Stanley Meyer

[Aaron]

ammonia

I made real experiments and no just books like you.

Baziev , Andreyev and Meyer.. same theory. No ammonia is created inside the process but nitrogen from ambient air appear like an fuel.
I repeat again .. You can't make ammonia simply. The thermal energy from explained from Stan Meyer is high heat and not normal heat as we know.
I have tested this process also on 50cc scooter and work using very lower amount of fuel, more than 100km with an liter of gasoline, but you do not decrease the power performances. Remember the words of Andreyev theory .. fuel in fact is the ambient air and hydrocarbons are just the igniter.

What you're saying is false. Meyer said his exhaust smelled like ammonia. I know what Andreyev said but that doesn't mean it is what Meyer did.

[tutanka]

What you're saying is false. Meyer said his exhaust smelled like ammonia. I know what Andreyev said but that doesn't mean it is what Meyer did.

Not important.. what is false for you for me is true!!

[wantomake]

Single tube setup

Thanks Aaron,
I do appreciate all you have done here on this forum. I do read and study more than posting. Just so much to study and this area of energy is our next step toward the right direction.

The #10 post you show the single tube in the third You tube listed. That looks to produce high volumes of hho. Just 2.0 vdc is very productive.

I have built and tested (not very scientific) the GEET on a 5hp B&S. That really messed with the my mechanical brain. I have been reading and studying hho and have tried some simple tests. Is it nitrogen (exhaust from motor) that needs to be recycled back many times to the mixture like the autos that recycle for pollution control? I know it may not be so simple, but that would be easier to do than the resonance thing. I have mechanical ability but very little electronic background.

Will try to replicate the same results with the single tube setup. What size tubes did you use? Saw some on ebay I think was 316L 3/4" and 1/2" OD. Not sure this will give a 1mm gap.

Thanks again,
wantomake

[Aaron]

@Alex

Not important.. what is false for you for me is true!!

You claim Meyer didn't produce ammonia and then you claim it is not important that his exhaust smelled like ammonia.

I like the work you've been doing for the last few years but you post pictures with no evidence to back up any of your claims. I have experiments constantly running but you don't see me posting pictures about them with claims that I can't back up.

You also have no idea what I'm doing with my Water Fuel Secrets book Water Fuel Secrets by Aaron Murakami. If you comprehend that website, the claim I AM making is the claim that I am showing what Stan Meyer said in his own words and I have proven that. You can't dispute the facts, I actually show the documents.

You also conveniently ignored my statements about the catalyst even though you keep talking about HV when I never mentioned anything about HV. You are the one who is just saying things but can't back them up or acknowledge anything that shows you are not speaking facts. I prove what Stan Meyer said and what he said is very consistent with others who have results. And whether or not Stan Meyer did understand what he was doing or not does not change the fact that I am showing exactly what he said in his own words.

Many gasifier stoves have blue flames and that only means you have a clean burn. That is NOT evidence that you are burning nitrogen. Show your entire measurement protocols of how you are coming up with your excess heat claims. You claim others are only talking, yet you have never shown anything. Please don't tell me it feels warmer.

[Aaron]

recycling exhaust

Thanks Aaron,
I do appreciate all you have done here on this forum. I do read and study more than posting. Just so much to study and this area of energy is our next step toward the right direction.

The #10 post you show the single tube in the third You tube listed. That looks to produce high volumes of hho. Just 2.0 vdc is very productive.

I have built and tested (not very scientific) the GEET on a 5hp B&S. That really messed with the my mechanical brain. I have been reading and studying hho and have tried some simple tests. Is it nitrogen (exhaust from motor) that needs to be recycled back many times to the mixture like the autos that recycle for pollution control? I know it may not be so simple, but that would be easier to do than the resonance thing. I have mechanical ability but very little electronic background.

Will try to replicate the same results with the single tube setup. What size tubes did you use? Saw some on ebay I think was 316L 3/4" and 1/2" OD. Not sure this will give a 1mm gap.

Thanks again,
wantomake

Thank you Wantomake,

That single tube test is actually at about 12v @ 3 amps or so and not just 2v. It stays at 2v when there is no external electrical input all by itself.

With the exhaust - Stan Meyer spelled out 2 distinct non-combustible gases.

#1 is that the primary non-combustible gas is Nitrogen, which is the primary element for controlling the burn rare of the water fuel.

#2 are some non-combustible gases which are in the exhaust. The exhaust will have a fair amount of nitrogen anyway but it isn't just nitrogen that gets recycled - it is all combustion byproducts.

With resonance, this exhaust recycling doesn't replace that. The resonance was only to produce water gas at a higher efficiency. In Meyer's own words, he was moving in the direction of splitting water by electrostatically ripping it apart instead of running a lot of current through it. But no matter how efficiently you create the "hho", even at 5 times Faraday, etc... it is still not a suitable fuel for an engine so again, the resonant circuits to produce hho really have nothing to do with the key of making a suitable fuel.

But you can see Meyer's claimed results, patents, etc... show the nitrogen method way before he did anything with any resonant circuits. He started off in the beginning with 2 rod shaped electrodes with the ends pointing at each other in a water bath then moved to some flat plate electrodes.

You can see he was diluting the hho by allowing ambient air to be pulled in and mixed with the contents and that appears to be when he was first trying to change the burn rate. Ambient air is 78% nitrogen and mixing ambient air to dilute the hho is a method used by various people that claim they have reduced the burn rate and that is without necessarily ionizing the nitrogen first.

I believe there is warm up period to get the suitable fuel condensed enough from the constant recycling of it. Bit by bit as the combustion by product nh3 builds up, that is a huge supply of hydrogen to be used as fuel that keeps recycling around. That exhaust goes through a venturi (Meyer calls it a mixing chamber LOL) that pulls the hho out under a vacuum and with that vacuum, the efficiency of the hho production is automatically increased without extra electrical input - just using the pressure of the exhaust through a venturi to do it.

Liquid ammonia for example has more hydrogen per volume than pure liquid or compressed hydrogen.

Sir Humphrey Davy said in 1807 that electrolytic hydrogen will bind with nitrogen in the presence of water when normal hydrogen will not.

With the tube replication, I wouldn't encourage you to try to do what I did because that is just one way to make hho and the results were because of the coating I formed on the negative plate. Many people have done the same process I did and wound up with a lot of gunk in their water. Unless you have tap water like mine, you probably won't get the same results. And that tube test doesn't make or break the results you may get with the nitrogen concepts.

Does your Geet work? There are a lot of direct similarities to the Geet and this whole process.

[tutanka]

You claim Meyer didn't produce ammonia and then you claim it is not important that his exhaust smelled like ammonia.

I like the work you've been doing for the last few years but you post pictures with no evidence to back up any of your claims. I have experiments constantly running but you don't see me posting pictures about them with claims that I can't back up.

You also have no idea what I'm doing with my Water Fuel Secrets book Water Fuel Secrets by Aaron Murakami. If you comprehend that website, the claim I AM making is the claim that I am showing what Stan Meyer said in his own words and I have proven that. You can't dispute the facts, I actually show the documents.

You also conveniently ignored my statements about the catalyst even though you keep talking about HV when I never mentioned anything about HV. You are the one who is just saying things but can't back them up or acknowledge anything that shows you are not speaking facts. I prove what Stan Meyer said and what he said is very consistent with others who have results. And whether or not Stan Meyer did understand what he was doing or not does not change the fact that I am showing exactly what he said in his own words.

Many gasifier stoves have blue flames and that only means you have a clean burn. That is NOT evidence that you are burning nitrogen. Show your entire measurement protocols of how you are coming up with your excess heat claims. You claim others are only talking, yet you have never shown anything. Please don't tell me it feels warmer.

Aaron.. please.. do you want to teach me? everyone can find these photos, you have posted belonio gasifier stove and is completely different from plasma air. This stove don't use wood pellet but rice husks.. however you continue to write e-book but I don't see nothing of working devices. Your Meyer theory is based only on words without any pratical fundament. Instead the plasma air is real and not a dream and surely Meyer had found the same reaction. If you accept that or not for me isn't important.. what is important for me is that plasma air work fine inside my device.

[Aaron]

Stan Meyer Nitrogen

Aaron.. please.. do you want to teach me? everyone can find these photos, you have posted belonio gasifier stove and is completely different from plasma air. This stove don't use wood pellet but rice husks.. however you continue to write e-book but I don't see nothing of working devices. Your Meyer theory is based only on words without any pratical fundament. Instead the plasma air is real and not a dream and surely Meyer had found the same reaction. If you accept that or not for me isn't important.. what is important for me is that plasma air work fine inside my device.

Alex, you first need to learn English a bit better because you are not comprehending basic statements.

You are seeing wood pellet stoves: https://www.google.com/search?q="wood+pellet"+"blue+flame"

I post that because you are making some big deal about making a blue flame and there is nothing special about a blue flame.

WHERE ARE YOUR TESTING PROCEDURES TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS? I don't care about your theory - what tests did you do to prove your heat production per kilogram of wood pellet???

Many efficient little wood pellet stoves burn with a blue flame. Even if they burn rice husks, it is still using biomass and biomass has a lot of hydrogen.

You say you're stove doesn't use fuel, but your stove burns wood pellets!

You don't understand what my book is - I claim to show what Stan Meyer's said and I accomplished that. I put in my own opinions, but the focus is what Stan Meyer claimed, which you do not understand what he claimed obviously.

Like I quoted before, "Through the eyes of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail."

You think just because you are doing what you are doing and you think you have solved Andreyev type concepts and it is related to nitrogen that every combustion process with nitrogen is doing what you are doing. You have tunnel vision and it has only blinded you.

Meyer was producing ammonia in his reaction, his exhaust smelled like ammonia because he was producing ammonia obviously and your claims that he wasn't producing ammonia contradict his own words, eye witnesses who smelled it and people who personally talked to Meyer that he told them his exhaust smelled like ammonia.

You are wrong about Meyer, get over it. You have proved nothing. You have a wood pellet stove and are using nickle catalyst and are injecting ionized nitrogen to create a blue flame.

If you have the "real" Stan Meyer process, then show everyone that you have an engine running on water, air and electricity.

I don't claim to have something I don't. I claim to have shown what Stan Meyer said and nobody can debate that. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant, I actually did prove what he said in his own words, period.

I personally believe it is the process he describes and I have done enough of my own tests to show me he was right. Several people have already done the experiments with mixing ionized nitrogen with HHO to show there is a difference in the burn characteristics.

I supported you for a long time and now you're looking like you're slipping over the edge.

You should start your own discussion because so far, you haven't proven anything more than the fact that you have a wood pellet burning stove that makes blue flames that "doesn't use any fuel!"

[tutanka]

Alex, you first need to learn English a bit better because you are not comprehending basic statements.

You are seeing wood pellet stoves: https://www.google.com/search?q="wood+pellet"+"blue+flame"

I post that because you are making some big deal about making a blue flame and there is nothing special about a blue flame.

WHERE ARE YOUR TESTING PROCEDURES TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS? I don't care about your theory - what tests did you do to prove your heat production per kilogram of wood pellet???

Many efficient little wood pellet stoves burn with a blue flame. Even if they burn rice husks, it is still using biomass and biomass has a lot of hydrogen.

You say you're stove doesn't use fuel, but your stove burns wood pellets!

You don't understand what my book is - I claim to show what Stan Meyer's said and I accomplished that. I put in my own opinions, but the focus is what Stan Meyer claimed, which you do not understand what he claimed obviously.

Like I quoted before, "Through the eyes of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail."

You think just because you are doing what you are doing and you think you have solved Andreyev type concepts and it is related to nitrogen that every combustion process with nitrogen is doing what you are doing. You have tunnel vision and it has only blinded you.

Meyer was producing ammonia in his reaction, his exhaust smelled like ammonia because he was producing ammonia obviously and your claims that he wasn't producing ammonia contradict his own words, eye witnesses who smelled it and people who personally talked to Meyer that he told them his exhaust smelled like ammonia.

You are wrong about Meyer, get over it. You have proved nothing. You have a wood pellet stove and are using nickle catalyst and are injecting ionized nitrogen to create a blue flame.

If you have the "real" Stan Meyer process, then show everyone that you have an engine running on water, air and electricity.

I don't claim to have something I don't. I claim to have shown what Stan Meyer said and nobody can debate that. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant, I actually did prove what he said in his own words, period.

I personally believe it is the process he describes and I have done enough of my own tests to show me he was right. Several people have already done the experiments with mixing ionized nitrogen with HHO to show there is a difference in the burn characteristics.

I supported you for a long time and now you're looking like you're slipping over the edge.

You should start your own discussion because so far, you haven't proven anything more than the fact that you have a wood pellet burning stove that makes blue flames that "doesn't use any fuel!"

Aaron.. You are right about my poor english but we can make differently .. you can reply me in italian .. However I have reply to your questions some time ago but you are very busy for writing your elementary e-books. I use lower amount of wood pellet about 700gr/hour obtaining 20kw or thermal power because I repeat again.. I DON'T BURN WOOD PELLET BUT THE AIR AS AN FUEL GAS. HHO DON'T HAVE SENSE SPENDING KW OF ELECTRIC ENERGY... BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU.. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SOLUTIONS HHO REMAIN THE ONLY YOUR WAY..

[wantomake]

Geet

Thank you Wantomake,

That single tube test is actually at about 12v @ 3 amps or so and not just 2v. It stays at 2v when there is no external electrical input all by itself.

With the exhaust - Stan Meyer spelled out 2 distinct non-combustible gases.

#1 is that the primary non-combustible gas is Nitrogen, which is the primary element for controlling the burn rare of the water fuel.

#2 are some non-combustible gases which are in the exhaust. The exhaust will have a fair amount of nitrogen anyway but it isn't just nitrogen that gets recycled - it is all combustion byproducts.

With resonance, this exhaust recycling doesn't replace that. The resonance was only to produce water gas at a higher efficiency. In Meyer's own words, he was moving in the direction of splitting water by electrostatically ripping it apart instead of running a lot of current through it. But no matter how efficiently you create the "hho", even at 5 times Faraday, etc... it is still not a suitable fuel for an engine so again, the resonant circuits to produce hho really have nothing to do with the key of making a suitable fuel.

But you can see Meyer's claimed results, patents, etc... show the nitrogen method way before he did anything with any resonant circuits. He started off in the beginning with 2 rod shaped electrodes with the ends pointing at each other in a water bath then moved to some flat plate electrodes.

You can see he was diluting the hho by allowing ambient air to be pulled in and mixed with the contents and that appears to be when he was first trying to change the burn rate. Ambient air is 78% nitrogen and mixing ambient air to dilute the hho is a method used by various people that claim they have reduced the burn rate and that is without necessarily ionizing the nitrogen first.

I believe there is warm up period to get the suitable fuel condensed enough from the constant recycling of it. Bit by bit as the combustion by product nh3 builds up, that is a huge supply of hydrogen to be used as fuel that keeps recycling around. That exhaust goes through a venturi (Meyer calls it a mixing chamber LOL) that pulls the hho out under a vacuum and with that vacuum, the efficiency of the hho production is automatically increased without extra electrical input - just using the pressure of the exhaust through a venturi to do it.

Liquid ammonia for example has more hydrogen per volume than pure liquid or compressed hydrogen.

Sir Humphrey Davy said in 1807 that electrolytic hydrogen will bind with nitrogen in the presence of water when normal hydrogen will not.

With the tube replication, I wouldn't encourage you to try to do what I did because that is just one way to make hho and the results were because of the coating I formed on the negative plate. Many people have done the same process I did and wound up with a lot of gunk in their water. Unless you have tap water like mine, you probably won't get the same results. And that tube test doesn't make or break the results you may get with the nitrogen concepts.

Does your Geet work? There are a lot of direct similarities to the Geet and this whole process.

Aaron,
Yes it does work. And I did notice strange and interesting effects when the engine ran during a rain storm or dry weather. My neighbors were very confused and afraid.

The container for the gas and water mixture (very strange mixture for ICE) would absorb more water into it when raining, and the motor ran better.

I did research the venturi and the design of the geet reactor is a little similar. I'm going try a venturi reactor design and see the results. Instead of the magnetized rod in center chamber will narrow it toward the center. Not sure how Meyer got more hho from the mix at this point. Does a vaccum cause water molecules to give up more h2? Yes I have more to research and learn. So thanks for your patience.

Regards,
wantomake

[Aaron]

burning air claims

Aaron.. You are right about my poor english but we can make differently .. you can reply me in italian .. However I have reply to your questions some time ago but you are very busy for writing your elementary e-books. I use lower amount of wood pellet about 700gr/hour obtaining 20kw or thermal power because I repeat again.. I DON'T BURN WOOD PELLET BUT THE AIR AS AN FUEL GAS. HHO DON'T HAVE SENSE SPENDING KW OF ELECTRIC ENERGY... BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU.. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER SOLUTIONS HHO REMAIN THE ONLY YOUR WAY..

You still don't understand the purpose of the Water Fuel Secrets book or what my claim is for it. It is on the website but you clearly have no interest in the facts that I am stating about it - so, we can agree to disagree.

If your wood pellets are not burning, why does 700 grams of wood pellets disappear after 1 hour?

How are you measuring 20kw of thermal power from your stove? If that is over 1 hour, that is 20 kwh (for 1 hour), which is energy dissipated and not a power rating. The pictures you showed before show the stove out in the open. How are you quantifying the btu's of heat produced when most is escaping above the stove? What is your claim for kw for 1 hour for normal 700 grams of wood pellets? Is that in your stove without the nitrogen modification or is that from some spreadsheet arbitrarily yanked from any spreadsheet online that is for some other random wood pellet stove?

If you make these claims, but show no evidence, what's the point?

[Aaron]

vacuum, venture, hho

Aaron,
Yes it does work. And I did notice strange and interesting effects when the engine ran during a rain storm or dry weather. My neighbors were very confused and afraid.

The container for the gas and water mixture (very strange mixture for ICE) would absorb more water into it when raining, and the motor ran better.

I did research the venturi and the design of the geet reactor is a little similar. I'm going try a venturi reactor design and see the results. Instead of the magnetized rod in center chamber will narrow it toward the center. Not sure how Meyer got more hho from the mix at this point. Does a vaccum cause water molecules to give up more h2? Yes I have more to research and learn. So thanks for your patience.

Regards,
wantomake

Hi Wantomake,

If your chamber narrows in the center that is where the hho would go into it for example. Not saying that is the ideal place to inject hho but that is where it is in direct relation to Meyer's diagrams where the recycled exhaust moves through a venturi to suck hho out of the wfc under a vacuum.

When vacuum is applied to a WFC, the simple explanation is that you are neutralizing the atmospheric pressure holding the water together. With vacuum, they can more easily be pulled apart.

Without adding any heat, if you have some water in a contained that you can pull a strong enough vacuum on, the water will boil at that cold temperature. Boiling only means the water is doing that normally at 100C at sea level. If you go to the top of the top of Mt. Everest and you boil water, it will boil at a LOWER temperature than 100C because there is less atmospheric pressure on it. If you go way below sea level where there is more pressure on it, you need to bring it above 100C to boil it.

Watch these:

Boiling Water at Room Temperature: DIY Vacuum Chamber: Prototype_01 - YouTube
Boil Water @ Room Temperature - YouTube
Water Boiling at Room Temperatures, Under a Vacuum - YouTube

Boiling doesn't mean hot, it just means it is boiling and normally here on the surface of the Earth we need to being it around 100C to do that.

In an electrolysis cell with vacuum applied, the vacuum biases the water molecules in the direction of pulling themselves apart so when you electrolyze water in a vacuum, it takes less electrical input because you are using vacuum to do some of the pulling apart to separate H & O.

I posted this a long time ago - look at the bottom right diagram. Believe it or not, some Meyer "experts" accused me of fabricating that diagram.

You see the exhaust moving through a restricted area which will speed it up and reduce the pressure of what is connected to it vertically underneath - WFC through the basic venturi effect. That is what Meyer calls the "mixing chamber". It is a venture to mix the recycled exhaust filled with nitrogen with the HHO the the vacuum will help pull any molecules in the WFC production apart more easily to bind sooner or later with the nitrogen from the exhaust in addition to simply creating the water gas more efficiently anyway.

That diagram is before I posted all the references that simply called nitrogen nitrogen and not non-combustible gases.

[Aaron]

ammonia

There aren't many references willing to admit that Meyer's car had an ammonia smell to the exhaust - here is one site that has been a long time supporter of Meyer's work. Water Car Inventors

I'm not endorsing the content but just pointing out that I'm not the only one that has information that his exhaust smelled like ammonia.

Quote "Just charged H3 water ( deutruim water most lkely) as the exhaust had a amonia smell to it. H3N = ammonia. Stephen Meyer interview. Listen now. (7/09)"

[tutanka]

You still don't understand the purpose of the Water Fuel Secrets book or what my claim is for it. It is on the website but you clearly have no interest in the facts that I am stating about it - so, we can agree to disagree.

If your wood pellets are not burning, why does 700 grams of wood pellets disappear after 1 hour?

How are you measuring 20kw of thermal power from your stove? If that is over 1 hour, that is 20 kwh (for 1 hour), which is energy dissipated and not a power rating. The pictures you showed before show the stove out in the open. How are you quantifying the btu's of heat produced when most is escaping above the stove? What is your claim for kw for 1 hour for normal 700 grams of wood pellets? Is that in your stove without the nitrogen modification or is that from some spreadsheet arbitrarily yanked from any spreadsheet online that is for some other random wood pellet stove?

If you make these claims, but show no evidence, what's the point?

very incredible question from you..
In my case wood pellet is the energy used ONLY for obtain the catalytic temperature, without this temperature the reaction can't start. The same appear into the Meyer system.. you can use lower amount of hydrogen or gasoline or wood .. in specific conditions appear the same reaction.

[wolf234]

Scribbled at least how it works. It geet with pt - rod. I do not know whether people will do.

[tachyon]

Well, it is a fact that ammonia is created in this process and it is also a fact that ammonia is the highest density common hydrogen fuel. This concept is perfectly valid without having to go into other exotic scenarios. What I am saying about ammonia is not theoretical. This is in the books and goes back to 1807 (Davy) and is recognized even in conventional science to be valid. Nitrogen will bind with hydrogen in the presence of water when normally it won't. It is the low energy way to go.

You keep mentioning high voltage but I'm not talking about high voltage ionizers. Meyer gave multiple hints and insights about catalysts. What did Meyer say about his exhaust cooler?

you first have to make monoatomic nitrogen.. strongest bond of the diatomic molecules
Bond-dissociation energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you have a lower energy way to break the nitrogen bond Id be glad to hear it.. water has a specific solubility for gases \and it's dependent on TEMPERATURE....also is this CO2+H2O+2Fe -> COH2+2FeO reaction similar to Water gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia