Ionization & Water Fuel

[chasson321]

Wow 4th level oxygen

last edit...

[Oneminde]

There is one thing that should be obvious here - Moving from a hydrocarbon fuel to a hydronitrogen fuel, what is happening is that you change the transporter.
In gasoline and diesel, the hydrogen transporter is the coal and now we have a new atom to do that for us.

The only combustible substance is hydrogen - it's always been hydrogen and it will always be hydrogen - and without the C you can not creat CO2 or CO, you reduce the SOx and also NOx. NOx gases can easely be eliminated..
So the bi-product is going to be Nitrogen gas and water (which you started with in the first place).

So one more time - we change the hydrogen transporter.

[sucahyo]

Discovery of Nitrogen

In 1674 the English physician John Mayow demonstrated that air is not a single element, it is made up of different substances. He did this by showing that only a part of air is combustible. Most of it is not. (1)

From Meyer technical brief page 37:

Gas Grid System
Ambient Air is the prime source of Non-Combustible Gases when the Air-Gases are exposed to and passes through an Open-Air Flame, as illustrated in Figure (2-10). The Gas Combustion Process of the Gas-Flame eliminates oxygen and burnable gas atoms from the expelling gases ... producing an endless supply of non-combustible gases.
Mixing the "processed" Air-Gases with an Hydrogen Supply Source sets up The Gas Retarding Process ... allowing the Hydrogen Gas-Mixture to be transported safely through existing Gas-Grid System.

Operational Parameters
The utilization and recycling of non-combustible gases, now, renders hydrogen gas as safe as Natural Gas or any other Fuel-Gas ... allowing the Water Fuel Cell to become a Retrofit Energy System.

Meyer utilize nitrogen to make the atomic hydrogen burn slower than hydrogen molecule for safer operation. What is your opinion?

[Aaron]

nitrogen not combustible - what remarkable news!

He did this by showing that only a part of air is combustible. Most of it is not.=

Tim,

I'm going to tell you straight up - if your goal is to rephrase and spread
misinformation/misdirection as H2opower did, then it is NOT welcome here in
the least bit!

By bringing up that nitrogen is not combustible is an insult to my
intelligence as well as to anyone else that has any common sense\
whatsoever and is beyond belief.

Did I ever say nitrogen is combustible? Did anyone else here claim that
nitrogen is combustible? NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT HERE AND
BY POINTING OUT THAT NITROGEN IS NOT COMBUSTIBLE MEANS TWO
THINGS:

1 - You have absolutely no idea what I'm referring to.

or

2 - You know exactly what I am pointing to and you do not want anyone
to see it and you are playing games by bringing up that nitrogen is not
combustible so that anyone that doesn't know better or is naive enough
to follow your misdirection and doesn't even know how to form a clear
thought in their own mind will think, "Oh, of course nitrogen isn't combustible -
Aaron doesn't know what he is talking about."

And for your information, oxygen isn't combustible either! It only aids
and allows combustible things to burn. I actually own an oxygen bar and
have some the highest quality medical oxygen concentrators and I could
fill a building with pure oxygen and the only thing that will happen
is that anything that is combustible will simply burn very very strongly
such as a match burning would burn like a sparkler - but the oxygen is NOT
combustible itself - GET REAL! Would everything explode? OF COURSE NOT!
How many people do you see with emphysema carting around a small
tank of PURE OXYGEN smoking a cigarette at the same time??? THINK ABOUT
IT!

In some of Meyer's diagrams, he shows some gases as non-combustible
while he shows the combustibles as hydrogen AND OXYGEN - meaning
that if you want to get technical about it, MEYER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW
THAT OXYGEN IS NOT A COMBUSTIBLE!

KNOCK IT OFF NOW AND DON'T POST IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE IF
ALL YOUR ARE GOING TO DO IS FURTHER H2OPOWER'S MISINFORMATION
ATTEMPT AT GETTING PEOPLE OFF ON THE WRONG TRACK!

If you think you can pull this stunt and not have me see clearly what
you are doing, then back off because it isn't welcome here. I'm not
into playing these games! YOU ARE REPLICATING THE ARGUMENT IN
H2OPOWER'S THREAD and you know very well that none of us are
even implying that nitrogen is combustible in the least bit!

----------------------------------------

Onemind - sorry but the mystery is NOT solved because they do NOT get it! Or I should say the mystery is not solved for "THEM!"

They're more interested in reinforcing and maintaining their own paradigms
of what they currently understand instead of learning something different!
It is absolutely astounding how they want to show quotes of typical
material that only back the current belief!!!

And the funny thing is, I agree 100% with those references, but they have
NOTHING to do with the point of the matter!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!! IF and
that is ONLY IF they are not intentionally trying to sabotage progress,
it is one of the most astounding displays of self sabotage and fear of
success that I have ever seen in any area of life.

[Oneminde]

From Meyer technical brief page 37:
Meyer utilize nitrogen to make the atomic hydrogen burn slower than hydrogen molecule for safer operation. What is your opinion?

In the ammonia molecule, hydrogen IS in an atomic state, not diatomic, so the statement is correct and ammonia is a gas above −33.34 °C degrees ASP. The only way for these statements to be correct is when the hydrogen is bonded to another substance. With moderate pressure ammonia is a liquid ASP (8.8-10bar)

[Oneminde]

Onemind - sorry but the mystery is NOT solved because they do NOT get it! Or I should say the mystery is not solved for "THEM!"
.

Don't worry, the coin will fall down..
And yes Aaron - misleading information occurse when people are guessing or have no idea what is going on. By writing that the mystery is solved, people should look at the text writen prior to this and stop for a moment and think - really THINK - if the case is taht they have no idea.

As an exemple - by ionizing the incomming air, the oxygen and nitrogen will be atomized yes.. but, before anyone writes that have no idea - look at a prior statement that Aaron did - it has to do with bondings... this "should help"

[Aaron]

omission

There is a key element missing from these equations. You need a catalyst to provoke a THERMAL EXPLOSIVE EVENT. Something like a "by product" produced from an electrical discharge. Why do spark plugs wear out? Meyer did not lie by omission. The guy was a modern day Schauberger. He understood natural events.

Meyer's lied by omission - because he REDIRECTED the attention to a
different element. It is not debatable that he had the focus on the wrong
element. It is only debatable that he did this intentionally to mislead
people to protect intellectual property or he did it unintentionally because
he stumbled upon the EFFECT but really had no idea what he was doing.

So, I'll rephrase my statement about him:

If it was intentional, he lied.
If it was unintentional, he was ignorant.

[Oneminde]

Meyer's lied by omission - because he REDIRECTED the attention to a
different element. It is not debatable that he had the focus on the wrong
element. It is only debatable that he did this intentionally to mislead
people to protect intellectual property or he did it unintentionally because
he stumbled upon the EFFECT but really had no idea what he was doing.

So, I'll rephrase my statement about him:

If it was intentional, he lied.
If it was unintentional, he was ignorant.

What is it an illusionist do? - he performs tricks that apperas to be reall, that is what Aaron is telling everyone here and we are revealing the trick, how it is done and why it is done and it seams like some are a friend of the illusionist (still) and not a friend of the man behind the mask.
Believers of magical events - get reall... nothing magical is taking place and posting the obvious.. com on.

"The water will probably make you wet" .. see, I can also write these things

[bussi04]

does someone want to do practial experiments here?

Hello,

I´m following the thread for 4 more weeks now and I want to ask if anyone here is interested in practial experiments.
Content is (re-)circulating all around all the time but what is the goal?

For me it seems that all has been said now and what shall be the next step?

please enlighten me.

greetings,
bussi04

[stevie1001]

now only the production must be overunity and you're good to go

Yep.
I do around 90% faraday with current wfc setup.
I have info for cells doing 120%.

I still have to calculate somehow how much energy comes out of the mix of gasses which i now have. It looks like i gained some there but that also might be the better fitting between the gasmix and engine.
Well. All speculative. First some learning to do on that part.

[chasson321]

In Meyer's own words

last edit...

[Aaron]

solid as a sponge

The guy is a bull**** artist???? AMMONIA?????are u kidding me???No way in hell was Meyer making Ammonia? He was forming and initiating an imbalance.
The patent is solid. It is not bull****. Sure.. Its 10 years old and can be modified easily thanks to HV diodes and oxygen sensors. Oooopss. I said too much.

A bs artist would never have had anything that worked. I believe he did and
have several friends that knew him that vouch for it. Therefore, by
someone deceiving people through a patent does not make them a bs
artist, it means they either have enough common sense to protect their
intellectual property - and if the patent is solid, the Meyer was ignorant
in what he was actually doing.

Patent is solid? Yeah right - 100% failure rate at replicating his technology
based on the description in his patent. Show me your SOLID
results from your experiments based on his explanations, I dare you.

[Aaron]

oxygen is an oxidant - oh really? wow

Also, in my opinion, for whatever it is worth, though I am nobody, it does not matter to me if Tutanka and his group have come up with something that works. I hope they have.

The very fact that they have filed for a patent should logically tell everyone that it is not Meyers work. If in fact they obtain a patent.

Puharich and the others are irrelevant as you miss the whole point Tim.

You need to think with logic here. For the fact that Meyer is misleading
people on a very important part (multiple actually) but with the topic at
hand - that is what he mislead people about. Therefore, someone could
actually patent exactly what he was doing by telling the truth, which is
what Meyer failed to do.

It is COMMON SENSE! If someone has 100% of the answers to Ed Gray's bad
knock off of Marvin Cole's technology, they could re-patent the entire thing
if they actually explained what was going on, which Gray also neglected
to do.

You keep repeating the oxygen bit as an oxidizing agent as if someone
is actually saying that oxygen is not an oxidant. Why? Because you
want to keep repeating something that is irrelevant to throw people off
or because you refuse to comprehend the fact that it has NOTHING to
do with has really has been spelled out?

If you repeat that oxygen is an oxidizing agent and that oxygen is needed
for hydrogen to burn, I have no choice but to believe that you are simply
an extension of h2opower's misinformation campaign. Anyone with 2
braincells in their head knows that oxygen is needed for the hydrogen to
burn - BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” - Tesla

[argonian1]

I have info for cells doing 120%.

Is the info about it public?

[stevie1001]

Is the info about it public?

From 1 i know its free info or even as product for sale.

WATERFUEL FOR ALL Booster

Wouter has nice cells doing way over 100% faraday.

On the other one i must ask the person if i can share it publicly.

Stevie