Ionization & Water Fuel

[Aaron]

n2

I believe that he was linking H's with more O's to obtain increased thermal energy gain!

Nitrogen atom have 7 as atomic number and 14 atomic mass witch mean it
have 7 neutrons and 7 protons. The molecule N2 has five electrons in its
outer shell and is therefore trivalent in most compounds. The triple bond in
molecular nitrogen (N2) is the strongest.

If that is your belief of what Meyer is doing, that is off topic for this thread.
You should discuss it in a new thread you start on your own or post in
another Meyer thread that is agreeable to your opinion. There is nothing
stopping you from doing this and you are actually encouraged to do this.

How many TOTAL electrons are in N2? Simply having five in the outer shell
is a partial answer.

If you honestly answer that then...

The next question is, if you break the triple bond, how many
electrons does each atom/ion have out of the two nitrogens?

I'm talking
BEFORE either has a chance to attract an electron from elsewhere
or rejoin.

Do they each have the SAME number of electrons or do they have a
DIFFERENT number of electrons?

[Farrah Day]

We usually get more heat when we do water electrolysis, why choose to call it endothermic?

With respect Sucayho, electrolysis is an endothermic process. It requires energy to produce H2 and O2. The heating of the solution itself is a by-product of inefficiency.

at 2:1 ratio, H and O implode. And it is possible that even at excess of oxygen, there could be localize implosion that hamper the overall explosion.

No it does not. It explodes. It only implodes after initial explosion if there is no residual thermal energy to prevent the resulting water molecule from going to liquid state. This is not the case in the combustion chamber of and ICE. I reiterate this is a common myth.

Farrah

[sucahyo]

A positive corona generates much less ozone than the corresponding negative corona. I am wondering if a positive corona will produce more N2O than a negative?

The positive back-corona discharge is more effient than the negative one in removal of NOx from tested gas mixtures.

Where do you get this?

I believe that he was linking H's with more O's to obtain increased thermal energy gain!

Meyer also have this method (page 2-4 Technical brief):

The Gas Combustion Process of the Gas-Flame eliminates oxygen and burnable gas atoms from the expelling gases ... producing an endless supply of non-combustible gases.
Mixing the "processed" Air-Gases with an Hydrogen Supply Source sets up The Gas Retarding Process ... allowing the Hydrogen Gas-Mixture to be transported safely through existing Gas-Grid System.

Anyone refer to Meyer should translate the terms "gas retarding process" as mixing hydrogen with non-combustible gases with contain no oxygen.

When we dissociate water into it's constituent gases, we add energy, it's an endothermic process. We then add energy in the form of a spark to get the H2 and O2 to split into atoms (which they have to do in order to reform as H2O). This again is an endothermic process.

However, then the H and O recombine back into the water molecule. This now becomes an exothermic process dissipating much thermal energy - more so than the endothermic energy provided by the spark. Hence we get an explosion as the air in the mix greatly expands.

We usually get more heat when we do water electrolysis, why choose to call it endothermic?

With control, the H and O would not stabilize yet.

at 2:1 ratio, H and O implode. And it is possible that even at excess of oxygen, there could be localize implosion that hamper the overall explosion.

Experiment of implosion combustion of hho output by mogli mentioned at page 17 of this thread:
Google Translate

[bussi04]

And from that answer you want that peoples send you moneys for yours experiments you don't have idea how an endothemic engine work and you want ask about that.. From your words seem that at today around the world all cars works to HHO .. Why BMW have stopped test on hydrogen? You read but not remember better.. can be Alzhaimer?? BMW have stopped test because for use hydrogen first you need cryogenic tank and some security sensors that have an high cost but also the major point is because you need an large amount of hydrogen for run properly an engine and as sub-product you obtain water and that is very dangerous for internal parts of engines.. instead you need little concentrate combustible mixture for obtain as Meyer called the THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY and to exaust gas very little amout of water.. of course you can't use ONLY NH3, you need other .. but.. "the other" is been posted inside the thread but you don't read because you want to only criticize.. I don't understand the humans.. instead to collaborate to find an green energy start every useless discussions but at the same time they use every gasoline and continue to pollute.. really is an crazy world

Hi Tutanka,

I see you are a really funny person - I see you laughing so much.
So I want to dare to ask you 3 questions of interest for me.

1. does your application produce over unity? yes/no
2. how do you measure and proove the energy input and energy gain?
3. do you recirculate any produced power to the system to power the process? yes/no

Thanks in advance for a short and precise and self explaining answer.

bussi04

[Farrah Day]

Aaron

For some reason you seem to feel I'm only here to disrupt this thread or as a distraction... why you should think this, I'm not sure. And why you feel so offended and threatened by my questions is a mystery to me.

No science in it? All the rebuttals against it are pure fantasy, fact. It
is a serious case of selective vision. The cynics (they're not skeptics)
only choose to see what they want and refuse to answer anything that
is pointed out.

Am I a cynic because I want to see a little scientific explanation? This has nothing at all to do with me or anyone else seeing only what we want to see... surely we all want to make headway, we all want to make progress.

I see nothing wrong in analysing posts and asking valid questions. None of which, I might add, have yet been satisfactorily answered, nor - contrary to what you say - has any meaningful science been put forward. It's not me that's blinkered here. All I'm attempting to do is follow the line of thinking that takes you from hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen to Ammonia as a fuel. Surely that's not too much to ask.

In my experience the people who feel insulted are those that cannot come up with answers to questions posed of them. It's like a defence mechanism.

And like it or not, most of what has been written is not backed by any facts, so yes, it is pure speculation. Nothing wrong with speculation if you are then going to put forward some science and a sequence of events that lead us from A to B. But this is not happening.

There are also clear misunderstandings here that really need to be addressed.

The first is something which, at this stage, should no longer be an issue, but obviously is.

When igniting hho mixture, it instantly explodes and then reassembles into
h2o shrinking in volume greatly causing a vacuum. This you would also know
if you really tread this thread.

Let me clarify this.

This is pure fallacy that people truly interested in this subject should well be aware of - indeed I'm astonished that this is still cropping up!

When we dissociate water into it's constituent gases, we add energy, it's an endothermic process. We then add energy in the form of a spark to get the H2 and O2 to split into atoms (which they have to do in order to reform as H2O). This again is an endothermic process.

However, then the H and O recombine back into the water molecule. This now becomes an exothermic process dissipating much thermal energy - more so than the endothermic energy provided by the spark. Hence we get an explosion as the air in the mix greatly expands.

Now this is the thing. In the confined space of a combustion chamber, the temperature stays hot enough for the resulting water molecule to remain gaseous. It is water yes, but liquid no! It is water vapour, and as a gas it will be expelled on the exhaust stroke and exit out of the exhaust pipe where by it can cool and become liquid.

This fabled implosion stuff is a common misconception that does not occur in an ICE.

Do you really think WWII vehicles were being driven about relying on an implosion?

They simply had tanks of hydrogen gas attached to the vehicle. I've seen them with large balloons of H2 strapped to the roofs.

Furthermore, I think it's too early to worry about hydrogen embrittlement. This is getting a little ahead of ourselves, don't you think? Unless we have enough gas to run an ICE in the first place, this is surely a non-issue.

Farrah

[chasson321]

last edit...

[tutanka]

Hi Aaron,

I'm sorry to don't be here now to write something related to tutanka technology, but i think that there are too many pages of pure guessing here and i think that faraday is kinda right when he says that there is no science in this.

I know people that ran engines with only hho and it work just fine, no gas into the pistons or this kind of things...

Hydrogen in the atmosphere is about only 0.6 parts per million.

And I would say that thermal energy meyer said is not reduce the burn rate of the hydrogen but is meant to be use the hydrogen avoiding water reformation allowing him to get enormous amounts of energy...

The fact that you reduce the hho speed by having it mixed with air is all you need to get the explosion expansion ... What one might call thermal expansion energy, This happens when hho recombine into water witch do not become vacuum (never) but high temperature steam witch heats up the air around inside the engine rising it's temperature and so the pressure forcing the piston to go down...

I hardly believe that nitrogen has not much to do with any gain ... only the fact that it reduce the speed that hho recombine if its well mixed. I've done some tests and many have done many tests and i watched almost all you can find on internet about.

We know that dissociating events are endothermic and so absorb energy from the environment for the dissociation so if the process is to use the heat loss in the engine to create the NH3 ok but if is to use electrical energy to do it i believe is not the way to go... However what i believe does not matter here...

Facts are NH3 or HHO you still need quite a lot to run an engine...

Here we should talk about science not science fiction.

I don't know if hydrazine killed stan... I still believe he was murdered...
I still believe tutanka have something on his hand, not hydrazine, not NH3, something else.. . I still believe i have something in my hand.

And from that answer you want that peoples send you moneys for yours experiments you don't have idea how an endothemic engine work and you want ask about that.. From your words seem that at today around the world all cars works to HHO .. Why BMW have stopped test on hydrogen? You read but not remember better.. can be Alzhaimer?? BMW have stopped test because for use hydrogen first you need cryogenic tank and some security sensors that have an high cost but also the major point is because you need an large amount of hydrogen for run properly an engine and as sub-product you obtain water and that is very dangerous for internal parts of engines.. instead you need little concentrate combustible mixture for obtain as Meyer called the THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY and to exaust gas very little amout of water.. of course you can't use ONLY NH3, you need other .. but.. "the other" is been posted inside the thread but you don't read because you want to only criticize.. I don't understand the humans.. instead to collaborate to find an green energy start every useless discussions but at the same time they use every gasoline and continue to pollute.. really is an crazy world

[sebosfato]

Hi Aaron

ok

The thermal energy meyer was talking about is not related to the nitrogen or related to the burn rate even if to regulates the burn rate of the gas with increased thermal energy up to the levels he said was possible you would need to control the burn rate!
I think!
I believe it has to do with creating other molecules, not NH3 (amonia)
I believe It have nothing to do with hydrazine.
I believe that he was linking H's with more O's to obtain increased thermal energy gain!

Maybe using nitric acid as oxidizer.

About pushing the piston down

I mean that we could call this thermal expansion energy witch come from the combustion of the H2 + 02 witch free up a lot of heat witch will heat the rest of the air inside the cylinder witch will develop a pressure and will push the piston down.

This is not invented by me and is just like how the gasoline or diesel also work.

About thermal energy increase

I think that he meant to bound more O's to less H's this would not allow the water to reform giving a clear energy gain OH until it get recharged in the atmosphere like he described becoming H2O again.

about nitrogen i don't know everything but

Nitrogen atom have 7 as atomic number and 14 atomic mass witch mean it have 7 neutrons and 7 protons. The molecule N2 has five electrons in its outer shell and is therefore trivalent in most compounds. The triple bond in molecular nitrogen (N2) is the strongest.

The main neutral hydride of nitrogen is ammonia (NH3), although hydrazine (N2H4) is also commonly used. Ammonia is more basic than water by 6 orders of magnitude. In solution ammonia forms the ammonium ion (NH+4).
The higher oxides dinitrogen trioxide N2O3, dinitrogen tetroxide N2O4 and dinitrogen pentoxide N2O5, are unstable and explosive, a consequence of the chemical stability of N2. Nearly every hypergolic rocket engine uses N2O4 as the oxidizer; their fuels, various forms of hydrazine, are also nitrogen compounds.

N2O4 is an intermediate in the manufacture of nitric acid HNO3, one of the few acids stronger than hydronium and a fairly strong oxidizing agent.

Nitric acid is used as an oxidizing agent in liquid fueled rockets. Hydrazine and hydrazine derivatives find use as rocket fuels and monopropellants. In most of these compounds, the basic instability and tendency to burn or explode is derived from the fact that nitrogen is present as an oxide, and not as the far more stable nitrogen molecule (N2) which is a product of the compounds' thermal decomposition. When nitrates burn or explode, the formation of the powerful triple bond in the N2 produces most of the energy of the reaction.

Monopropellants are propellants composed of chemicals or mixtures of chemicals which can be stored in a single container with some degree of safety. While stable under defined storage conditions, they react very rapidly under certain other conditions to produce a large volume of energetic (hot) gases for the performance of mechanical work.

[pengrove]

A positive corona generates much less ozone than the corresponding negative corona. I am wondering if a positive corona will produce more N2O than a negative?

The positive back-corona discharge is more effient than the negative one in removal of NOx from tested gas mixtures.

[Aaron]

nh3 on demand

Hi Aaron,

I'm sorry to don't be here now to write something related to tutanka technology, but i think that there are too many pages of pure guessing here and i think that faraday is kinda right when he says that there is no science in this.

I know people that ran engines with only hho and it work just fine, no gas into the pistons or this kind of things...

Hydrogen in the atmosphere is about only 0.6 parts per million.

And I would say that thermal energy meyer said is not reduce the burn rate of the hydrogen but is meant to be use the hydrogen avoiding water reformation allowing him to get enormous amounts of energy...

The fact that you reduce the hho speed by having it mixed with air is all you need to get the explosion expansion ... What one might call thermal expansion energy, This happens when hho recombine into water witch do not become vacuum (never) but high temperature steam witch heats up the air around inside the engine rising it's temperature and so the pressure forcing the piston to go down...

I hardly believe that nitrogen has not much to do with any gain ... only the fact that it reduce the speed that hho recombine if its well mixed. I've done some tests and many have done many tests and i watched almost all you can find on internet about.

We know that dissociating events are endothermic and so absorb energy from the environment for the dissociation so if the process is to use the heat loss in the engine to create the NH3 ok but if is to use electrical energy to do it i believe is not the way to go... However what i believe does not matter here...

Facts are NH3 or HHO you still need quite a lot to run an engine...

Here we should talk about science not science fiction.

I don't know if hydrazine killed stan... I still believe he was murdered...
I still believe tutanka have something on his hand, not hydrazine, not NH3, something else.. . I still believe i have something in my hand.

No science in it? All the rebuttals against it are pure fantasy, fact. It
is a serious case of selective vision. The cynics (they're not skeptics)
only choose to see what they want and refuse to answer anything that
is pointed out.

You don't know if hydrogen leaked past the pistons or not because you
didn't know to check for that. Also, you have not investigated if the
metal is deteriorating or not and you cannot do that with the naked eye
until it is too late. I personally never said an engine cannot run on hho
alone, because it can but that is not what Meyer was doing. Plus, show
me a motor running on just hho from these typical wfc's and typical circuits
that produces enough to get enough mechanical power to turn a generator
that can produce it's own water gas. You want to debate about power
from nh3, yet none of you can get any power from just hho. That makes
no sense.

Why are you posting how much hydrogen is in the air? What has that got
to do with any of this?

Meyer discusses avoiding water reformation. Why don't you think about
that. You think it is because nitrogen is just physically getting in the way?
Or, do you understand that ionized nitrogen will attract something to itself
or not? Whenever I ask specific questions, Tim and the rest develop
instant amnesia to my questions. Nobody here has even been able to say
how many electrons a N2 molecule has but they want to debate this
process? That is completely ridiculous.

Whether you know it or not, a skeptic actually has to have qualifications
to be skeptical of something.

You think the "thermal energy" is simply hydrogen and oxygen increasing
in volume in order to push a piston down? I'm not saying that can't happen
but you're ignoring so much of the process.

You're entitled to your personal belief. However, it doesn't take into
account many significant factors.

There are others with the answers to this process and each person has
a slightly different viewpoint on the best way to achieve it. NH3 is
the common denominator whether you like it or not. I only know of one
water engine that doesn't run on the nh3 process, it doesn't need plasma
and off the shelf spark plug and ignition works just fine. And it has nothing
do with with any variation of anything Stanley Meyer did. And has nothing
to do with producing massive amounts of hho.

I don't know what "killed" Stanley Meyer either and as far as anyone knows,
he faked his own death and is posing as his own twin brother.

And why does everyone that does "tests" assume they considered
everything?

[sucahyo]

Can someone please explain to me why you would want to produce Ammonia on demand? It's not particularly calorific, so how will this help run an ICE where H2 would not?

H2 can run an ICE, however people who able to run an ICE meet some obstacle. Meyer feel the need to slow down the H2 burning rate that he introduce slower burning gas.

There's plenty of Nitrogen in the air, sure, but to produce Ammonia you're still relying on the limited availablity of H2, so I don't see how producing Ammonia helps the cause.

In a similar process, GEET device can use up to 80% water and 20% used oil or other hydrocarbon.

The output of GEET is certainly not hydrogen according to marc.

GEET is a working system with water as input. And yet it is not hydrogen that make the engine run. However no one achive 100% water yet. The idea of NH3 generation can aid GEET system to use 100% water by referring to Meyer Canadian patent, adding ionizer etc.

During World War II quite a few businesses converted their vehicles to run on Hydrogen because of a petrol shortage. I don't believe the issue is with running a vehicle on H2... it's simply making enough of the stuff to do so!

At that time and before, there are also NH3 powered car.

How can they be using devices like this with out also releasing Nitrous Oxide?

Agree that there could be NOx too.



Info, page 155, referred by http://www.eagle-research.com/cms/faq/browns-gas:
Archive Viewer | Popular Science


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Dr. J. D. Cobine. It uses a magnetron tube to generate radar-frequency waves (one billion cycles a second), which make the molecules in a nitrogen gas jet break up into atoms. When the nitrogen atoms hit a surface, they join up into molecules again, liberating a great deal of heat. However, the heat exists only at the surface of the work, so the flame itself is not hot in the ordinary sense

Why don't anyone having GEET already running do the test? In GEET exhaust gas is bubble to the water + oil container. How about powering it up a little by introducing electrolizer and instead of bubling the water exhaust gas is combined witht the waetr+oil jar output.

Or if you are alrady having 1 liter per minute hho generator, try to mix it with ozonized exhaust gas.

This is why I really want to know who is the one who mention the use of exhaust gas in hydroxy generator. From what I recall, he claim to be able to run an engine with it.

[sebosfato]

Hi Aaron,

I'm sorry to don't be here now to write something related to tutanka technology, but i think that there are too many pages of pure guessing here and i think that faraday is kinda right when he says that there is no science in this.

I know people that ran engines with only hho and it work just fine, no gas into the pistons or this kind of things...

Hydrogen in the atmosphere is about only 0.6 parts per million.

And I would say that thermal energy meyer said is not reduce the burn rate of the hydrogen but is meant to be use the hydrogen avoiding water reformation allowing him to get enormous amounts of energy...

The fact that you reduce the hho speed by having it mixed with air is all you need to get the explosion expansion ... What one might call thermal expansion energy, This happens when hho recombine into water witch do not become vacuum (never) but high temperature steam witch heats up the air around inside the engine rising it's temperature and so the pressure forcing the piston to go down...

I hardly believe that nitrogen has not much to do with any gain ... only the fact that it reduce the speed that hho recombine if its well mixed. I've done some tests and many have done many tests and i watched almost all you can find on internet about.

We know that dissociating events are endothermic and so absorb energy from the environment for the dissociation so if the process is to use the heat loss in the engine to create the NH3 ok but if is to use electrical energy to do it i believe is not the way to go... However what i believe does not matter here...

Facts are NH3 or HHO you still need quite a lot to run an engine...

Here we should talk about science not science fiction.

I don't know if hydrazine killed stan... I still believe he was murdered...
I still believe tutanka have something on his hand, not hydrazine, not NH3, something else.. . I still believe i have something in my hand.

[Aaron]

nh3 on demand

Can someone please explain to me why you would want to produce Ammonia on demand? It's not particularly calorific, so how will this help run an ICE where H2 would not?

Are you wanting to produce Ammonia just to then combust it?

There's plenty of Nitrogen in the air, sure, but to produce Ammonia you're still relying on the limited availablity of H2, so I don't see how producing Ammonia helps the cause.

I'm just struggling to see any logic behind this Ammonia idea... what am I missing here?

Can someone detail the balanced reactions from how you go from air high in H2, O2, N2 to NH3.

Farrah

There is no way you read this thread and comprehended any of it if you
are asking such questions.

Not calorific? You and the others that are cynical about this process need
to look at the system as a whole instead of believing that everything is
isolated from each other.

Plain hho electrolyzed from water simple doesn't release true thermal energy
to give a real explosion. You of course would know this if you really read
this thread.

When igniting hho mixture, it instantly explodes and then reassembles into
h2o shrinking in volume greatly causing a vacuum. This you would also know
if you really read this thread.

There are ignition timing modifications mostly needed for hho since it is so
fast of a burn that you have to delay the ignition - this too has been
covered.

I posted the Meyer references from Meyer's own documents showing how
he describes SLOWING THE BURN RATE by adding nitrogen to the mixture,
which slows the recombination of oxygen with hydrogen preventing the
formation of water and allowing the combustion to slow down to equal
that of natural gas.

SLOWING the burn rate of the hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen
mixture is the only way to get true thermal energy release from the
hydrogen. Without the nitrogen, there is just a fast quick pop that
everyone with experience with hho knows very well and that it does not
allow for the release of any real energy from the hydrogen. This too has
been covered in detail.

Preventing a lot of water formation in the engine is obviously desirable
since it requires expensive modifications to prevent this water damage.

Ionized nitrogen acts as a natural eec and will obviously pull some of the
oxygen to it to form some nitrogen/oxygen compounds in the combustion,
which prevents that oxygen from joining with the hydrogen. Some think
the nitrogen prevents that from happening by just "getting in the way",
as Tim/H2opower have clearly claimed multiple times, but that argument
completely lacks any comprehension whatsoever of what ionized nitrogen
is and what it's implications are.

The exhaust will be a small part moisture comparable to a gasoline engine
and mostly nitrogen and some small amount of nitrogen/oxygen compounds
comparable to a gasoline engine.

When properly treated air is mixed with properly treated output of a wfc,
nh3 can be created. NH3 has MORE hydrogen content than pure liquid
hydrogen and the nitrogen is simply a carrier for the hydrogen as carbon
is a carrier in the hydrocarbon fuels like heptane, methane, etc...

You need the nh3 to carry the hydrogen in a large molecule so the
hydrogen isn't lost past the piston rings. Pure hho will weaken the metal
in the engine and cause other problems. Again, all of this above and below
has been covered in this thread multiple times. Perhaps English isn't your
primary language, I don't know but isn't it interesting how you just happen
to have missed 100% of all of it. Is that by accident?

Any nh3 that makes it back to the water cell or that is possibly produced
in the wfc (ionized air can be pumped to the cell and/or exhaust routed
to wfc) acts as a natural antifreeze.

You failed to see the logic in the nh3 idea because you simply have not
read this thread, you popped in towards the end giving your two cents
discounting 100% of everything that has ALREADY been posted. And if
you did read this thread and you got these points, you really are here
to spread disinformation and detract from the truth. I don't see any other
valid options besides those two because it is difficult for me to believe
you read this thread and actually did miss 99.99% of everything covered.

I will delete any more of your posts and Tim's posts that that
inauthentically claims "oh, I'm just trying to understand what you're doing
here." You're not fooling anyone. Those questions when they have
already been answered and then some are completely rude, out of line
and disrespectful.

I simply have no intention of compromising the integrity of the intent
of this thread, which is to educate people on this process and your
distracting comments and interference as well as Tim's is simply not
appreciated.

And again, if you comprehended from this thread that the process
involves h2 content out of the air, then you are sadly joking. Your intent
is to cause confusion amongst those that have an earnest intent to
actually learn the truth.

[Farrah Day]

Jesus...

If you read this entire thread and think anyone is talking about h2 from the air, then you are missing a lot.

I've read the bloody thread OK - and most of it contains no science whatsoever - just conjecture.

I have not seen even one speculative balanced equation for any process put forward. At least if I had a theory I would support it with balanced chemical equations and detail the reactions taking place. There is a complete lack of science here.

And, for your information, I was not talking about H2 from the ambient air. I'm assuming that you've produced H2 and O2 via electrolysis in the first place. Hence we have air, (which is naturally high in N2) that is also now relatively high in H2 and O2 to boot. So as stated previously the Ammonia would be limited by the amount of available H2.

So what reactions take us from this mix of H2, O2 and N2 to Ammonia... and what exactly is the point of it? What energy are you gaining... and from where?

It should not be a difficult question if you know what you're trying to achieve... or indeed if you know what you're talking about.

Farrah

[Aaron]

h2

Can someone detail the balanced reactions from how you go from air high in H2, O2, N2 to NH3.

If you read this entire thread and think anyone is talking about h2 from
the air, then you are missing a lot.