Water Fuel Secrets

[cplouffe]

It's related but is another concept than what Meyer did in my opinion.

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

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

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

Ah gotchya. I will check into the info.

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

I am familiar with Lyne's device thx. I don't know of any replications at the moment either. Interesting concept when you go back and look at Tesla though. Fun stuff!

[Aaron]

fresh discussion

I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key

[tutanka]

I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key

Hello Aaron, Im not able to reply into your new forum..

However I want explain these informations ....

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

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

We are born in petrol era and we know that your car for run need gasoline or diesel.
At today an endothermic engine use the oxygen, present in air, just as the oxydant of fuel, this explaination is correct in part because the process of combustion isn't understand completely..
Returning to Stan Meyer.. probably during some tests has found that air have enough power and the initial researchs using exaust gas (nitrogen and water vapour) with watergas are changed ionizing the air and mixing with watergas.
But Stan Meyer don't has clear the reaction because sometimes works and sometimes not.
From that reason Stan have the idea to wfc injector, an all in one device. Good intuition but with more electrical and mechanical problems.
After we know all that Stan is died and this technology is was lost..
In this year 2013 an italian team has found the right way for transform air into fuel because this is the year of energy revolution for the benefit for all peoples.

[Ein~+ein]

Since Jon's no longer around to answer the cold, hard, factual questions I asked him, I've decided to turn my attention to Aaron's argument:

"...it doesn't matter how efficient an electrolysis cell is, it's not going to create a suitable fuel for burning in an engine or cooking your food!"

We are talking about burning, are we not? Isn't rocket fuel just liquified hydrogen and oxygen? It's all about energy density. Do others accept Aaron's assertion that nitrogen is 'KEY'. Even in liquified form, nitrogen has only 1/30 the energy density ratio of gasoline whereas the energy density of hydrogen in its gaseous state isn't even a third of methane's--still not high enough to power a vehicle unless it's pressurized. Isn't that the 'big secret' or is Aaron onto some largely-unknown alchemical reaction?

"I am NOT claiming I have a car running on water - so please make sure you undertand this in no uncertain terms. And, I'm NOT claiming I have "duplicated" or "replicated" Stan Meyer ... What I AM claiming is to have Stan Meyer's own words explaining the nitrogen importance in one of his own legal documents and how it makes a useful fuel instead of having a quick "Brown's Gas" pop using HHO, which in an engine is completely worthless for anything other than a fuel supplement."

Anyone know how to set my profile so this permanently appears:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!

"I have spent thousands of hours and a lot of money over the years figuring out what Stan Meyer did ..."

...and you still haven't been able to replicate it? That proves...
a) Stan Meyer was just another run-of-the-mill FE scammer;
b) the nitrogen 'key is but one of MANY missing keys you conveniently fail to mention to a mystery that remains locked away in some CIA vault (you do claim this technology is suppressed);
c) you are technically incompetent;
d) you are not being completely up front and honest with us;
e) much of the above.

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

If you can't do it yourself, why not use this website to recruit the talent you need to build a prototype engine? Seriously! You're peddling a book of useless information about some worthless engine, or are you?

"YOU WANT THE WATER FUEL TO BURN SLOWLY AND GIVE UP ITS THERMAL ENERGY INSTEAD OF A QUICK FAST BURN THAT TURNS BACK TO WATER AND SHRINKS IN VOLUME AND GIVE YOU NO REAL NET WORK THAT CAN RUN AN ENGINE."

What kind of engine are you referring to, a steam engine? It's obviously not an internal combustion engine.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!

[Aaron]

Stan Meyer - non combustible gases

I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key

I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key

[Ein~+ein]

I started a fresh discussion here and will discuss this topic there: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key

What happened to my post and page 2 of this thread?

Guess I asked the wrong questions again, huh? ( Avoid the 'n' word, everyone! )

[Aaron]

Stan Meyer nitrogen non-combustible gases

What happened to my post and page 2 of this thread?

Guess I asked the wrong questions again, huh? ( Avoid the 'n' word, everyone! )

Your post is below - I thought it was condescending.

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

[Ein~+ein]

Aaron, what's with all the new threads? Anyway, this post is indeed relevant to the topic and conversation on this thread.

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

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

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

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

[Aaron]

@E

Aaron, what's with all the new threads? Anyway, this post is indeed relevant to the topic and conversation on this thread.

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

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

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

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

The new thread in the other forum is where more will be posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tutanka]

The new thread in the other forum is where more will be posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He makes a discovery."

Albert Einstein.


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

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

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

Meyer has understand that but just in part!

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

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

[Ein~+ein]

\But always there is an "ignoramus", who doesn't know...
...that air is real fuel and not just an oxidizer...

Take a break, tutanka. Those NOx fumes are starting to get to you... and me too! (What evidence can you provide that air alone is fuel?)

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

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

BTW: Can you explain the discrepancy between what I've bolded in your posts:

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

But on that OZ Nitro cell thread, you state:

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

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

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

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

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

...and then:

I posted everything I know about it right here in this thread, which is mostly taken from the websites that I could find discussing it. I never noticed the lawnmower carburetor part of the story until relatively recently.

Now you see why I'm so skeptical about 'water fuel cells'?

[Aaron]

good luck!

Now you see why I'm so skeptical about 'water fuel cells'?

Sounds like you need to find a hobby in a different area. I have no interest in spending any time convincing you of anything. You continue to contort my words, etc... I'm through with you. Good luck.

[jonabel1971]

Sounds like Aaron is having trouble with a number of researchers.

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

Physics - Water Molecules, Unite!

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

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

1st GEGENE demonstration - making hydrogen. - YouTube

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all you need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ugh, disgusting.

Sounds like you need to find a hobby in a different area. I have no interest in spending any time convincing you of anything. You continue to contort my words, etc... I'm through with you. Good luck.

[Aaron]

Jon Abel's false claims

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

Jon Abel's famous quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The proof of my fraudulent claims is your OWN BOOK?"

[Ein~+ein]

But at least Aaron allows for dissent--you have to grant him that. He reinstated my post questioning his statements, and I thought you'd been banned?

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

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

I'm unconvinced Stan Meyer's WFC ran on nothing but water, especially given that Aaron, who claims to know Meyer's work well, doesn't see the need to clarify the discrepancy between his posts on the topic (they appear to be the same car--both red and both with lawnmower carbs):

"It runs on 100% water with a pinch of salt..."
"They make it look like water fuel, but 2 gallons of gas an 2 liters of water..."