Ionization & Water Fuel

[Aaron]

@Tim

I started a thread that is going over your 100 year technology: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...r-process.html and so far we have found that it doesn't work out all that well.

No, you're misdirecting people's attention.

The haber process has nothing to do with the old references I posted.
You even mention the knowledge publications, which means you did see
the most recent reference I posted, yet you REFUSE to comment on it and
put it off.

[Aaron]

@Tim

Now let us take a real good look at this video: YouTube - mammasat's Channel

What do we see or don't see? We see an engine running. We don't see the source of fuel. We don't see a tank of water. We don't see a WFC or water injectors or any type of electrolyzer. We see him press something that raises and lowers the engine RPM but we don't see just what that was. We see sparks in front going to the spark plug array. We don't see a air ionizer or one isn't pointed out for us to see. Can anyone else see any evidence that this engine is running using water as it's only source of fuel? I can't find any water in this video. Is this engine being run on nitrogen hydroxide or NH3 or N2O? http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...nhydroxide.pdf

http://www.energeticforum.com/82007-post32.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/82158-post44.html

I started a thread that is going over your 100 year technology: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...r-process.html and so far we have found that it doesn't work out all that well.

Tim

Show something that indicates that h2opower's understanding that you
so favorably preach is correct. I'm not interested in a copy and paste
of his text - actually write something yourself.

And, you and h2opower don't know how many electrons a molecule of
nitrogen has yet you want to debate this topic?

[Aaron]

@Bussi

Your point #2 - I agree with you, in open source - sharing information is
the obvious basis for open source. If there are specific designs and
methods that some people want to keep to themselves. They are entitled
to do so. And if they share some of the concepts and principles, that can
obviously be applied in other innovative designs and methods, then go
for it! What has been shared in this thread is the most valuable information
of any thread on the internet when it comes to water fuel. Unfortunately,
most of the "skeptics" have no interest in discussing what has been
discussed - they're more interested in trying to preserve what they
already believe.

One thing I have not been gung-ho about is the concept of people wanting
specific schematics, designs, etc... the reason is, if people can simply
comprehend the concept of a certain technology, they can apply it in
many other ways. Relying on other people's very specific design does not
empower anyone. It is giving someone a fish instead of teaching them to
fish. By understanding CONCEPTS involved, they can be applied and
innovated into a multitude of schematics, designs, etc...

If Mike or Alex or anyone else were to simply hand over a specific design
to someone here that is interested in "learning" about the truth to water
fuel, they may be able to do a monkey see monkey do routine and simply
duplicate something, maybe get the same result, but it does absolutely
nothing in terms of actually helping anyone understand what is going on.
I put "learning" in quotes because their attempts at authenticity are about
as authentic as an "authentic reproduction."

There are several very specific keys that must be understood to make this
water fuel nh3 on demand process work.

One of them deals with the nh3 creation process. There are
multiple ways this could happen or any other variation of molecules that
can be created by n/h/o.

Tim, Farrah Day, etc... are trying to direct the attention away from the
ease of making nh3 on demand and are trying to misdirect people into
the full blown haber bosch process with very high temp and high pressure.

Bussi, if you want to be honest here, don't play games and don't get
caught up in a mob mentality where you go off on the side with them and
start discussing "oh how much energy it takes to make nh3, etc...".
I'm not interested in playing games.

Your point #5 - you, Tim, Farrah Day (who chooses to say bye bye
because he/she refuses to answer my questions to her - because she/he
can't), etc... refused to acknowledge anything I have pointed out. It is
inauthentic & dishonest.

So, Bussi, if you truly aren't playing games and are not just interested in
preserving your own pre-conceived ideas about all of this and you actually
want to see if there is something to this, why not participate in a two-way
dialogue that actually answers some questions asked.

Sucahyo said he'll get an answer as to how many electrons a molecule
of nitrogen has. What about you? Do you want to give me some
irrelevant points and misdirect the attention towards something irrelevant
or are you able and willing to simply answer that simple question? This
question is also directed to you - I did ask if ANYONE else knew so
don't pretend that you don't want to take away people's identity by
answering a question that is obviously open to everyone.

I'm not talking about a bunch of special case scenarios where you can't
give a straight answer because there are "too many things to consider" -
I'm just talking about typically, how many electrons are in a typical
molecule of nitrogen composing 2 atoms?

The record can show here that Farrah Day, Tim (speaking for h2opower)
and H2opower simply have no idea how many electrons a molecule
of nitrogen has. This must be a fact because since they claim to be
reading this thread and I asked if ANYONE knew the answer and they didn't
answer - and they claim to want to know what this is about, that must
indicate that they have absolutely no idea how many electrons a molecule
of nitrogen has, yet they want to debate this process.

This is like someone that can't speak Chinese that wants to debate the
meaning of a Chinese technical manual because they can't comprehend it
in English. That makes about as much sense as a bag of dehydrated water.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt since your message that I'm
responding to has some semblance of sincerity.

[chasson321]

last edit...

[bussi04]

From the cynical reception, why would anyone want to show anything
to you?

Especially if you guys can't even answer any of the questions put
forward or recognize the references I posted or comprehend what is
being hinted at over and over.

And for your information, nobody is interested in proving anything to you
or anyone else. If you can't do your own work and apply what has been
shared, what do you think you're going to wind up with?

If you don't believe this process, why waste your time in this thread?
That is a flaw in logic in and of its self. Go follow h2opower and do what
he does and you'll get what he's got.

[Aaron]

@Bussi

Reality is a working device. There is no proof of concept up yet at all.
tutanka has shown all he has .

bussi04

From the cynical reception, why would anyone want to show anything
to you?

Especially if you guys can't even answer any of the questions put
forward or recognize the references I posted or comprehend what is
being hinted at over and over.

And for your information, nobody is interested in proving anything to you
or anyone else. If you can't do your own work and apply what has been
shared, what do you think you're going to wind up with?

If you don't believe this process, why waste your time in this thread?
That is a flaw in logic in and of its self. Go follow h2opower and do what
he does and you'll get what he's got.

[bussi04]

The "real scientists" have your mind completely bound and gagged. You can
prefer their opinion. I prefer reality.

Reality is a working device. There is no proof of concept up yet at all.
tutanka has shown all he has .

bussi04

[Aaron]

@Tim

And Aaron I don't trust their work, not until it is in a pier review paper done by real scientist can it be truly evaluated correctly. Plus Dr. Lindemann has never posted anything on this theory in this thread for or against.

The "real scientists" have your mind completely bound and gagged. You can
prefer their opinion. I prefer reality.

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

Blimey you're hard work Aaron.

It was you that brought up the hydrogen embrittlement issue in the first place, stating it as a reason why we could not run an ICE on H2 alone, not me... remember? Look back through the thread!

The embrittlement issue to me is a minor issue to me because with an off
the shelf generator, if it was that big of a problem, I'd just replace them
as needed. And you still didn't answer the question. What about on a
gasoline engine? It is still hydrogen power so why doesn't it have the same
embrittlement issue as pure hydrogen/oxygen. You refuse to answer?
Based on your logic, it should have the same problem.

The bigger issue to me is that you get no real explosive energy from HHO.

For the rest of your comments. You are demonstrating selective memory.
You asked about many different points and I pointed out to you that you
are asking a lot of questions that have been answered already - and you
acknowledge NONE of them.

You post in Tim's haber process thread and want to point out just
oooooh, how much energy it takes to make ammonia - because that
supports your opinion that it is a waste of energy to do it according to
what is described in this thread - COMPLETELY IGNORING what has been
discussed in this thread.

Do you have the COURAGE to discuss and acknowledge the 100 year old
references I posted indicating NH3 on demand production from low power,
low temp and low pressure? Please don't pretend they don't exist as
Tim does.

[vrand]

The bad thing is about those sandwich HHO cells need cleaned out after two months of continuous usage. And you also have to worry about hexavalent chromium.

Bob Boyce has already shot down the hexavalent chromium argument over on the Hydroxy website, and that is a non issue.

One can also create HHO by the Meyers method of using NO electrolyte that is even a simpler solution, if one can figure out how its done. This thread and other here showed that in Stan's later designs, he didn't need his cells to fuel an engine on water.

We have Tutanka and group that says you don't need to make HHO and that only a water mist is needed along with air ionization, plasma spark, and recirculating exhaust gas to run an engine! That is the theory that needs to be proven.

Tutanks said that he will show an electrical generator set running on his gases at the end of April.

We all look forward to seeing that

Best regards, Mike R.

[sebosfato]

Hi mike

i will take a another look on explosives.. I already studied about oxidizing agents,

The problem that resides is that you still need energy to obtain the H2 from water to make the hydrazine, thats what i pointed in the last post... and is not only 51kj mole it will counts also the energy needed to obtain also more 2 moles of H2 to bound to the N2...

Thanks


About energy



You can't create or destroy energy this is a fact.

There are however places where the energy can go to and or came from witch is not in our dimension. Is called the space time witch continuously expands.

So you can extract energy from the space time, and or send energy to it and also thru it.

This is all theory proved only mathematically.

anyway

However since we know that if we can maintain a reaction such as nuclear fission, its because the rate of reactions are greater than the speed of limit where energy could return, so rising exponentially the energy output.

Where is the energy coming from?

From the loss in mass of neutrons, they become energy..

If you are transforming the neutron in energy where than the space it was occupying? It became energy!

Einstein didn't lie at all. His presumptions all hold for this.

Matter can become energy and energy can become matter as well.

I'm not saying that this water car technology has anything to do with it!
there are others however that actually have!

We should think also a way to create oxygen using energy! would be great!

How can we open the doors of perception?

Universal energy???

[Michael John Nunnerley]

you have missed the point

Ok 50kj heat of formation and 620kj heat of combustion

so you are considering you already have the hydrogen free right?

Because if hydrazine is N2H4 you would need 2 moles of molecular hydrogen for 1 mole of molecular nitrogen. Now if you count the 2 moles of hydrogen 286 kj per mole you would have (2moles *286kj /mol )+ 50kj heat of formation you have your 622kj heat of combustion per mole of hydrazine .

so what are you talking about?
where is your energy gain
I think you are just talking about BS.

Sorry but you have missed the point, what I showed is only enthalpy of reaction at atmosferic pressure, I think you either do not know and are looking things up via the internet, which can be very dangerous, or you are pushing me to go further. Well go and look up explosives, that should keep you busy for a while, try oxidising agents as well, that might take a few hours more, and I do not call people names, well not on an open forum anyway.

If you want to learn, listen or read, and if you are not sure of something, then ask in a civil way.

@Farrah, sorry couldn't resist it, need to lighten the day a bit, it has become frustrating, pun not intended. I'm off to bed, us old scientists need our sleep

Mike

[chasson321]

last edit...

[Farrah Day]

Blimey you're hard work Aaron.

It was you that brought up the hydrogen embrittlement issue in the first place, stating it as a reason why we could not run an ICE on H2 alone, not me... remember? Look back through the thread!

You still have completely ignored all the points I put to you. If you have
the courage to answer them, you might get answers to the next parts.
Like Tim, if you want answers, it isn't going to be done on your terms,
period.

What points exactly... courage to answer what? What are you talking about??

You're yet to put forward a scientific explanation for anything you've proposed... and yet I'm the one that has to provide the answers? Jeez!!

What is your problem? You seem to have issues with me simply because I'm asking quite legitimate questions that you simply don't have answers to. If I'm so out of line with what I'm saying explain why, and stop being so deliberately evasive.

I'd settle for any answers on anybody's terms!

I'm sure I'm not the only one that wonders where the merit in creating on-demand ammonia lies.

Farrah

[Aaron]

thanks Slovenia

Hi Aaron,

You've got a wonderful thread here. There is so much incredible information within this thread and there is a lot here to digest. Each time I go back and scan through it, I find something I overlooked before. Thanks so much for starting this thread and for all your very astute explanations.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

Thanks Slovenia

I'm happy that someone sees some value in the sharing here.