Stanley Meyer

[tutanka]

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.

NO!!
Isn't simple chemistry.. We are talking of new discovery that Stanley Meyer has found casually but do not understand.. Forget air ionized or special high voltage.. is just for make confusion inside the minds for protect this method.. Meyer have put inside the patents some designs for protect him without explain how system really work. Nitrogen can be burned in special conditions and we are present to an ionized blue flame and an high amount of heat is released as Meyer has written. These don't are just words but I have experimented and tested this system with full success. In previous post I have sended images about but nothing have think about because is more simple copy than make experiments. AIR Plasma, in this case, can appear also without high voltage usage or RF circuits or antennas and I'm not dreaming..

[Aaron]

@Alex

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

Alex, you have your perspective and it not the only way. Other people do have some results that are different than yours.

[Aaron]

burning nitrogen

NO!!
Isn't simple chemistry.. We are talking of new discovery that Stanley Meyer has found casually but do not understand.. Forget air ionized or special high voltage.. is just for make confusion inside the minds for protect this method.. Meyer have put inside the patents some designs for protect him without explain how system really work. Nitrogen can be burned in special conditions and we are present to an ionized blue flame and an high amount of heat is released as Meyer has written. These don't are just words but I have experimented and tested this system with full success. In previous post I have sended images about but nothing have think about because is more simple copy than make experiments. AIR Plasma, in this case, can appear also without high voltage usage or RF circuits or antennas and I'm not dreaming..

All the Andreyev and similar concepts are still theoretical. You have not proved it yet. I believe the concepts make sense, but it is still claims without proof.

[tutanka]

Alex, you have your perspective and it not the only way. Other people do have some results that are different than yours.

Aaron.. I'm tired to reading the same old words!! No more methods works for make air plasma.. if other developers have found different methods from me is very good and I'm waiting to see an little photo about the real results.. I don't want see an little hho flame or I don't want explainations because I know how system work and sorry but I'm able to understand is the real meyer discovery or just an fake.

[Aaron]

nitrogen

Aaron.. I'm tired to reading the same old words!! No more methods works for make air plasma.. if other developers have found different methods from me is very good and I'm waiting to see an little photo about the real results.. I don't want see an little hho flame or I don't want explainations because I know how system work and sorry but I'm able to understand is the real meyer discovery or just an fake.

Just because you get results doesn't mean your theory about burning nitrogen is correct. Again, like I said, I believe in the validity of Andreyev, etc... but that is all still very theoretical and you cannot prove you are burning nitrogen. It is only your belief. A picture of a flame does not prove you are burning nitrogen.

[tutanka]

All the Andreyev and similar concepts are still theoretical. You have not proved it yet. I believe the concepts make sense, but it is still claims without proof.

Aaron how you can talk if you don't know??
We are talking of D.H. Baziev discovery and I'm thanks to this man and sorry but I have found the working method for making air plasma without electricity, high voltage or RF devices!!!
No more methods are availables for reach the same result but I have open mind. We are talking of these meyer devices from some time but actually I don'y have see nothing of woking just words, words and words.. just our politicians..

[tutanka]

Just because you get results doesn't mean your theory about burning nitrogen is correct. Again, like I said, I believe in the validity of Andreyev, etc... but that is all still very theoretical and you cannot prove you are burning nitrogen. It is only your belief. A picture of a flame does not prove you are burning nitrogen.

Sorry but I know what I'm using and I burn surely nitrogen of ambient air.. I don't use HHO gas or use other types of burnable gas. Just ambient air and lower amount of fuel (actually pellet wood) for make an fuel-less device as Andreyev explain.

[wolf234]

The catalyst car. magnet, eec, propane high voltage. I do not have results. Only HHO catalyst works hi

[tutanka]

The catalyst car. magnet, eec, propane high voltage. I do not have results. Only HHO catalyst works hi

Specify better please.. you can not even use hho gas to cook an egg

[Aaron]

ammonia

Aaron.. I'm tired to reading the same old words!! No more methods works for make air plasma..

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?

[Aaron]

wood is fuel

Sorry but I know what I'm using and I burn surely nitrogen of ambient air.. I don't use HHO gas or use other types of burnable gas. Just ambient air and lower amount of fuel (actually pellet wood) for make an fuel-less device as Andreyev explain.

Wood pellets are full of hydrogen fuel. When wood pellets heat up, you have a burnable gasified hydrogen gas.

[tutanka]

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?

Sorry .. forget the chemistry for an moment because we are talking of an atomic plasma reaction.. for make ammonia you need special conditions of high temperature and/or pressure and pure hydrogen and nitrogen sources and ammonia flame is completely different from air plasma flame.. with combustion of ammonia/air you obtain an yellow flame, here instead you are able to burn ONLY the air obtaining an energetic blue flame more than respect to methane and air combustion.

[tutanka]

Wood pellets are full of hydrogen fuel. When wood pellets heat up, you have a burnable gasified hydrogen gas.

An very lower amount of hydrogen is released from wood pellet. Normally burning 1kg of wood pellet you obtain 5kw of heat power in output.
An wood pellet stove of 20Kw consume 4Kg/hour, I use just 700 gr/hour of pellet, normally the same pellet stoves consume 4 kg/hour using an standard combustion.
The extra power is come from??? Sorry we are present to an plasma reaction, an different type of combustion, the same thermal energy of Stanley Meyer!!

[Aaron]

nitrogen modified fuel

Sorry .. forget the chemistry for an moment because we are talking of an atomic plasma reaction.. for make ammonia you need special conditions of high temperature and/or pressure and pure hydrogen and nitrogen sources and ammonia flame is completely different from air plasma flame.. with combustion of ammonia/air you obtain an yellow flame, here instead you are able to burn ONLY the air obtaining an energetic blue flame more than respect to methane and air combustion.

Alex,

"Through the eyes of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail."

It is not true that you need very high temps and/or pressure. That is in the conventional Haber-Bosch process but we are not talking about conventional methods. In these processes, pure nitrogen and pure hydrogen are not needed. Helpful, but not required.

An very lower amount of hydrogen is released from wood pellet. Normally burning 1kg of wood pellet you obtain 5kw of heat power in output.
An wood pellet stove of 20Kw consume 4Kg/hour, I use just 700 gr/hour of pellet, normally the same pellet stoves consume 4 kg/hour using an standard combustion.
The extra power is come from??? Sorry we are present to an plasma reaction, an different type of combustion, the same thermal energy of Stanley Meyer!!

You say 5kw from 1kg, but that is only POWER claim, what is the ENERGY claim? 5kw for HOW LONG?

Your second sentence claims you use 0.7kg per hour and normal is 4kg per hour. A rough estimate is your heat system is 5.7 COP if burn rate is comparable. That is great, but high-end geothermal heat pumps can give same COP.

You ask where power comes from. The nitrogen allows more hydrogen from wood pellet to be released because conventional burning of wood still has emissions and that means conventional pellet burning is not super efficient. If you can get more of same potential in wood pellet to release, you will get extra heat. It is not magical and doesn't mean you are burning nitrogen.

As I said, "Through the eyes of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail."

That means because you are looking at Andreyev/Baziev concepts and IF you do what they say, anything that looks similar you will think is the same.

Just because Andreyev and Baziev is on nitrogen burning theories, that does NOT mean that Meyer is same concept. That is only your opinion and is not a fact. So through your interpretation of Andreyev and Baziev, you will automatically think that anything involved with ionized nitrogen mixing with fuel must be burning nitrogen, but that is no necessarily the truth. That is the carpenter thinking everything in the world is a nail.

[tutanka]

Alex,

"Through the eyes of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail."

It is not true that you need very high temps and/or pressure. That is in the conventional Haber-Bosch process but we are not talking about conventional methods. In these processes, pure nitrogen and pure hydrogen are not needed. Helpful, but not required.



You say 5kw from 1kg, but that is only POWER claim, what is the ENERGY claim? 5kw for HOW LONG?

Your second sentence claims you use 0.7kg per hour and normal is 4kg per hour. A rough estimate is your heat system is 5.7 COP if burn rate is comparable. That is great, but high-end geothermal heat pumps can give same COP.

You ask where power comes from. The nitrogen allows more hydrogen from wood pellet to be released because conventional burning of wood still has emissions and that means conventional pellet burning is not super efficient. If you can get more of same potential in wood pellet to release, you will get extra heat. It is not magical and doesn't mean you are burning nitrogen.

As I said, "Through the eyes of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail."

That means because you are looking at Andreyev/Baziev concepts and IF you do what they say, anything that looks similar you will think is the same.

Just because Andreyev and Baziev is on nitrogen burning theories, that does NOT mean that Meyer is same concept. That is only your opinion and is not a fact. So through your interpretation of Andreyev and Baziev, you will automatically think that anything involved with ionized nitrogen mixing with fuel must be burning nitrogen, but that is no necessarily the truth. That is the carpenter thinking everything in the world is a nail.

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 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 if transformed in plasma and hydrocarbons atoms are just the igniter.