is warmed slightly and that releases just enough hydrogen to be used depending on need at any given moment. It is the safest method to store hydrogen has that there is - more safe than ammonia or any other method that I know of.

METAL HYDRIDES - just recalled.

Anyway, if enough hydrogen over a long conditioning period got "loaded" into that tube or in that dielectric layer or whatever, it can be released later after there gets to some saturation point. The metal has all kinds of empty space throughout its matrix and hydrogen atoms are pretty small some one single tube like that could potentially hold on to quite a bit of hydrogen under whatever conditions are necessary for it to come out.

With the "excess energy" idea, turning hho into a "synthetic fuel" (Stan Meyer's own words) - I think instead of it actually being about excess energy, it is more about allowing the hydrogen that is already there to be used in a more effective manner. Plus with the exhaust recycling, it is condensing that hydrogen coming from the WFC and with the ionized nitrogen, it is making ammonia - the most dense carrier of hydrogen and if that condenses and recycles back to the front over and over, that is a LOT of hydrogen available.

Just like boosters, the hho as a supplement to gas/fuel allows for gains, it isn't getting excess energy out of thin air, it is just allowing the hydrogen that is already in the gasoline molecule to be more usable.

Yes, the nitrogen changes the burn rate of the fuel and since the "hho" can be made to burn more like gasoline, you don't have to change the timing. Might have to be tweaked a bit but not like compensating for the ideas behind using hho as a sole fuel in its "normal" form.

With the COP of the system - when we have a gasoline powered car, everything coming out the back is pretty much what went into the front just in a different arrangement. So we have the ingredients in the exhaust necessary to recreate gasoline or other hydrocarbon gases and air. If we are able to rearrange the exhaust in that manner and feed it back from the front - that is conceptually what Stan Meyer is showing in all his early patents except the fuel is a nitrogen modified hho synthetic fuel instead of a hydrocarbon fuel.

When we separate hydrogen that takes work to do. But it takes absolutely no work on our part for them to recombine and give off a lot of heat that equals more energy that it took to separate them to begin with. We only have to pay for the partial modification of the water fuel and nature supplies its own contribution in the electrochemistry so it is still all under 100% efficient but is over 1.0 COP.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-08-2014, 04:37 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
Stan Meyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
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.
I've always thought it was calcium or magnesium based. That was from tap water that comes from an incredibly mineral rich aquafer.

The electret type effect I don't believe is the key to making a suitable fuel - but it keeps the polarization and water splitting going on the off pulse. I agree it is not resonance, but all the evidence and claims corroborate the nitrogen as being the key.

With bubbles sticking, you can see in that old test setup I showed the gas production is so forceful in that gap that bubbles can't stick if they wanted to.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-08-2014, 04:48 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
stabilized atomic species

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
At least it's clear that there is an imploding reaction, the occurence of which depends on the mixture of the gas. The reason I believed HHO is mostly implosive is because of this comment by Weiseman. The idea that some kind of fluid/gaseous crystalic component in the mixture can implode makes sense, since the atoms are more widely spaced in ice crystals.

So, I assume that the implosive force is caused by imploding, negatively charged, crystalic structures, whatever the details may be. Either way, it appears that this behavior can be influenced by changing the mixture of the gas, be it by adding nitrogen or 'cold water fog", or by adapting paremeters like voltage, pulse frequency, electrolyte, etc., etc.
If the gas production of hho is 1600 or so times more in volume than the water that produced it then having that gas simply recombine to form water would shrink the volume it occupies by 1600 times - that seems to be the simplest explanation for the "implosion". And having water as the end product after hho being detonated sort of shows that this appears to actually be what is happening.

One thing that is mentioned often is that the atomic h and o or even n is very unstable and reactive so can only last in atomic form for a short time.

In one particular electrolyzer technology using a mile saline solution, it has been proven that it will create 16 molecules and the atomic species although normally unstable can remain in a solution without reacting with anything else. It was the first breakthrough to show that all the reduces species and reactive oxygen species can coexist in a solution without reacting with each other and simply turning back into a mild saline solution.

I think it is worth considering that it might just be possible to electrolyze water and have the atomic h and o and even n come together in a mixture without instantly reacting with each other. I can't prove this is happening, but it isn't far fetched considering what has already been proven to be possible with sodium chloride and water.

If we look at some of Meyer's work, we can see he was making various forms of a "magnegas" by charging the water fuel with permanent magnet fields. This was done to the wfc output as the gas is leaving to magnetize it. If we magnetize the gas molecules and atoms, it might be possible for them to have such a like charge that they do not react with each other yet. Again, I think this is something that is worth considering.

So, although the atomic species created in these electorolytic processes are creating unstable reactive atoms as well as the atomic reactive nitrogen from the exhaust, it is possible that they may be made stable (long enough) until the point of ignition.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-08-2014, 04:51 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
@Michael

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
By including nitrogen "possibly not the only gas that can be used", at the right time, which is at the production stage, there is a very complex chemical change. This change creates electron emission from certain atoms, not only gas atoms but metal atoms as well. It is right that in time the stainless steel electrodes are transformed, but this only happens if the system is alined the right way.

I have a very simple video of this happening and uses an alternating current in a special way and I will post this on my return.

Keep in mind that certain chemical changes create huge amounts of energy, I have over the years stated this and the example was explosives, they are nearly all nitrogen based and work on interchanging of electrons. This does not go against science, it is all known, it is just how it is done that matters.
Ok Michael, let me know when you're back on Skype - I have more to send you.

Looking forward to the vid!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-08-2014, 05:02 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
energy to create dipole, free environmental potential enters and can do more work

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
However, for these interesting effects to occur such that one gains energy, one needs an energy source.

As far as I am aware, chemical reactions cannot convert energy out of the vacuum / ZP field into useable energy. Explosives do not create energy out of nothing, they release energy which has been "stored" into the geometrical structured molecules in the shape of dipoles. Whenever that energy is being made available, the dipole is destroyed, which in the end is an energy neutral exercise, as explained by Tom Bearden, which I quoted and explained further in my article at Pes a while ago:



Chemical reactions are exactly the same as "closed current loops" circuits. Charges are seperated and dipoles are created, which are capable of "catching" EM energy from the vacuum, BUT when performing a chemical reaction, de dipoles are destroyed and in the end this is an energy neutral exercise, no matter what kind of chemical reaction you might have.

The only way I know of to extract net energy out of the vacuum with a "static" dipole is to use the field to do work on *other* molecules than the molecules which make up the dipole. And that is why IMHO the electret effect, caused by a polarized dielectric, is the key into making a system like this with a COP > 1.
With the energy source, the hydrogen appears to have all the potential energy it needs to run an engine on water with very little volume of water gas - when it is allowed to express its full potential in the form of heat, light, etc...

If we lift a ball in the air, we put in energy to make a separation in potential difference between the ball and the ground. The ball does not store any potential energy in it when we lift it. We just used up all the energy necessary to lift it. force x distance = real work it took to lift it. There is nothing left at the peak of the lift, therefore, there is nothing to store.

The ball at that height simply creates a new potential difference between the ball and the ground - a dipole, which allows new fresh gravitational potential energy to enter and do work on the ball when it is allowed to drop and impact the ground. Obviously Einstein is wrong and so are all the basic interpretations of Newton, etc... It is mathematically irrefutable with 3rd grade math and 9th grade equations.

When the ball drops, that is free environmental energy that is pushing down on the ball so we expend some to lift the ball and all our energy is gone, new dipole and nature adds its own potential which converts to work upon resistance.

When we split water, we put in the input and out input is all gone. The work we put in simply split the molecules and created a new dipole or potential difference. Then nature, for free, will push them back together in various arrangements for free and some of these arrangements will exhibit more energy in measurable joules of energy/work than it took us to split them to begin with.

This is obviously possible because these are non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes and violate no laws of physics at all.

So the energy source is all in creating potential difference with our input and nature does the rearranging to do more work, which can exceed what we input. All under 100% efficient, but all over 1.0 COP, virtually always.

"The only way I know of to extract net energy out of the vacuum with a "static" dipole is to use the field to do work on *other* molecules than the molecules which make up the dipole. And that is why IMHO the electret effect, caused by a polarized dielectric, is the key into making a system like this with a COP > 1." - I agree, but that only helps increase both the efficiency and COP of the water gas creation process but does not account for the thermal energy realized, nor change the properties of the water fuel into a suitable fuel that burns more like gasoline.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-08-2014, 05:29 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
Arrow Stan Meyer Quotes Nitrogen

Here are a few Stan Meyer quotes, which almost every hho Stan Meyer self-proclaimed expert denies even exists.

Remember, in Meyer's later work, he used the term "non-combustible gas" instead of Nitrogen later on in his work to hide the fact that it is nitrogen that he is referring to. Most of the Meyer "experts" will and HAVE denied that the quotes below ever came from Stan Meyer and even after I showed all the proof, they still deny it. The entire Stan Meyer replication field has been sent like a steaming locomotive into a dark abyss because those "experts" who claim they figured out that it is all about resonance, etc... adamantly deny that Stan Meyer had anything to do with Nitrogen. They are more interested in protecting their facade of "expertise" on the subject even when the are willfully lying to everyone to make them look away from NITROGEN - their KRYPTONITE!

The following comes DIRECTLY from Stan Meyer's patents and NOTICE, I am not guessing that non-combustible gas references are Nitrogen, Stan Meyer HIMSELF is saying so:


"The NITROGEN, oxygen and hydrogen are mixed as they are released in the process..."


"The NITROGEN reduces the velocity and temperature of the burning flame from that of the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. To further control the temperature
and velocity of the burning gas mixture there are added to the collection chamber other non-burnable gasses." (other non-burnable gasses here is a reference to recycled exhaust).


"Another object of the present invention is to provide a hydrogen/oxygen generator that in addition to the hydrogen and oxygen gases releases NON- COMBUSTIBLE NITROGEN GAS capable of reducing the burning velocity and temperature of a pure hydrogen/oxygen flame."



"Natural water such as tap, well, sea, or fresh water is an absorber of ambient air and since ambient air contains a substantial amount of NITROGEN gas so does the natural water with the ambient air absorbed therein. In operation of the hydrogen generator, the gases released from natural water are thus nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen."


"In the preferred embodiment utilizing tap water, the NITROGEN gasses 16 a xxx n are intermixed with the hydrogen..."

"The flame 25 is sustained in that the NITROGEN gases 16 a xxx n REDUCES THE VELOCITY AND TEMPERATURE OF THE HYDROGEN GAS 14 a xxx n."


I did not provide patent numbers or screenshots of the patents that all have the above quotes in them in plain English - it is too easy for anyone to take these quotes and search them online to see for themselves exactly where those quote come from.

I would hope anyone with the intellectual honesty to not deny what Meyer is saying and showing in countless diagrams would actually do this and come back here and post links to all the references showing that I actually am showing what Stan Meyer is saying in his own words and that all the popular Stan Meyer self-proclaimed experts have done everything they could to turn people away from these references by badmouthing nitrogen, etc... anyone who does that - well, you will know automatically who the real disinformation agents are that want to make sure you never figure out what Stan Meyer was doing and/or to maintain their charade that they know what they're taking about.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 02-08-2014 at 05:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-08-2014, 05:46 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,932
Stan Meyer Nitrogen Key

Some other references and discussion here in the other forum: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-09-2014, 03:13 PM
tutanka's Avatar
tutanka tutanka is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Here are a few Stan Meyer quotes, which almost every hho Stan Meyer self-proclaimed expert denies even exists.

Remember, in Meyer's later work, he used the term "non-combustible gas" instead of Nitrogen later on in his work to hide the fact that it is nitrogen that he is referring to. Most of the Meyer "experts" will and HAVE denied that the quotes below ever came from Stan Meyer and even after I showed all the proof, they still deny it. The entire Stan Meyer replication field has been sent like a steaming locomotive into a dark abyss because those "experts" who claim they figured out that it is all about resonance, etc... adamantly deny that Stan Meyer had anything to do with Nitrogen. They are more interested in protecting their facade of "expertise" on the subject even when the are willfully lying to everyone to make them look away from NITROGEN - their KRYPTONITE!

The following comes DIRECTLY from Stan Meyer's patents and NOTICE, I am not guessing that non-combustible gas references are Nitrogen, Stan Meyer HIMSELF is saying so:


"The NITROGEN, oxygen and hydrogen are mixed as they are released in the process..."


"The NITROGEN reduces the velocity and temperature of the burning flame from that of the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. To further control the temperature
and velocity of the burning gas mixture there are added to the collection chamber other non-burnable gasses." (other non-burnable gasses here is a reference to recycled exhaust).


"Another object of the present invention is to provide a hydrogen/oxygen generator that in addition to the hydrogen and oxygen gases releases NON- COMBUSTIBLE NITROGEN GAS capable of reducing the burning velocity and temperature of a pure hydrogen/oxygen flame."



"Natural water such as tap, well, sea, or fresh water is an absorber of ambient air and since ambient air contains a substantial amount of NITROGEN gas so does the natural water with the ambient air absorbed therein. In operation of the hydrogen generator, the gases released from natural water are thus nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen."


"In the preferred embodiment utilizing tap water, the NITROGEN gasses 16 a xxx n are intermixed with the hydrogen..."

"The flame 25 is sustained in that the NITROGEN gases 16 a xxx n REDUCES THE VELOCITY AND TEMPERATURE OF THE HYDROGEN GAS 14 a xxx n."


I did not provide patent numbers or screenshots of the patents that all have the above quotes in them in plain English - it is too easy for anyone to take these quotes and search them online to see for themselves exactly where those quote come from.

I would hope anyone with the intellectual honesty to not deny what Meyer is saying and showing in countless diagrams would actually do this and come back here and post links to all the references showing that I actually am showing what Stan Meyer is saying in his own words and that all the popular Stan Meyer self-proclaimed experts have done everything they could to turn people away from these references by badmouthing nitrogen, etc... anyone who does that - well, you will know automatically who the real disinformation agents are that want to make sure you never figure out what Stan Meyer was doing and/or to maintain their charade that they know what they're taking about.
HI Aaron,
You are continue to study but actually you don't have focalized the meyer discovery. I can assure to you that only nitrogen, the non-combustible gas as written from Stanley Meyer, in special conditions burn producing an very blue flame. Some indications for reach that condition are written into the some meyer patents present on web. Regards Alex
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-09-2014, 08:51 PM
Jeff Pearson Jeff Pearson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Taos NM
Posts: 187
IMHO its not about making HHO. Its more about what to do with it afterwords. It's a chemistry problem more than an electronics problem. Nitrogen is not the inert gas we are taught it is. think about things like nitroglycerin, fertilizer bombs, TNT. All explosive forms of nitrogen...this is where I believe the the key to what Meyer was doing is.
__________________
 
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.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers