Stanley Meyer

[lamare]

That actually isn't what you are seeing with the soap bubbles - its too fast to see at thousands of feet per second.

You can't see it, indeed. You do hear a very distinct "click" sound and see no ripples on the water. There may very well be different mixtures of gases behaving differently, depending on the electrolyser, pulsing, electrolyte, etc. etc.

First it explodes, then combines into water and shrinks in volume - that is what the "implosion" is that you are seeing - that follows up AFTER the explosion. It's always been a myth that "Brown's gas" just implodes.

I vaguely recall that George Wiseman had some video online with browns gas in a container and it had a pressure guage and when ignited, the reading goes positive first demonstrating that it does not just implode. It might have been a bit different but that is the point that was made. It might have been someone else too but from my own experiments, it is a fact that it initially explodes.

This explosion then implosion is why it isn't suitable as a stand alone fuel because of the explosive shock to the pistons, etc... that gasoline engines are not designed for since it detonates instead of combusts - then it forms water and shrinks in volume sabotaging all the outward push.

For a stand alone fuel, that is where the whole ionized nitrogen concept comes into play that has been discussed in detail in this forum. If ionized nitrogen is there, it prevents the formation of the water molecule and you get the thermal energy out of it since the h and o will preferably go to the atomic nitrogen since it is the strongest attractor.

According to Patrick Kelly's guide, the mixing of "cold water fog" with the gas has a the effect of turning the mixture into an exploding gas, while having minimal effect on the burn rate, as far as I can tell. In that case, all that's needed to make an engine run smoothly is to retard the ignition to something like 10 degrees after TDC, instead of like 20 degrees before TDC.

[lamare]

With an implosion w/out an explosion first, I suppose that is possible but the entire concept of on demand hho production with "boosters", etc... is that the moment the gas is created, it is used and doesn't sit around for 15 minutes to change into something else. I haven't produced it and contained it to sit around to see if it does this myself so I can't say. But under normal circumstances of igniting it soon after production, it definitely explodes, turns into water then implodes.

At least it's clear that there is an imploding reaction, the occurence of which depends on the mixture of the gas. The reason I believed HHO is mostly implosive is because of this comment by Weiseman. The idea that some kind of fluid/gaseous crystalic component in the mixture can implode makes sense, since the atoms are more widely spaced in ice crystals.

So, I assume that the implosive force is caused by imploding, negatively charged, crystalic structures, whatever the details may be. Either way, it appears that this behavior can be influenced by changing the mixture of the gas, be it by adding nitrogen or 'cold water fog", or by adapting paremeters like voltage, pulse frequency, electrolyte, etc., etc.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Away at the moment

Hi Aaron

I am away at the moment and typing this at an internet cafe, will be back on Monday next week.

You found the photo, don't the years fly by!

By including nitrogen "possibly not the only gas that can be used", at the right time, which is at the production stage, there is a very complex chemical change. This change creates electron emission from certain atoms, not only gas atoms but metal atoms as well. It is right that in time the stainless steel electrodes are transformed, but this only happens if the system is alined the right way.

I have a very simple video of this happening and uses an alternating current in a special way and I will post this on my return.

Keep in mind that certain chemical changes create huge amounts of energy, I have over the years stated this and the example was explosives, they are nearly all nitrogen based and work on interchanging of electrons. This does not go against science, it is all known, it is just how it is done that matters.

All will come out in the wash sooner or later

Best regards

Mike

[lamare]

By including nitrogen "possibly not the only gas that can be used", at the right time, which is at the production stage, there is a very complex chemical change. This change creates electron emission from certain atoms, not only gas atoms but metal atoms as well. It is right that in time the stainless steel electrodes are transformed, but this only happens if the system is alined the right way.

I have a very simple video of this happening and uses an alternating current in a special way and I will post this on my return.

Keep in mind that certain chemical changes create huge amounts of energy, I have over the years stated this and the example was explosives, they are nearly all nitrogen based and work on interchanging of electrons. This does not go against science, it is all known, it is just how it is done that matters.

All will come out in the wash sooner or later

Best regards

Mike

I have no problem believing interesting effects can be obtained by mixing HHO with other gases. George Wiseman even talks about cleaning up nuclear waste:

Brown's Gas and Radioactivity | www.eagle-research.com

What can BG do to help?

To answer that you need to understand that the only effective radioactive neutralization protocol I currently know of, that uses BG, is to mix the radioactive material with approximately equal quantities of iron and aluminum (by volume) and heat the whole mixture to liquid (using a BG flame). When the mixture is hot enough it will explode... not like a bomb, more like a firecracker.

Iron and aluminum make thermite (research thermite to learn the optimum quantities to use), and the BG provides the special transmutation energy. BG exhibits transmutative characteristics in other applications too, like processing ore.

Most materials are radioactive because the electrons have been stripped off the molecules; the nucleus then ejects particles of various kinds (radioactivity) to try to 'balance' the 'weight' (and transmute to a lighter, glasslike, material). Somehow, the molecules are able to use the special energy in the BG to complete this transmutation in seconds (instead of millennia), when the material is molten and given the shock of the thermite explosion.

So it's impractical to use BG, as far as I know, on anything that you don't want to destroy. The BG 'explodes' the material and does the neutralization during the explosion. You need to affect the material on an atomic level to neutralize the radioactivity.

Also it's impractical to use BG on any material that isn't concentrated radioactive. It takes electrical power to make the BG, plus quantities of iron and aluminum to make the explosive reaction.

Thus, BG works well to neutralize CONCENTRATED nuclear waste, like spent fuel rods or decommissioned warheads, but practically useless at remediation of radioactive materials that have dispersed into the general environment.

However, for these interesting effects to occur such that one gains energy, one needs an energy source. From Prof. Turtur's work, we know that a static electric field can convert energy from the vacuum / zero point field and can thus provide energy. For that to occur, one needs to have an electric field, such as created by a polarized dielectric. So, when we can use the energy from a polarized dielectric to make our HHO gas mix and thus get a gas mix which has a certain amount of energy stored, we can convert that energy into something else using all kinds of chemical reactions.

As far as I am aware, chemical reactions cannot convert energy out of the vacuum / ZP field into useable energy. Explosives do not create energy out of nothing, they release energy which has been "stored" into the geometrical structured molecules in the shape of dipoles. Whenever that energy is being made available, the dipole is destroyed, which in the end is an energy neutral exercise, as explained by Tom Bearden, which I quoted and explained further in my article at Pes a while ago:

However, the power system engineers use just one kind of circuit. In the standard "closed current loop" circuit, all the "spent electrons" (spent after giving up their excess energy in the loads, losses, etc.) are then forcibly "rammed" back through that little internal section between the ends of the source dipole (between the terminals). These "rammed" electrons smash the charges in the dipole away, and destroy the dipole then and there.

It can easily be shown that half the "caught" energy in the external circuit is used to destroy that source dipole, and nothing else.

For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses.

So half the caught energy in the power line is used to kill the source dipole (kill the free energy gusher), and less than half is used to power the loads. It follows that our electrical engineers are trained to use only those power circuits that kill themselves (kill their gushing free energy from the vacuum) faster than they can power their loads.

Well, to get the energy gusher going again, the dipole has to be restored in order to extract the energy and pour it out again.

Chemical reactions are exactly the same as "closed current loops" circuits. Charges are seperated and dipoles are created, which are capable of "catching" EM energy from the vacuum, BUT when performing a chemical reaction, de dipoles are destroyed and in the end this is an energy neutral exercise, no matter what kind of chemical reaction you might have.

The only way I know of to extract net energy out of the vacuum with a "static" dipole is to use the field to do work on *other* molecules than the molecules which make up the dipole. And that is why IMHO the electret effect, caused by a polarized dielectric, is the key into making a system like this with a COP > 1.

[RAMSET]

Where are we?

Lamare
I do not see these posts on the page I aleays visit .
are we somewhere else?

BTW You shared alot of interesting water info which is not relevant to either thread ,however for newcomers it would be good to study as well as experiment with..[the 4th phase]
thx
Chet

[lamare]

Lamare
I do not see these posts on the page I aleays visit .
are we somewhere else?

BTW You shared alot of interesting water info which is not relevant to either thread ,however for newcomers it would be good to study as well as experiment with..[the 4th phase]
thx
Chet

The 4th phase gives you some basic clues about what HHO is and how it is generated, which explains why it is heavier than air and why it implodes: it has a crystalic structure.

[Aaron]

water fuel

Yes, on page 46 of this WFC report we find the results of a chemical analysis of steel samples provided by Stan, dated December 22, 1982:

Of course, one cannot conclude from the existence of this report that the tubes Stan had tested must have originated from an unknown source (scrap) nor that they must have been electropolished. But when one starts at the idea that the "electret effect" observed with Bedini chargers and "conditioned' WFC pipes is likely caused by a polarized dielectric, one adds the idea that a "static" electric field as emitted by a polarized dielectric contains energy and thus concludes that this is most likely the source for excess energy (Prof. Turtur), then things start pointing in the same direction.

Yes, he talked about changing the burn rate and I have no reason to doubt that can be done with nitrogen. While this certainly has advantages in the sense that one can adapt/tune properties of the gas to a certain application, it does not explain excess energy. And if changing the burn rate is the only effect obtained by mixing nitrogen, one can just as well adapt the timing of the engine such that ignition occurs about 10 degrees after TDC. As long as you have an exploding gas ignited at the right moment in the engine cycle, the engine should run just fine.




As far as I can tell, the effect of the nitrogen has to do with changing the burn rate of the fuel, which means you can use it in an engine without the need for adapting the ignition timing. However, as far as I can tell, this does not make much if any difference in terms of COP.




I'm afraid that if I am correct and the electret effect is essentially the energy source and that we can obtain the electret effect by electropolishing our anodes, that we are looking at a "lucky hit" with his first prototype, which he has never been able to repeat. A story which resembles the story of Edwin Gray. He also had a working "lucky hit" engine once, which they have been unable to repeat.

I really doubt Stan ever got anything even close to the performance of his first working prototype and it appears that his first prototype stopped working because the tubes wore out over time, since in 1994 when the BBC made this documentary, the buggy was not running:

Stanley Meyers amazing water powered car - YouTube

The buggy is shown running in there, but that is old footage.

T304 is the only steel I have ever used for my tubes. It's been a long time since I looked into what kind of passivating process they've gone through, etc... that is a whole science on its own but I think it is more simple than that but I'm open to whatever works.

I would make a distinction on the dielectric layer - instead of calling it polarized since the layer itself is not polarized, it just has its own potential difference in relation to the positive tubes that have no coating. This then creates a dipole of a high and low potential with a connection through the water. This then polarizes the aether in the local environment around the tubes and then we have a visible voltage potential available at the tubes of about 2 volts. The positive aetheric potential sitting at the positive tube radiates its electrostatic field through the water to the lower potential ground tube without current flowing in the opposite direction. So any water molecules in the gap sitting in that 2 volts electrostatic potential are going to polarize without us having to expend any watts to do it. That is getting something accomplished without actually using any energy to do so.

I would also say the aether in this situation in the gap of the tubes (electrostatic 2v potential) is not energy but still just voltage potential and energy as a measurable joule second reality is only going to happen when the potential is reduced to a lower potential through the positive aetheric potential (Heaviside flow) meeting any resistance and that resistance is work.

So that electret effect is really able to polarize the water molecules without work since it is just voltage potential that is not being reduced to a lower potential through resistance - therefore it's not dissipating back to the active vacuum.

Then when we pulse those tubes that puts the tug-a-war on the water molecules to yank them apart and on the off pulse, the water molecules remain polarized in the 2v electric field, which I believe remains a bit higher because the on pulse brought the potential difference to a higher voltage and on the off pulse - it does not decay all the way to 2v because there isn't enough time.

With the setup you see in those vids, I could run it for a bit and after the power was turned off, the water would continue to split for 5 minutes or so because it remained polarized for at a bit higher voltage than just the "electret" effect voltage.

I don't know who Prof Turtur is, but your description of what he is saying is accurately describing the results of what is happening, but I think there could be some corrections to the actual distinctions of how he is saying it - such as a polarized dielectric layer when it is not polarized, it is just one pole that will have a potential difference in relation to another pole and the layer itself is not polarized - just a lower potential difference.

Another concept that I think possibly comes into play is hydrogen loading on that negative tube. It would be along the lines of the Roger Billings hydrogen/metal compounds to safely store hydrogen in tanks for example. I don't immediately recall what that is referred to, but in his applications, you could put an armor piercing bullet through that tank and there is no explosion. The tank is warmed slightly and that releases just enough hydrogen to be used depending on need at any given moment. It is the safest method to store hydrogen has that there is - more safe than ammonia or any other method that I know of.

METAL HYDRIDES - just recalled.

Anyway, if enough hydrogen over a long conditioning period got "loaded" into that tube or in that dielectric layer or whatever, it can be released later after there gets to some saturation point. The metal has all kinds of empty space throughout its matrix and hydrogen atoms are pretty small some one single tube like that could potentially hold on to quite a bit of hydrogen under whatever conditions are necessary for it to come out.

With the "excess energy" idea, turning hho into a "synthetic fuel" (Stan Meyer's own words) - I think instead of it actually being about excess energy, it is more about allowing the hydrogen that is already there to be used in a more effective manner. Plus with the exhaust recycling, it is condensing that hydrogen coming from the WFC and with the ionized nitrogen, it is making ammonia - the most dense carrier of hydrogen and if that condenses and recycles back to the front over and over, that is a LOT of hydrogen available.

Just like boosters, the hho as a supplement to gas/fuel allows for gains, it isn't getting excess energy out of thin air, it is just allowing the hydrogen that is already in the gasoline molecule to be more usable.

Yes, the nitrogen changes the burn rate of the fuel and since the "hho" can be made to burn more like gasoline, you don't have to change the timing. Might have to be tweaked a bit but not like compensating for the ideas behind using hho as a sole fuel in its "normal" form.

With the COP of the system - when we have a gasoline powered car, everything coming out the back is pretty much what went into the front just in a different arrangement. So we have the ingredients in the exhaust necessary to recreate gasoline or other hydrocarbon gases and air. If we are able to rearrange the exhaust in that manner and feed it back from the front - that is conceptually what Stan Meyer is showing in all his early patents except the fuel is a nitrogen modified hho synthetic fuel instead of a hydrocarbon fuel.

When we separate hydrogen that takes work to do. But it takes absolutely no work on our part for them to recombine and give off a lot of heat that equals more energy that it took to separate them to begin with. We only have to pay for the partial modification of the water fuel and nature supplies its own contribution in the electrochemistry so it is still all under 100% efficient but is over 1.0 COP.

[Aaron]

Stan Meyer

Calcium carbonate has a dielectric constant of about 6-9, which falls in the same range as aluminum oxide and Cr2O3:

http://www.rafoeg.de/20,Dokumentenar...tric_chart.pdf

So, if indeed the dielectric is our power source, then resonance, etc. is not the key ingredient, nor is the adaption of the burn rate to make a fuel suitable to run an unadapted engine with.

However, maintaining acoustic resonance within the cell fluid will likely have a beneficial effect, because the fluid will then be in constant motion, thus preventing gas bubbles to "stick" to the metals and increasing the amount of water molecules which comes into contact with the dielectric in a given time frame.

I've always thought it was calcium or magnesium based. That was from tap water that comes from an incredibly mineral rich aquafer.

The electret type effect I don't believe is the key to making a suitable fuel - but it keeps the polarization and water splitting going on the off pulse. I agree it is not resonance, but all the evidence and claims corroborate the nitrogen as being the key.

With bubbles sticking, you can see in that old test setup I showed the gas production is so forceful in that gap that bubbles can't stick if they wanted to.

[Aaron]

stabilized atomic species

At least it's clear that there is an imploding reaction, the occurence of which depends on the mixture of the gas. The reason I believed HHO is mostly implosive is because of this comment by Weiseman. The idea that some kind of fluid/gaseous crystalic component in the mixture can implode makes sense, since the atoms are more widely spaced in ice crystals.

So, I assume that the implosive force is caused by imploding, negatively charged, crystalic structures, whatever the details may be. Either way, it appears that this behavior can be influenced by changing the mixture of the gas, be it by adding nitrogen or 'cold water fog", or by adapting paremeters like voltage, pulse frequency, electrolyte, etc., etc.

If the gas production of hho is 1600 or so times more in volume than the water that produced it then having that gas simply recombine to form water would shrink the volume it occupies by 1600 times - that seems to be the simplest explanation for the "implosion". And having water as the end product after hho being detonated sort of shows that this appears to actually be what is happening.

One thing that is mentioned often is that the atomic h and o or even n is very unstable and reactive so can only last in atomic form for a short time.

In one particular electrolyzer technology using a mile saline solution, it has been proven that it will create 16 molecules and the atomic species although normally unstable can remain in a solution without reacting with anything else. It was the first breakthrough to show that all the reduces species and reactive oxygen species can coexist in a solution without reacting with each other and simply turning back into a mild saline solution.

I think it is worth considering that it might just be possible to electrolyze water and have the atomic h and o and even n come together in a mixture without instantly reacting with each other. I can't prove this is happening, but it isn't far fetched considering what has already been proven to be possible with sodium chloride and water.

If we look at some of Meyer's work, we can see he was making various forms of a "magnegas" by charging the water fuel with permanent magnet fields. This was done to the wfc output as the gas is leaving to magnetize it. If we magnetize the gas molecules and atoms, it might be possible for them to have such a like charge that they do not react with each other yet. Again, I think this is something that is worth considering.

So, although the atomic species created in these electorolytic processes are creating unstable reactive atoms as well as the atomic reactive nitrogen from the exhaust, it is possible that they may be made stable (long enough) until the point of ignition.

[Aaron]

@Michael

By including nitrogen "possibly not the only gas that can be used", at the right time, which is at the production stage, there is a very complex chemical change. This change creates electron emission from certain atoms, not only gas atoms but metal atoms as well. It is right that in time the stainless steel electrodes are transformed, but this only happens if the system is alined the right way.

I have a very simple video of this happening and uses an alternating current in a special way and I will post this on my return.

Keep in mind that certain chemical changes create huge amounts of energy, I have over the years stated this and the example was explosives, they are nearly all nitrogen based and work on interchanging of electrons. This does not go against science, it is all known, it is just how it is done that matters.

Ok Michael, let me know when you're back on Skype - I have more to send you.

Looking forward to the vid!

[Aaron]

energy to create dipole, free environmental potential enters and can do more work

However, for these interesting effects to occur such that one gains energy, one needs an energy source.

As far as I am aware, chemical reactions cannot convert energy out of the vacuum / ZP field into useable energy. Explosives do not create energy out of nothing, they release energy which has been "stored" into the geometrical structured molecules in the shape of dipoles. Whenever that energy is being made available, the dipole is destroyed, which in the end is an energy neutral exercise, as explained by Tom Bearden, which I quoted and explained further in my article at Pes a while ago:



Chemical reactions are exactly the same as "closed current loops" circuits. Charges are seperated and dipoles are created, which are capable of "catching" EM energy from the vacuum, BUT when performing a chemical reaction, de dipoles are destroyed and in the end this is an energy neutral exercise, no matter what kind of chemical reaction you might have.

The only way I know of to extract net energy out of the vacuum with a "static" dipole is to use the field to do work on *other* molecules than the molecules which make up the dipole. And that is why IMHO the electret effect, caused by a polarized dielectric, is the key into making a system like this with a COP > 1.

With the energy source, the hydrogen appears to have all the potential energy it needs to run an engine on water with very little volume of water gas - when it is allowed to express its full potential in the form of heat, light, etc...

If we lift a ball in the air, we put in energy to make a separation in potential difference between the ball and the ground. The ball does not store any potential energy in it when we lift it. We just used up all the energy necessary to lift it. force x distance = real work it took to lift it. There is nothing left at the peak of the lift, therefore, there is nothing to store.

The ball at that height simply creates a new potential difference between the ball and the ground - a dipole, which allows new fresh gravitational potential energy to enter and do work on the ball when it is allowed to drop and impact the ground. Obviously Einstein is wrong and so are all the basic interpretations of Newton, etc... It is mathematically irrefutable with 3rd grade math and 9th grade equations.

When the ball drops, that is free environmental energy that is pushing down on the ball so we expend some to lift the ball and all our energy is gone, new dipole and nature adds its own potential which converts to work upon resistance.

When we split water, we put in the input and out input is all gone. The work we put in simply split the molecules and created a new dipole or potential difference. Then nature, for free, will push them back together in various arrangements for free and some of these arrangements will exhibit more energy in measurable joules of energy/work than it took us to split them to begin with.

This is obviously possible because these are non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes and violate no laws of physics at all.

So the energy source is all in creating potential difference with our input and nature does the rearranging to do more work, which can exceed what we input. All under 100% efficient, but all over 1.0 COP, virtually always.

"The only way I know of to extract net energy out of the vacuum with a "static" dipole is to use the field to do work on *other* molecules than the molecules which make up the dipole. And that is why IMHO the electret effect, caused by a polarized dielectric, is the key into making a system like this with a COP > 1." - I agree, but that only helps increase both the efficiency and COP of the water gas creation process but does not account for the thermal energy realized, nor change the properties of the water fuel into a suitable fuel that burns more like gasoline.

[Aaron]

Stan Meyer Quotes Nitrogen

Here are a few Stan Meyer quotes, which almost every hho Stan Meyer self-proclaimed expert denies even exists.

Remember, in Meyer's later work, he used the term "non-combustible gas" instead of Nitrogen later on in his work to hide the fact that it is nitrogen that he is referring to. Most of the Meyer "experts" will and HAVE denied that the quotes below ever came from Stan Meyer and even after I showed all the proof, they still deny it. The entire Stan Meyer replication field has been sent like a steaming locomotive into a dark abyss because those "experts" who claim they figured out that it is all about resonance, etc... adamantly deny that Stan Meyer had anything to do with Nitrogen. They are more interested in protecting their facade of "expertise" on the subject even when the are willfully lying to everyone to make them look away from NITROGEN - their KRYPTONITE!

The following comes DIRECTLY from Stan Meyer's patents and NOTICE, I am not guessing that non-combustible gas references are Nitrogen, Stan Meyer HIMSELF is saying so:


"The NITROGEN, oxygen and hydrogen are mixed as they are released in the process..."


"The NITROGEN reduces the velocity and temperature of the burning flame from that of the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. To further control the temperature
and velocity of the burning gas mixture there are added to the collection chamber other non-burnable gasses." (other non-burnable gasses here is a reference to recycled exhaust).


"Another object of the present invention is to provide a hydrogen/oxygen generator that in addition to the hydrogen and oxygen gases releases NON- COMBUSTIBLE NITROGEN GAS capable of reducing the burning velocity and temperature of a pure hydrogen/oxygen flame."



"Natural water such as tap, well, sea, or fresh water is an absorber of ambient air and since ambient air contains a substantial amount of NITROGEN gas so does the natural water with the ambient air absorbed therein. In operation of the hydrogen generator, the gases released from natural water are thus nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen."


"In the preferred embodiment utilizing tap water, the NITROGEN gasses 16 a xxx n are intermixed with the hydrogen..."

"The flame 25 is sustained in that the NITROGEN gases 16 a xxx n REDUCES THE VELOCITY AND TEMPERATURE OF THE HYDROGEN GAS 14 a xxx n."


I did not provide patent numbers or screenshots of the patents that all have the above quotes in them in plain English - it is too easy for anyone to take these quotes and search them online to see for themselves exactly where those quote come from.

I would hope anyone with the intellectual honesty to not deny what Meyer is saying and showing in countless diagrams would actually do this and come back here and post links to all the references showing that I actually am showing what Stan Meyer is saying in his own words and that all the popular Stan Meyer self-proclaimed experts have done everything they could to turn people away from these references by badmouthing nitrogen, etc... anyone who does that - well, you will know automatically who the real disinformation agents are that want to make sure you never figure out what Stan Meyer was doing and/or to maintain their charade that they know what they're taking about.

[Aaron]

Stan Meyer Nitrogen Key

Some other references and discussion here in the other forum: Stan Meyer - The Nitrogen Key

[tutanka]

Here are a few Stan Meyer quotes, which almost every hho Stan Meyer self-proclaimed expert denies even exists.

Remember, in Meyer's later work, he used the term "non-combustible gas" instead of Nitrogen later on in his work to hide the fact that it is nitrogen that he is referring to. Most of the Meyer "experts" will and HAVE denied that the quotes below ever came from Stan Meyer and even after I showed all the proof, they still deny it. The entire Stan Meyer replication field has been sent like a steaming locomotive into a dark abyss because those "experts" who claim they figured out that it is all about resonance, etc... adamantly deny that Stan Meyer had anything to do with Nitrogen. They are more interested in protecting their facade of "expertise" on the subject even when the are willfully lying to everyone to make them look away from NITROGEN - their KRYPTONITE!

The following comes DIRECTLY from Stan Meyer's patents and NOTICE, I am not guessing that non-combustible gas references are Nitrogen, Stan Meyer HIMSELF is saying so:


"The NITROGEN, oxygen and hydrogen are mixed as they are released in the process..."


"The NITROGEN reduces the velocity and temperature of the burning flame from that of the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. To further control the temperature
and velocity of the burning gas mixture there are added to the collection chamber other non-burnable gasses." (other non-burnable gasses here is a reference to recycled exhaust).


"Another object of the present invention is to provide a hydrogen/oxygen generator that in addition to the hydrogen and oxygen gases releases NON- COMBUSTIBLE NITROGEN GAS capable of reducing the burning velocity and temperature of a pure hydrogen/oxygen flame."



"Natural water such as tap, well, sea, or fresh water is an absorber of ambient air and since ambient air contains a substantial amount of NITROGEN gas so does the natural water with the ambient air absorbed therein. In operation of the hydrogen generator, the gases released from natural water are thus nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen."


"In the preferred embodiment utilizing tap water, the NITROGEN gasses 16 a xxx n are intermixed with the hydrogen..."

"The flame 25 is sustained in that the NITROGEN gases 16 a xxx n REDUCES THE VELOCITY AND TEMPERATURE OF THE HYDROGEN GAS 14 a xxx n."


I did not provide patent numbers or screenshots of the patents that all have the above quotes in them in plain English - it is too easy for anyone to take these quotes and search them online to see for themselves exactly where those quote come from.

I would hope anyone with the intellectual honesty to not deny what Meyer is saying and showing in countless diagrams would actually do this and come back here and post links to all the references showing that I actually am showing what Stan Meyer is saying in his own words and that all the popular Stan Meyer self-proclaimed experts have done everything they could to turn people away from these references by badmouthing nitrogen, etc... anyone who does that - well, you will know automatically who the real disinformation agents are that want to make sure you never figure out what Stan Meyer was doing and/or to maintain their charade that they know what they're taking about.

HI Aaron,
You are continue to study but actually you don't have focalized the meyer discovery. I can assure to you that only nitrogen, the non-combustible gas as written from Stanley Meyer, in special conditions burn producing an very blue flame. Some indications for reach that condition are written into the some meyer patents present on web. Regards Alex

[Jeff Pearson]

IMHO its not about making HHO. Its more about what to do with it afterwords. It's a chemistry problem more than an electronics problem. Nitrogen is not the inert gas we are taught it is. think about things like nitroglycerin, fertilizer bombs, TNT. All explosive forms of nitrogen...this is where I believe the the key to what Meyer was doing is.