Selective Chemistry via Electronegativity and Electron Affinity from HV+ Ionization

[Vinyasi]

Selective Chemistry via Electronegativity & Electron Affinity resulting from a High Voltage, Positive Ionization

Oxidation state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of oxidation states of the elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://sites.google.com/site/ionica...onic-compounds
Electronegativities of the elements (data page) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's seemingly impossible for me to find the Wikipedia article that gave me everything I needed to know to validate the idea that a highly positive ionization of oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen will favor the formation of ammonium ion (NH3) over the formation of a hydroxyl ion (HO) and release more energy upon combustion (ignoring the increased difficulty of burning ammonia by itself by comparison to hydrogen alone since we're going to combine these two ingredients before they get to the engine). But maybe I can derive what I need to figure out from these four links above?

Hydrogen has three possible oxidation states of -1, 0, +1.
Oxygen has five: −2, −1, 0, +1, +2.
Nitrogen has nine: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5.

Hydrogen's electronegativity is: 2.2
Oxygen is: 3.44
Nitrogen is: 3.04

The principle of electronegativity explains the affinity for one element to ionically bind with another.

The principle of oxidation state explains the energy contained in an ionic bond, and hence explains the powerful or weak storage of energy upon combustion. So...

Three hydrogen atoms of 6.6 electronegativity versus 3.04 for one nitrogen atom yields an absolute value difference of 2.96.

One hydrogen atom's electronegativity is 2.2 versus that of one oxygen atom's 3.44. Their difference is 1.24.

An electronegative difference of greater than 2 favors ionic bonding. Hence, ammonium ion wins out over hydroxyl ion.

Furthermore...
Hydrogen's oxidation state at maximum positive ionization is +1, oxygen is +2, and nitrogen is +5.

The absolute value difference between one hydrogen and one oxygen is: (+1) - (+2) = |+1|.

Conversely, the absolute value difference between three hydrogen atoms and one nitrogen atom is a bit larger: [3 x (+1)] - (+5) = |+2|.

So, when under the influence of a powerful positive ionization (Herman Anderson used an excess of 70,000 volts) nitrogen will have a greater affinity for hydrogen as well as have a greater release of energy upon combustion. By comparison, the formation of a hydroxyl ion will not be as easy to form, nor contain as much energy, as will ammonium. All of this is in contradistinction to a non-ionized state, ie: the conventional norm of assumed operation of our internal combustion engines.

It's interesting to note that this principle of using a high voltage to effect a chemical favoritism between what would otherwise be unfavorable associations, is similar to the more advanced concept of using high voltage to split the water molecule (and thus save expenditure of electrical energy) rather than using high amperage (and drain the battery!).

Herman Anderson Water Fuel Car, Lost Video (Stanley Meyer)

All credit goes to Peter Lindemann and Aaron Murakami for opening up my world.

[Vinyasi]

A Tesla Coil to Boost Voltage to Create Strong Positive Ionization?

I wonder if a Tesla coil is the device of choice to efficiently boost enough voltage to positively ionize the hydrogen output from splitting the water and also ionize the air intake before (and initially while?) they're mixed?

[tutanka]

Selective Chemistry via Electronegativity & Electron Affinity resulting from a High Voltage, Positive Ionization

Oxidation state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of oxidation states of the elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://sites.google.com/site/ionica...onic-compounds
Electronegativities of the elements (data page) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's seemingly impossible for me to find the Wikipedia article that gave me everything I needed to know to validate the idea that a highly positive ionization of oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen will favor the formation of ammonium ion (NH3) over the formation of a hydroxyl ion (HO) and release more energy upon combustion (ignoring the increased difficulty of burning ammonia by itself by comparison to hydrogen alone since we're going to combine these two ingredients before they get to the engine). But maybe I can derive what I need to figure out from these four links above?

Hydrogen has three possible oxidation states of -1, 0, +1.
Oxygen has five: −2, −1, 0, +1, +2.
Nitrogen has nine: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5.

Hydrogen's electronegativity is: 2.2
Oxygen is: 3.44
Nitrogen is: 3.04

The principle of electronegativity explains the affinity for one element to ionically bind with another.

The principle of oxidation state explains the energy contained in an ionic bond, and hence explains the powerful or weak storage of energy upon combustion. So...

Three hydrogen atoms of 6.6 electronegativity versus 3.04 for one nitrogen atom yields an absolute value difference of 2.96.

One hydrogen atom's electronegativity is 2.2 versus that of one oxygen atom's 3.44. Their difference is 1.24.

An electronegative difference of greater than 2 favors ionic bonding. Hence, ammonium ion wins out over hydroxyl ion.

Furthermore...
Hydrogen's oxidation state at maximum positive ionization is +1, oxygen is +2, and nitrogen is +5.

The absolute value difference between one hydrogen and one oxygen is: (+1) - (+2) = |+1|.

Conversely, the absolute value difference between three hydrogen atoms and one nitrogen atom is a bit larger: [3 x (+1)] - (+5) = |+2|.

So, when under the influence of a powerful positive ionization (Herman Anderson used an excess of 70,000 volts) nitrogen will have a greater affinity for hydrogen as well as have a greater release of energy upon combustion. By comparison, the formation of a hydroxyl ion will not be as easy to form, nor contain as much energy, as will ammonium. All of this is in contradistinction to a non-ionized state, ie: the conventional norm of assumed operation of our internal combustion engines.

It's interesting to note that this principle of using a high voltage to effect a chemical favoritism between what would otherwise be unfavorable associations, is similar to the more advanced concept of using high voltage to split the water molecule (and thus save expenditure of electrical energy) rather than using high amperage (and drain the battery!).

Herman Anderson Water Fuel Car, Lost Video (Stanley Meyer)

All credit goes to Peter Lindemann and Aaron Murakami for opening up my world.

No need magic books or high voltage for obtain an working Meyer device.. all informations are wrong for preserve the secret .. all patents informations are not correct for not obtain working results. Water can be dissociated simply and use in a burner or engine.

[Vinyasi]

Uh-Huh...

No need magic books or high voltage for obtain an working Meyer device.. all informations are wrong for preserve the secret .. all patents informations are not correct for not obtain working results. Water can be dissociated simply and use in a burner or engine.

1. I need not ever quote Meyer if I want to preach to non-believers.
2. Fortunately for us, Herman Anderson has never been affiliated with Stanley Meyer. Thank God for another independent researcher.
3. I have quoted online resources, above, having no association with either fellow.
4. I need not preach to the choir.
5. This refutes perpetual motion claims.
6. What on Earth would I want with reading Stanley's patents? If it can't be explained in general terms, then it's a wash.
7. The only time I'd need to read a patent is whenever two plus two equals something other than four.
8. I do not consider science to be magic. If there's an easier way, then great! But it's never easy discussing this topic with a non-believer. So, a technicality of electro-chemistry is invoked - not necessarily to make it happen, but - to confirm the possibility in the mind of the doubter. Baby steps!
9. Water has nothing to do with my statements. The hydrogen could be stored in tanks for all I care. My only premise for pursuing this line of hypothetical reasoning is: How can electro-chemistry favor the production of ammonia on the fly from hydrogen and air? That is all...
10. Thanks for clarifying my incomplete treatise.

[tutanka]

1. I need not ever quote Meyer if I want to preach to non-believers.
2. Fortunately for us, Herman Anderson has never been affiliated with Stanley Meyer. Thank God for another independent researcher.
3. I have quoted online resources, above, having no association with either fellow.
4. I need not preach to the choir.
5. This refutes perpetual motion claims.
6. What on Earth would I want with reading Stanley's patents? If it can't be explained in general terms, then it's a wash.
7. The only time I'd need to read a patent is whenever two plus two equals something other than four.
8. I do not consider science to be magic. If there's an easier way, then great! But it's never easy discussing this topic with a non-believer. So, a technicality of electro-chemistry is invoked - not necessarily to make it happen, but - to confirm the possibility in the mind of the doubter. Baby steps!
9. Water has nothing to do with my statements. The hydrogen could be stored in tanks for all I care. My only premise for pursuing this line of hypothetical reasoning is: How can electro-chemistry favor the production of ammonia on the fly from hydrogen and air? That is all...
10. Thanks for clarifying my incomplete treatise.

You has posted that video referring to Meyer ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF_xkEbArrw

Herman Handerson was working to an water injector fuel similarry to Stan Meyer.

In other words the high voltage present inside these devices was used as ignition and not for convert water into hydrogen/oxygen!!

[Vinyasi]

I love it when we agree and don't talk past each other which has been too often!

You has posted that video referring to Meyer ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF_xkEbArrw

Herman Handerson was working to an water injector fuel similarry to Stan Meyer.

Who's Handerson?

In other words the high voltage present inside these devices was used as ignition and not for convert water into hydrogen/oxygen!!

I can't agree more. In fact, I believe that is what Stan Meyer was working on: converting nitrogen into ammonia and ignite it all at the same time inside his water fuel injector. In fact, it might be possible to avoid the break down of water altogether and just ignite it with the air with enough voltage that the nitrogen does three conversions: break down from N2 to N, form ammonia, and burn back to N2. Wow, that sounds redundant. Or, rather than using ammonia to carry the electron, use high voltage ionization. So, in essence, you're right on. But, see how similar these chemistries are? It's the difference between using a ratchet wrench and using a whirly-gig. One's tediously slow and methodical, yet is good for demonstrating basic electro-chemistry behind this, while your way is highly efficient but only makes sense to "one skilled in the art". Baby steps...

[tutanka]

Who's Handerson?



I can't agree more. In fact, I believe that is what Stan Meyer was working on: converting nitrogen into ammonia and ignite it all at the same time inside his water fuel injector. In fact, it might be possible to avoid the break down of water altogether and just ignite it with the air with enough voltage that the nitrogen does three conversions: break down from N2 to N, form ammonia, and burn back to N2. Wow, that sounds redundant. Or, rather than using ammonia to carry the electron, use high voltage ionization. So, in essence, you're right on. But, see how similar these chemistries are? It's the difference between using a ratchet wrench and using a whirly-gig. One's tediously slow and methodical, yet is good for demonstrating basic electro-chemistry behind this, while your way is highly efficient but only makes sense to "one skilled in the art". Baby steps...

exaust gas formed from water steam and nitrogen are just the carrier.. ammonia is present because is present ionziatione but without hydrogen and nitrogen atoms and catalyst you can't obtain that. For ammonia creation you need high temperature and high pressure. Aanlizyng better satn meyer injector is clear that main object was convert water steam into hidrogen/oxygen. The high voltage is just for ignition not for obtain the reaction. The correct design of water injector was different from the patent. My theory, and from other persons, was that Stan Meyer don't had clear as device really work .. air ionization is an clear fake isn't the sponge of electrons of water molecules.

[Vinyasi]

catalyst is an electron intermediary...

exaust gas formed from water steam and nitrogen are just the carrier.. ammonia is present because is present ionziatione but without hydrogen and nitrogen atoms and catalyst you can't obtain that. For ammonia creation you need high temperature and high pressure.

If by

ionziatione

, you mean to say: ionization?

Is not a highly ionized field of gases also subjected to high temperature and pressure? In other words, a plasma? Does not a plasma want to expand? If so, it wouldn't want to expand due to a temperature and pressure decrease or while maintaining a state of equilibrium, would it? Or, would it?

And the iron or other catalyst used in the Haber-Bosch process (ruthenium), for example, is an electron intermediary serving in a capacity similar to an equivalent result obtained from sustaining a high positive voltage field producing mono-atomic nitrogen and hydrogen ions?

I think your use of water is another way to mono-atomize the nitrogen and hydrogen. It conforms to Sir Humphry Davy' quote, oft used by Aaron, that...

“Nascent Hydrogen. The doctrine of the nascent state has been developed, for the most part, in terms of hydrogen. Davy noticed in 1807 that electrolytic hydrogen will combine with nitrogen in the presence of water, while ordinary hydrogen will not.”

A catalyst is an electron donor and/or receptor, used over and over. But a high voltage is a field sustained by the driving mechanism surrounding the field. So long as the field is sustained, catalysis will continue regardless of how it is sustained: whether chemically by the presence of iron, or electrostatically by a high voltage, positively charged field.

"A catalyst works by providing an alternative reaction pathway to the reaction product. The rate of the reaction is increased as this alternative route has a lower activation energy than the reaction route not mediated by the catalyst."

Aanlizyng better satn meyer injector is clear that main object was convert water steam into hidrogen/oxygen. The high voltage is just for ignition not for obtain the reaction. The correct design of water injector was different from the patent. My theory, and from other persons, was that Stan Meyer don't had clear as device really work .. air ionization is an clear fake isn't the sponge of electrons of water molecules.

The only objective method of settling this difference of opinion is to test out any design in an environment free of nitrogen. In other words, the air intake for the engine has to be fed pure oxygen, and the air gap in the fuel tank and fuel lines - aka, where ever there is a gaseous gap or the presence of gaseous bubbles in the fuel - has to also be exclusively pure oxygen, and the water has to be pre-boiled and resuffused with oxygen alone while allowed to raise to room temperature before filling the fuel tank with it and also before running the test.

This test would have to be the most common grueling test for any so-called water fed engine - the same test for any other standard car: idled with an inertial load to replicate the condition of driving up a steep hill for a lengthy period of time.

[tutanka]

If by , you mean to say: ionization?

Is not a highly ionized field of gases also subjected to high temperature and pressure? In other words, a plasma? Does not a plasma want to expand? If so, it wouldn't want to expand due to a temperature and pressure decrease or while maintaining a state of equilibrium, would it? Or, would it?

And the iron or other catalyst used in the Haber-Bosch process (ruthenium), for example, is an electron intermediary serving in a capacity similar to an equivalent result obtained from sustaining a high positive voltage field producing mono-atomic nitrogen and hydrogen ions?

I think your use of water is another way to mono-atomize the nitrogen and hydrogen. It conforms to Sir Humphry Davy' quote, oft used by Aaron, that...



A catalyst is an electron donor and/or receptor, used over and over. But a high voltage is a field sustained by the driving mechanism surrounding the field. So long as the field is sustained, catalysis will continue regardless of how it is sustained: whether chemically by the presence of iron, or electrostatically by a high voltage, positively charged field.





The only objective method of settling this difference of opinion is to test out any design in an environment free of nitrogen. In other words, the air intake for the engine has to be fed pure oxygen, and the air gap in the fuel tank and fuel lines - aka, where ever there is a gaseous gap or the presence of gaseous bubbles in the fuel - has to also be exclusively pure oxygen, and the water has to be pre-boiled and resuffused with oxygen alone while allowed to raise to room temperature before filling the fuel tank with it and also before running the test.

This test would have to be the most common grueling test for any so-called water fed engine - the same test for any other standard car: idled with an inertial load to replicate the condition of driving up a steep hill for a lengthy period of time.

For ammonia production you need hydrogen and nitrogen. Old method Haber-Bosch use high pressure and high temperature. The only way for another method of ammonia production from water is use an catalyst (or two) and an NEW method for water dissociation. Stan Meyer with the latest fuel injector patent was near to understand the process but don't have sense use the air
as electron absorber like an catalyst.. air isn't an catalyst!! And in fact I can't se at today an car working with the Stan Meyer technology. My vision is that in the near future we can use water molecules in an loop mode device for the energy creation similarry to Lyne furnace for production of electricity and heat at the same time.

[Vinyasi]

What about Sir Humphry Davy? Water as catalyst conbining nitrogen with hydrogen.

For ammonia production you need hydrogen and nitrogen. Old method Haber-Bosch use high pressure and high temperature. The only way for another method of ammonia production from water is use an catalyst (or two) and an NEW method for water dissociation. Stan Meyer with the latest fuel injector patent was near to understand the process but don't have sense use the air
as electron absorber like an catalyst.. air isn't an catalyst!! And in fact I can't se at today an car working with the Stan Meyer technology. My vision is that in the near future we can use water molecules in an loop mode device for the energy creation similarry to Lyne furnace for production of electricity and heat at the same time.

What's wrong with the old method of referring to Sir Humphry Davy?

Yes, air in its natural state can not be a catalyst for this process to occur. But water can be.

Quote:
“Nascent Hydrogen. The doctrine of the nascent state has been developed, for the most part, in terms of hydrogen. Davy noticed in 1807 that electrolytic hydrogen will combine with nitrogen in the presence of water, while ordinary hydrogen will not.”

What about Sir Humphry Davy? Is he not relevant to this discussion? Is not his claim that water is a catalyst for the formation of nitrogen hydride type compounds relevant to this discussion? Is not the nascent hydrogen which he refers to the same as the mono-atomic hydrogen resulting from the splitting of water? Is not the use of water equivalent to positively ionizing hydrogen separately from the positive ionization of air before combining them both?

In other words, "in the presence of water" means that water is catalyzing the reaction of nitrogen with hydrogen. Is water doing something other than ionization to catalyze this reaction?

How does water catalyze the combination of electrolytic hydrogen with nitrogen? Aren't we the least bit curious? What is chemically, and electrically, happening?

Because if we can duplicate this using other methods to achieve the same goal, such as using high voltage positive ionization of separate inlet streams of hydrogen and air, then we've secured ourselves an additional option to proceed with.

[tutanka]

What's wrong with the old method of referring to Sir Humphry Davy?

Yes, air in its natural state can not be a catalyst for this process to occur. But water can be.

Quote:
“Nascent Hydrogen. The doctrine of the nascent state has been developed, for the most part, in terms of hydrogen. Davy noticed in 1807 that electrolytic hydrogen will combine with nitrogen in the presence of water, while ordinary hydrogen will not.”

What about Sir Humphry Davy? Is he not relevant to this discussion? Is not his claim that water is a catalyst for the formation of nitrogen hydride type compounds relevant to this discussion? Is not the nascent hydrogen which he refers to the same as the mono-atomic hydrogen resulting from the splitting of water? Is not the use of water equivalent to positively ionizing hydrogen separately from the positive ionization of air before combining them both?

In other words, "in the presence of water" means that water is catalyzing the reaction of nitrogen with hydrogen. Is water doing something other than ionization to catalyze this reaction?

How does water catalyze the combination of electrolytic hydrogen with nitrogen? Aren't we the least bit curious? What is chemically, and electrically, happening?

Because if we can duplicate this using other methods to achieve the same goal, such as using high voltage positive ionization of separate inlet streams of hydrogen and air, then we've secured ourselves an additional option to proceed with.

All are searching alternative energy .. WATER is the ONLY solution!!
You can dissociate the water into hydrogen/oxygen burn these molecules and produce kinetic steam for use with an turbine for produce electricity.. water return back in origin state and the process restart again.. and again and again.. don't lost time to find strange reactions..

[Vinyasi]

Who will be my second?....

All are searching alternative energy .. WATER is the ONLY solution!!
You can dissociate the water into hydrogen/oxygen burn these molecules and produce kinetic steam for use with an turbine for produce electricity.. water return back in origin state and the process restart again.. and again and again.. don't lost time to find strange reactions..

You're right, but....

Who will be Stanley Meyer's second whenever he's challenged with claims of fraud and incapable of response due to his very dead condition?

I don't claim to know him personally, or have any insight on him. But it would be good to speculate on how he may have pulled off his success to invalidate any claim of fraud thrown in his direction. To do this in a fashion which could be acceptable to his critiques requires thinking from the perspective of his critiques, not from the perspective of those who support him. So, I look for standard theory which has been overlooked by not having been applied to his success. In other words, I try to support Stanley using the very tone and demeanor used by his critiques: I try to use abstractions of electricity and chemistry. My intended audience is not targeted to yourself, although your comments are helpful.

Who will be my second when I'm dead and buried? Will you?

BTW, "who will be my second; I will be your second" is a statement, a throwback, along with its associated response to the days of duelists and challenges among knights of honor.

I don't care much for physical fighting, but the movie, "The Duelists" with Harvey Keitel impressed me with how obsessive duelists can take their craft.

To top it off - thinking I had seen the last of that movie on cable television way back in the 1980s, I had the fortune to meet what looked like Mr. Keitel on the bus not too long ago. As I sat and casually tried to keep verifying for my satisfaction that it was he who I thought it was, someone else sitting near him started putting up a very loud stew about something - I don't know what. Homeless people and drunks had a habit of riding on that bus. He looked slightly irritated sitting next to that person and promptly got off the bus at the next stop. But before he did, I managed to cheer him up by passing him a compliment about that very movie. He didn't acknowledge that it was he who played in it; at least not directly. He paused with a moment of reflection and chose, instead, to say: "That's the best compliment I have received from anyone all day!".

So in a sense, I was trying to be his second that day. That's what random acts of kindness are for.

It's bad enough that Stanley may have been martyred. A wise man has said that religious leaders are always martyred. Since that wise man always spoke in metaphors, I took his use of the word "religion" to mean anything which is a totally new way of living such that it severely upsets the status quo sufficient to get themselves knocked off.

Who will be a second to a martyr?

[tutanka]

You're right, but....

Who will be Stanley Meyer's second whenever he's challenged with claims of fraud and incapable of response due to his very dead condition?

I don't claim to know him personally, or have any insight on him. But it would be good to speculate on how he may have pulled off his success to invalidate any claim of fraud thrown in his direction. To do this in a fashion which could be acceptable to his critiques requires thinking from the perspective of his critiques, not from the perspective of those who support him. So, I look for standard theory which has been overlooked by not having been applied to his success. In other words, I try to support Stanley using the very tone and demeanor used by his critiques: I try to use abstractions of electricity and chemistry. My intended audience is not targeted to yourself, although your comments are helpful.

Who will be my second when I'm dead and buried? Will you?

BTW, "who will be my second; I will be your second" is a statement, a throwback, along with its associated response to the days of duelists and challenges among knights of honor.

I don't care much for physical fighting, but the movie, "The Duelists" with Harvey Keitel impressed me with how obsessive duelists can take their craft.

To top it off - thinking I had seen the last of that movie on cable television way back in the 1980s, I had the fortune to meet what looked like Mr. Keitel on the bus not too long ago. As I sat and casually tried to keep verifying for my satisfaction that it was he who I thought it was, someone else sitting near him started putting up a very loud stew about something - I don't know what. Homeless people and drunks had a habit of riding on that bus. He looked slightly irritated sitting next to that person and promptly got off the bus at the next stop. But before he did, I managed to cheer him up by passing him a compliment about that very movie. He didn't acknowledge that it was he who played in it; at least not directly. He paused with a moment of reflection and chose, instead, to say: "That's the best compliment I have received from anyone all day!".

So in a sense, I was trying to be his second that day. That's what random acts of kindness are for.

It's bad enough that Stanley may have been martyred. A wise man has said that religious leaders are always martyred. Since that wise man always spoke in metaphors, I took his use of the word "religion" to mean anything which is a totally new way of living such that it severely upsets the status quo sufficient to get themselves knocked off.

Who will be a second to a martyr?

Stan Meyer was a dreamer with an bigger intuitive mind. Water is surely the fuel of future .. the nature is our teacher but we aren't good students. We need to think simple.. water dissociation is present every day in our world.

[Vinyasi]

Stanley Meyer is our collective dream; he is not, nor was he ever, a dreamer.

Stan Meyer was a dreamer with an bigger intuitive mind. Water is surely the fuel of future .. the nature is our teacher but we aren't good students. We need to think simple.. water dissociation is present every day in our world.

We're the dreamers.

Stanley Meyer was a doer.

[Vinyasi]

Electron configuration clears up the confusion: the triple bonding of nitrogen.

This is a repost of my most recent comment over at one of my episodes devoted to Stanley Meyer's Water Fueled Car playlist on YouTube...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2pS...pzoanb5dbka4ig

Hey, guys. Let's try and clear up some confusion by immersing ourselves into a topic which most HHO enthusiasts rarely tread: electron configuration. 'Cuz, I'm gonna lay something on you that'll blow this topic away...

I learned this from studying Tesla's Tri-Metal Generator which I've been posting over at EnergeticForum.com. Sometimes, difficult mysteries are best solved by thinking in terms of the opposite to what you're trying to achieve, because - sometimes - the trick is in the repercussion of whatever is predetermined to occur by way of skillful engineering, not in terms of causation alone.

In this case, Stanley (and possibly Herman Anderson) is getting his *tremendous energy release* - not when hydrogen is being burned to form water (he'll get *some energy released*, understandably), nor when ammonium ion is oxidized (a little bit more energy is released), but - when each nitrogen ion released from the oxidation of an ammonium ion recombines to form a triple bond with another nitrogen ion. Bam! That's when vast amounts of energy gets released and not any sooner.

The hydrogen bound to nitrogen (as ammonium ion) is not intended to store any appreciably vast quantity of energy. It's only main purpose is to keep other nitrogen ions away from recombining with other nitrogen ions until oxidation occurs.

It all has to do with the triple bonding of nitrogen ions **after their oxidation**. This is why it takes at least 70,000 volts (in Herman Anderson's case) to positively ionize N2 to break it apart to form ions of nitrogen. And this is the energy returned when nitrogen slams back into likenesses of itself. The conversion here (law of conservation being upheld) is to convert 70,000 volts into an expansive force of gases compressing against the inside of a piston to drive a car/truck up a steep incline. To do this directly, might be achievable by using an electrostatic motor. But Stanley did it with this indirect method, instead, making it much more convenient to convert over our pre-existing gasoline guzzlers.

Oxygen ions won't triple bond with hydrogen ions to form water; those are strictly singular bondings. Hydrogen ions won't triple bond with nitrogen ions. But nitrogen will do it with atoms of its own kind, namely: other nitrogen ions. Phosphorus might triple bond with other phosphorus ions (I'm hypothesizing) since it shares similar characteristics of 'p' orbitals as does nitrogen; but I don't know this for certain - I'm still new at this study of electron configuration.

What little I'm learning about electron configuration lends, does not detract, from Peter Lindemann's statement two summers ago on how Stanley managed to succeed: positive ionization of air and hydrogen in separate inlet ports before their combination prior to their combustion. He just didn't say why. In fact, Peter left it up to the person to whom he was addressing (not me; I was merely overhearing their conversation) to figure out the significance of what Peter was alluding to by merely stating that nitrogen's capacity for triple bonding with itself has the potential for serving as a much greater storehouse of energy than the use of hydrogen alone in Stanley's setup. I just assumed this meant the burning of ammonium ion. I couldn't have imagined that it's not entirely about that. It's about the reformation of triple bonding of reunited nitrogen ions. They're so "Happy Together!" that they make a big party upon their reunion and release all sorts of energetic presents to all of their happy guests to enjoy. Voila.

For a mild introductory education on electron configuration, please see Khan Academy Organic Chemistry YouTube channel...

https://www.youtube.com/user/readysetorgo

www.khanacademy.org