Ionization & Water Fuel

[Aaron]

@Tim

Tim, I'll continue to delete any post that doesn't
discuss how NH3 on demand is a reality in all those old references.

[tutanka]

Are you still using your earlier Gas Processor design, from last year over on the "Stanley Meyer Explained" thread?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post64944





I am confused. Does the Gas Processor use High Voltage and also the Injector uses High Voltage?

So in/out of GP = (in) N2+O2+HV=N+O (out)
Then in/out of the Injector = (in) N+O+HV= N2O (out, then to cylinder engine?)

That was my first diagram scenario.. in part right in part not... Regards

[vrand]

You have changed your mind? I see you have edited your earlier posts on original process. You now u want to make ammonia? Was original process to dangerous? Radiation?

I don't have changed anything, all remain the same, the chemical formula isn't changed.. maybe can be changed method of production using new mechanical/electronics..

Are you still using your earlier Gas Processor design, from last year over on the "Stanley Meyer Explained" thread?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post64944



I am confused. Does the Gas Processor use High Voltage and also the Injector uses High Voltage?

So in/out of GP = (in) N2+O2+HV=N+O (out)
Then in/out of the Injector = (in) N+O+HV= N2O (out, then to cylinder engine?)

O + O2(+M) --> O3(+M)
The M represents a third molecular species (nitrogen, oxygen, water, etc.) that removes a fraction of the energy released during interaction...

That is the standard ionization of oxygen in a a typical corona discharge ozone generator.

Regards, Mike

[Aaron]

@Tim

Please link to these references not sure which ones you are referring too. I also have several books from Knowledge Publication on hydrogen production. Can you cite references?

Also do have an idea on how much NH3 one needs to produce to run a engine.

Tim

DO YOUR OWN WORK. I posted plenty of references that go back
a hundred years. They are in this thread, you can look them up yourself.
You know very well what I'm referring to and if you don't - then you
haven't read this thread either!

[chasson321]

old references

last edit...

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

You're having a laugh, right?

All I was basically asking was, if anyone actually knew exactly what fuel they were trying to produce.

From what I can see it's all just 26-odd pages of a big guessing game with none of you having much of a clue as to what will react with what and how... but excuse me for being such a distraction.

Farrah

Excuse me, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that a few people do
know specifics and are giving hints to others to get others to get it.
I have mentioned that there are those that figured it out way before
Meyer, around the same time and a little bit before Meyer and also some
others figured it out in more recent times. That was simply one of COUNTLESS
posts that spell out that nobody here is "stabbing in the dark" and to say
such a thing is insulting, out of line and IS adding to the distractions
that some others are posting.

Because you made such a comment and considering what has already
been posted in this thread, it shows that you actually did NOT take the
time to read or comprehend it and you should refrain from posting here
in this thread until you do.

Your post completely ignores any of the valid points that have been posted
and you instead choose to act as if there has been nothing spelled out as
a few others have.

If you read 26 pages and you see a guessing game, you're in the same
boat as a few others and it has nothing to with the fact that it actually
has been spelled out multiple times.

[Farrah Day]

If you actually took the time to thoroughly read this thread from the
beginning you wouldn't be asking such questions. It just adds to the
distractions.

You're having a laugh, right?

All I was basically asking was, if anyone actually knew exactly what fuel they were trying to produce.

From what I can see it's all just 26-odd pages of a big guessing game with none of you having much of a clue as to what will react with what and how... but excuse me for being such a distraction.

Farrah

[digitz]

Enjoying this thread .. !

[chasson321]

Rosco

last edit...

[Aaron]

read the thread

What exactly are people trying to achive with these gases... does anyone know or is everyone just stabbing at it in the dark?

If you actually took the time to thoroughly read this thread from the
beginning you wouldn't be asking such questions. It just adds to the
distractions.

[chasson321]

Green Car Congress

last edit...

[Farrah Day]

I've been looking in on this thread periodically, trying to make sense of it and hoping to see where people are coming from... but I might add, with very little success.

Most of what I'm reading in terms of chemical reactions appears to be not much more than pure conjecture. Is there not a chemist in the house?

Mike clearly states the possibilities in terms of the raw ingredients, but of course it's not a pick-n-mix, and the reality of it is that some reactions will take precedence. And no doubt, any reaction will require energy.

Well we could make NH3 or N2H4; N2O;NO2;NO. what ever if you mix the three gases you are going to have NITROGEN in the equation, so why did Meyer talk of none combustible gases (nitrogen) to such great extent. Later I will tell you why, and it is to do with gaining energy.

Mike

Look forward to hearing your explanation Mike.

How is that people are expecting to mix these gases exactly in order to produce... well I'm not sure what exactly... something more calorific than the parts?

After all, we know that if we ignite H2 in air, we just get water as the N2 is not a very reactive molecule. So we have H2 and O2 and N2. Basically air with a relatively higher concentration of H2 and O2.

What exactly are people trying to achive with these gases... does anyone know or is everyone just stabbing at it in the dark?

The gases Mike mentioned above are mostly non-flammable, many prohibiting burning.

Ammonia does not burn in air and prohibits burning (but will burn in oxygen)
Nitric Oxide does not burn and prohibits burning
Nitrogen Dioxide does not burn and prohibits burning
Nitrous Oxide makes a good oxidiser, but you need something to burn in it in the first place to take advantage of this.

So that just leaves Hydrazine... the only really flammable gas... are you all trying to produce hydrazine?

If so has anyone actually given any thought to the reaction processes involved, the balanced chemical equations for such reactions... and whether or not these reactions are even possible?

Just my two-penneth.

Farrah

[Aaron]

Nitrogen

if you mix the three gases you are going to have NITROGEN in the equation

[Aaron]

@Tim

You ask me to answer your questions but never have answered any of mine and I don't find that far at all.

You have a 100% track record in refusing to acknowledge any
facts presented thus far. You have to give before you can get.
This is my thread, not yours, by the way.

Pride is useless here - acknowledge facts presented and then perhaps
you may get more. The bottom line is that if you and h2opower want to
understand this, it most certainly will NOT be done your way, ever. If you
don't like that, it's your loss, not mine. You can't say you were never
given a chance.

Please realize that I pretty much saw the process as h2opower and others
have in the past. But I gave up on massive hho production because it
became common sense that it never had anything to do with that.

If h2opower's understanding of Meyer is so superior, explain something to
me: YouTube - Hydrogen Meyer/Lawton style
That is his water fuel cell with the massive quantity of tubes.
It takes about 12-13 seconds before seeing any signs of gas production
and at about 20 seconds he says and I quote: "Production is very, very
fast." That was two "verys" by the way.

Then he says, "Meyer's technology DOES work."
If Meyer's technology "DOES work" from that test, why isn't he running
his car on it?

And, "And here's the surprising part; there's the amps. Only 4.83 amps."
(I corrected the amps that he said to match the meter) "...Operating at
12.8 volts."
(That is 61.82 watts at whatever frequency/duty cycle)

And, "All this gas production but little to no power."

61.82 watts and he considers that little to no power? Go hold onto some
electrodes and crank it up to 61.82 watts and tell me if that is little to
no power. Considering that to be little to no power to me completely
disqualifies h2opower from having any sensible rationality about analyzing
any of this.

Here is just an old test of mine after the tubes were conditioned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphxVYYnEvA

That is 36 watts, gas production there in my opinion actually is very,
very fast like less than a second from turning on power. That is ONE single
tube set hooked up out of seven powered by rectified ac for 120hz
galloping dc. That is almost 1/2 the power h2opower is using with all
the fancy circuit, 1/30th or so the tubes hooked up and the gas production is
more.

H2opower's cell looks pretty though.

Anyway, even if you get hundreds % of Faraday, that is NOT enough to
run a car, period - it is profoundly naive to believe you'll make enough
HHO to power a car from a cell setup with these types of circuits.

Now, I believe it IS possible to have massive hho production, but it isn't
happening in any of these circuits - that isn't even debatable. If you want
to debate it, show it - you CAN'T - because you and h2opower lack
the understanding of massive hho production to run a car and the only
understanding demonstrated is how to make small volume hho. This is a
FACT evidenced by everything presented by you both and recorded in
his videos.

Therefore, if that small volume of hho production is considered to be
Meyer's technology "working" ("does work" in h2opower's own words
documented in that video), then that means Meyer's
technology is based on small volume hho production according to
h2opower - but you and h2opower simply don't understand what to do with
that small volume of hho production. Only a small amount has ever been
needed anyway - that will continue to be a thorn in your mind.

I was looking for an ionization key for a long time and a few posts in
Tutanka's messages in h2opower's Meyer thread stuck out like a sore
thumb. You can see my early posts in this thread were an attempt to
flush out this key. Then I got it and it was common sense and I was simply
able to let go of all my pre-conceived belief's about how I thought Meyer's
method works - really - it is common sense. I have no problem letting go
of anything that I am or was attached to if something else comes along
that simply makes more sense in every self evident way - I don't know
why you guys have such a hard time letting go of erroneous beliefs.

And the way to realize the truth (real-eyes) is to see them as they
are. The only way to see something as it is - is to see something without
judgment. When two eyes become one, there is illumination in the mind.
That means to see without judgment or preconceived ideas. Any other
way of seeing something is flawed from the get-go and is a deception.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas
in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Not even permitting the understanding of opposing ideas is your and
h2opower's challenge - it is not from a lack of information in this thread,
period, so please don't even pretend that it is.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Nitrogen

OK, what have we got to start with and what can we make out of it?

Water=H2+O2
AIR= 78% N2 + 20% O2 + 2% other gases which we can forget

So we have one source for H2, N2, and two sources for O2

Now what can we make from this which will run an engine other than just pure H2 burning in O2, which would require a lot of H2 which we do not have?

Well we could make NH3 or N2H4; N2O;NO2;NO. what ever if you mix the three gases you are going to have NITROGEN in the equation, so why did Meyer talk of none combustible gases (nitrogen) to such great extent. Later I will tell you why, and it is to do with gaining energy.

Mike