Ionization & Water Fuel

[Michael John Nunnerley]

you have missed the point

Ok 50kj heat of formation and 620kj heat of combustion

so you are considering you already have the hydrogen free right?

Because if hydrazine is N2H4 you would need 2 moles of molecular hydrogen for 1 mole of molecular nitrogen. Now if you count the 2 moles of hydrogen 286 kj per mole you would have (2moles *286kj /mol )+ 50kj heat of formation you have your 622kj heat of combustion per mole of hydrazine .

so what are you talking about?
where is your energy gain
I think you are just talking about BS.

Sorry but you have missed the point, what I showed is only enthalpy of reaction at atmosferic pressure, I think you either do not know and are looking things up via the internet, which can be very dangerous, or you are pushing me to go further. Well go and look up explosives, that should keep you busy for a while, try oxidising agents as well, that might take a few hours more, and I do not call people names, well not on an open forum anyway.

If you want to learn, listen or read, and if you are not sure of something, then ask in a civil way.

@Farrah, sorry couldn't resist it, need to lighten the day a bit, it has become frustrating, pun not intended. I'm off to bed, us old scientists need our sleep

Mike

[sebosfato]

Hi mike

i will take a another look on explosives.. I already studied about oxidizing agents,

The problem that resides is that you still need energy to obtain the H2 from water to make the hydrazine, thats what i pointed in the last post... and is not only 51kj mole it will counts also the energy needed to obtain also more 2 moles of H2 to bound to the N2...

Thanks


About energy



You can't create or destroy energy this is a fact.

There are however places where the energy can go to and or came from witch is not in our dimension. Is called the space time witch continuously expands.

So you can extract energy from the space time, and or send energy to it and also thru it.

This is all theory proved only mathematically.

anyway

However since we know that if we can maintain a reaction such as nuclear fission, its because the rate of reactions are greater than the speed of limit where energy could return, so rising exponentially the energy output.

Where is the energy coming from?

From the loss in mass of neutrons, they become energy..

If you are transforming the neutron in energy where than the space it was occupying? It became energy!

Einstein didn't lie at all. His presumptions all hold for this.

Matter can become energy and energy can become matter as well.

I'm not saying that this water car technology has anything to do with it!
there are others however that actually have!

We should think also a way to create oxygen using energy! would be great!

How can we open the doors of perception?

Universal energy???

[vrand]

The bad thing is about those sandwich HHO cells need cleaned out after two months of continuous usage. And you also have to worry about hexavalent chromium.

Bob Boyce has already shot down the hexavalent chromium argument over on the Hydroxy website, and that is a non issue.

One can also create HHO by the Meyers method of using NO electrolyte that is even a simpler solution, if one can figure out how its done. This thread and other here showed that in Stan's later designs, he didn't need his cells to fuel an engine on water.

We have Tutanka and group that says you don't need to make HHO and that only a water mist is needed along with air ionization, plasma spark, and recirculating exhaust gas to run an engine! That is the theory that needs to be proven.

Tutanks said that he will show an electrical generator set running on his gases at the end of April.

We all look forward to seeing that

Best regards, Mike R.

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

Blimey you're hard work Aaron.

It was you that brought up the hydrogen embrittlement issue in the first place, stating it as a reason why we could not run an ICE on H2 alone, not me... remember? Look back through the thread!

The embrittlement issue to me is a minor issue to me because with an off
the shelf generator, if it was that big of a problem, I'd just replace them
as needed. And you still didn't answer the question. What about on a
gasoline engine? It is still hydrogen power so why doesn't it have the same
embrittlement issue as pure hydrogen/oxygen. You refuse to answer?
Based on your logic, it should have the same problem.

The bigger issue to me is that you get no real explosive energy from HHO.

For the rest of your comments. You are demonstrating selective memory.
You asked about many different points and I pointed out to you that you
are asking a lot of questions that have been answered already - and you
acknowledge NONE of them.

You post in Tim's haber process thread and want to point out just
oooooh, how much energy it takes to make ammonia - because that
supports your opinion that it is a waste of energy to do it according to
what is described in this thread - COMPLETELY IGNORING what has been
discussed in this thread.

Do you have the COURAGE to discuss and acknowledge the 100 year old
references I posted indicating NH3 on demand production from low power,
low temp and low pressure? Please don't pretend they don't exist as
Tim does.

[Aaron]

@Tim

And Aaron I don't trust their work, not until it is in a pier review paper done by real scientist can it be truly evaluated correctly. Plus Dr. Lindemann has never posted anything on this theory in this thread for or against.

The "real scientists" have your mind completely bound and gagged. You can
prefer their opinion. I prefer reality.

[bussi04]

The "real scientists" have your mind completely bound and gagged. You can
prefer their opinion. I prefer reality.

Reality is a working device. There is no proof of concept up yet at all.
tutanka has shown all he has .

bussi04

[Aaron]

@Bussi

Reality is a working device. There is no proof of concept up yet at all.
tutanka has shown all he has .

bussi04

From the cynical reception, why would anyone want to show anything
to you?

Especially if you guys can't even answer any of the questions put
forward or recognize the references I posted or comprehend what is
being hinted at over and over.

And for your information, nobody is interested in proving anything to you
or anyone else. If you can't do your own work and apply what has been
shared, what do you think you're going to wind up with?

If you don't believe this process, why waste your time in this thread?
That is a flaw in logic in and of its self. Go follow h2opower and do what
he does and you'll get what he's got.

[bussi04]

From the cynical reception, why would anyone want to show anything
to you?

Especially if you guys can't even answer any of the questions put
forward or recognize the references I posted or comprehend what is
being hinted at over and over.

And for your information, nobody is interested in proving anything to you
or anyone else. If you can't do your own work and apply what has been
shared, what do you think you're going to wind up with?

If you don't believe this process, why waste your time in this thread?
That is a flaw in logic in and of its self. Go follow h2opower and do what
he does and you'll get what he's got.

Aaron,

first I continue my work I had started in this forum but now in another place because you kicked me as you know. More than a year ago I started to work on SM technology and my point of view says that the devices h20power has figured out and designed are an effective way to prove concept. So I do.

second it´s my understanding of cooperation that people share their working results following an open source principle. free energy can only be given away for free at each step - that´s self evident. And I´ll share results as soon as I have got them. so I did in your forum.

third you claimed to follow reality and I told my point of view to true reality.
nevertheless I´m interested in progress in this thread but my question if people are playing tricks here or presenting their egos has not been answered up yet.
future will show.

forth it makes me aware that people make an announcement and revoke. that´s not serious and it should be recognized.

fifth what do you mean by "guys not answering questions"?
I wanted to set up a work group for practical application results in your forum. Some members were interested and now I have my workgroup. None of us gives up individuality and so please don´t expect me to answer questions you address to h20power whose posting rights you have revoked here. if you want me to answer questions please address me direct.

It´s no waste of time for me to analyze the statements here.

bussi04

[chasson321]

last edit...

[Aaron]

@Bussi

Aaron,

first I continue my work I had started in this forum but now in another place because you kicked me as you know. More than a year ago I started to work on SM technology and my point of view says that the devices h20power has figured out and designed are an effective way to prove concept. So I do.

second it´s my understanding of cooperation that people share their working results following an open source principle. free energy can only be given away for free at each step - that´s self evident. And I´ll share results as soon as I have got them. so I did in your forum.

third you claimed to follow reality and I told my point of view to true reality.
nevertheless I´m interested in progress in this thread but my question if people are playing tricks here or presenting their egos has not been answered up yet.
future will show.

forth it makes me aware that people make an announcement and revoke. that´s not serious and it should be recognized.

fifth what do you mean by "guys not answering questions"?
I wanted to set up a work group for practical application results in your forum. Some members were interested and now I have my workgroup. None of us gives up individuality and so please don´t expect me to answer questions you address to h20power whose posting rights you have revoked here. if you want me to answer questions please address me direct.

It´s no waste of time for me to analyze the statements here.

bussi04

Your point #2 - I agree with you, in open source - sharing information is
the obvious basis for open source. If there are specific designs and
methods that some people want to keep to themselves. They are entitled
to do so. And if they share some of the concepts and principles, that can
obviously be applied in other innovative designs and methods, then go
for it! What has been shared in this thread is the most valuable information
of any thread on the internet when it comes to water fuel. Unfortunately,
most of the "skeptics" have no interest in discussing what has been
discussed - they're more interested in trying to preserve what they
already believe.

One thing I have not been gung-ho about is the concept of people wanting
specific schematics, designs, etc... the reason is, if people can simply
comprehend the concept of a certain technology, they can apply it in
many other ways. Relying on other people's very specific design does not
empower anyone. It is giving someone a fish instead of teaching them to
fish. By understanding CONCEPTS involved, they can be applied and
innovated into a multitude of schematics, designs, etc...

If Mike or Alex or anyone else were to simply hand over a specific design
to someone here that is interested in "learning" about the truth to water
fuel, they may be able to do a monkey see monkey do routine and simply
duplicate something, maybe get the same result, but it does absolutely
nothing in terms of actually helping anyone understand what is going on.
I put "learning" in quotes because their attempts at authenticity are about
as authentic as an "authentic reproduction."

There are several very specific keys that must be understood to make this
water fuel nh3 on demand process work.

One of them deals with the nh3 creation process. There are
multiple ways this could happen or any other variation of molecules that
can be created by n/h/o.

Tim, Farrah Day, etc... are trying to direct the attention away from the
ease of making nh3 on demand and are trying to misdirect people into
the full blown haber bosch process with very high temp and high pressure.

Bussi, if you want to be honest here, don't play games and don't get
caught up in a mob mentality where you go off on the side with them and
start discussing "oh how much energy it takes to make nh3, etc...".
I'm not interested in playing games.

Your point #5 - you, Tim, Farrah Day (who chooses to say bye bye
because he/she refuses to answer my questions to her - because she/he
can't), etc... refused to acknowledge anything I have pointed out. It is
inauthentic & dishonest.

So, Bussi, if you truly aren't playing games and are not just interested in
preserving your own pre-conceived ideas about all of this and you actually
want to see if there is something to this, why not participate in a two-way
dialogue that actually answers some questions asked.

Sucahyo said he'll get an answer as to how many electrons a molecule
of nitrogen has. What about you? Do you want to give me some
irrelevant points and misdirect the attention towards something irrelevant
or are you able and willing to simply answer that simple question? This
question is also directed to you - I did ask if ANYONE else knew so
don't pretend that you don't want to take away people's identity by
answering a question that is obviously open to everyone.

I'm not talking about a bunch of special case scenarios where you can't
give a straight answer because there are "too many things to consider" -
I'm just talking about typically, how many electrons are in a typical
molecule of nitrogen composing 2 atoms?

The record can show here that Farrah Day, Tim (speaking for h2opower)
and H2opower simply have no idea how many electrons a molecule
of nitrogen has. This must be a fact because since they claim to be
reading this thread and I asked if ANYONE knew the answer and they didn't
answer - and they claim to want to know what this is about, that must
indicate that they have absolutely no idea how many electrons a molecule
of nitrogen has, yet they want to debate this process.

This is like someone that can't speak Chinese that wants to debate the
meaning of a Chinese technical manual because they can't comprehend it
in English. That makes about as much sense as a bag of dehydrated water.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt since your message that I'm
responding to has some semblance of sincerity.

[Aaron]

@Tim

Now let us take a real good look at this video: YouTube - mammasat's Channel

What do we see or don't see? We see an engine running. We don't see the source of fuel. We don't see a tank of water. We don't see a WFC or water injectors or any type of electrolyzer. We see him press something that raises and lowers the engine RPM but we don't see just what that was. We see sparks in front going to the spark plug array. We don't see a air ionizer or one isn't pointed out for us to see. Can anyone else see any evidence that this engine is running using water as it's only source of fuel? I can't find any water in this video. Is this engine being run on nitrogen hydroxide or NH3 or N2O? http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...nhydroxide.pdf
http://www.energeticforum.com/82007-post32.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/82158-post44.html

I started a thread that is going over your 100 year technology: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...r-process.html and so far we have found that it doesn't work out all that well.

Tim

Show something that indicates that h2opower's understanding that you
so favorably preach is correct. I'm not interested in a copy and paste
of his text - actually write something yourself.

And, you and h2opower don't know how many electrons a molecule of
nitrogen has yet you want to debate this topic?

[Aaron]

@Tim

I started a thread that is going over your 100 year technology: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...r-process.html and so far we have found that it doesn't work out all that well.

No, you're misdirecting people's attention.

The haber process has nothing to do with the old references I posted.
You even mention the knowledge publications, which means you did see
the most recent reference I posted, yet you REFUSE to comment on it and
put it off.

[Aaron]

nh3 on demand references

Here are references Farrah Day, Tim, H2opower and others want to pretend
simply don't exist. nh3 from air, water, electricity and at NON-haber bosch
pressure and temps.

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

Here are a handful of references - some I posted before - some I haven't.
I said what some were but haven't seen that anyone actually searched them
out. They are just showing that 100+ year old science has seen nh3 creation
from low energy, relatively low temps and pressures, etc...

These are all references, which I yanked out of a very lengthy paper that
I wrote up and have decided I am not going to release anymore. Here are
some of the references, everyone is welcome to search out the truth on
their own. It is all spelled out in this thread anyway, so that paper isn't
needed. I'm deleting it because it revolved around these references and
more so everyone can explain it to themselves.

Anyway, anyone that appreciates what I'm sharing below should see that
NH3 is actually required to be produced with hho + ionization of ambient
air and then the heat/pressure in combustion chamber and with a serious
plasma ignition = results.

I hope this helps some people realize the reality of on demand nh3 from
low energy really.

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

“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.”

The Nascent State, J. H. Reedy and E. D. Biggers, J. Chem. Educ., 1942, 19 (9), p 403, DOI: 10.1021/ed019, p403, Publication Date: September 1942.


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


Below are several excerpts from a paper showing the synthesis of ammonia directly from hydrogen and nitrogen mixes with and without metal catalysts and at various voltages.

“The following is an account of experiments on the rate of production of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen as a function of the energy of thermions used to activate molecules and atoms.

Heidemann described the production of ammonia even at the lowest voltages, but subsequent work by Andersen and Storch and Olson did not confirm this. They detected no combination until the molecular ionization potential of N2 (circa 17 V) was reached, after which the reaction rate increased abruptly every 4-7 V. The mechanism proposed was that H2+ and N2+ appearing at 16 V and 17V respectively gave H and N atoms on collision, and that later increased combination was due to the activation of H by 4 V electrons. Later Kwei found that NH3 band spectrum was not excited in hydrogen mixtures until 23V was reached. This voltage corresponds to the second jump in Storch and Olson’s curve. In a subsequent note Olson explained the failure of Kwei to detect ammonia at 17 V by postulating that NH3+ must be present for the spectrum to appear. Thus at 17 V the reactions were considered to be N2+ + e à N’2, N’2 + N2 à N2 + 2N, the nitrogen atoms then combining with H2 or H produced by the reaction N2 + H2 à 2N + 2H; white at 23 V the voltage at which N+ begins to appear, NH3+ is obtained in the same way.

As regards dissociation at the filament, Langmuir has shown that hydrogen molecules are dissociated by tungsten at temperatures above about 1,300°.

These results demonstrate conclusively that combination to form ammonia takes place between H atoms and N2 molecules both in the presence of the nickel and platinum anodes and in the presence of 13 V electrons.

In the second case “active hydrogen,” formed by Wood’s method was mixed with ordinary nitrogen. The “active hydrogen” from the arc would, undoubtedly, contain H’ owing to the high potential employed. It is only necessary to postulate that the life of the H’ species is sufficiently large for a small amount to reach the mixing tube from the discharge to account for the production of ammonia by a reaction between H’ and N2.

The various possible mechanisms for the production of ammonia in a nitrogen hydrogen mixture by means of thermions have been investigated in detail. It is shown that synthesis can occur due to the following reaction –

N2 + H at the surface of platinum or nickel.

N2 + H’ in the bulk at 13 volts.

The following molecular species are shown to be chemically reactive –

N2+ in the bulk at 17 volts,

N+ in the bulk at 23 volts,

And possible modes of mechanisms involving N2’ and H’ are elaborated.”

The Combination of Nitrogen and Hydrogen Activated by Electrons, A. Caress and E. K. Rideal, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1 August 1927 vol. 115 no. 772 684-700, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1927.0117






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

“In mixtures of H2 with N2, evidence was obtained which indicates that the ultraviolet band of ammonia, associated with the 22.5 volt critical potential, is due to a molecule NHx, where x is probably 3, and that the Schuster band is emitted only in the presence of oxygen and is due to a molecule NxHyOz, possibly NH4OH. This band was observed only at voltages higher than the critical voltage for "active nitrogen,”

Characteristics and Spectra of Low Voltage Arcs in H2, N2 and in Mixtures of H2 with Hg and N2, C. T. Kwei, Phys. Rev., 26, 537-560 (1925), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.26.537


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


The following is yet another paper discussing the fact that nitrogen and hydrogen can be combined with electricity:

“The Mechanism of Ammonia Synthesis in Low-Voltage Arcs. The formation of ammonia from gaseous mixtures of nitrogen and hydrogen by means of slowly moving electrons was studied by Storch and Olson. They determined the rate of the reaction by pressure methods and the products of the reaction by chemical indicators. From their experiments ammonia forms where the applied potential is 17 volts, the rate of formation then remains constant until the potential reaches 23 volts, at which point an abrupt increase in ammonia synthesis occurs.

Recently Kwei published a spectroscopic study of low-voltage arcs in nitrogen-hydrogen mixtures. He detected the ammonia bands at 23 volts, thus confirming Storch and Olson’s second point…”

It should not be blatantly obvious that under various circumstances, nitrogen can easily bind to hydrogen in order to form NH3 or Ammonia, especially when the hydrogen comes from electrolysis and there is moisture present.

Stanley Meyer was producing ammonia water fuel from water, air and electricity. The nitrogen also serves another purpose other than just binding to hydrogen to form ammonia.

The Mechanism of Ammonia Synthesis in Low-Voltage Arcs, A. R. Olson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1926, 48 (5), pp 1298–1299, DOI: 10.1021/ja01416a501


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


In more recent times, others have been able to also achieve ammonia synthesis from nothing other than nitrogen, hydrogen and electricity. And, this process is more energy efficient and doesn’t require a high-pressure environment such as the commonly used Haber-Bosch Process.

NHThree is a company in Washington state where a process to form ammonia from air, water and electricity was developed. It is called Solid-State Ammonia Synthesis (SSAS). They have also applied for patents regarding their process: Method and Apparatus for Anhydrous Ammonia Production. WO2008/097644A1 and US2008193360A1.

Now that we understand that ammonia can indeed be produced with nothing more than air, water and electricity at low temperatures and pressures, lets look at the application as it relates to a water fueled Internal Combustion Engine (ICE).

Haber-Bosch Process

Solid-State Ammonia Synthesis, Powerpoint presentation in PDF format.

Method and Apparatus for Anhydrous Ammonia Production, WO2008/097644A1

Method and Apparatus for Anhydrous Ammonia Production, US2008193360A1


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


I even give you links to the abstracts... so you can go copy what you can. The full articles
are available for free around the net, some aren't - you just have to search. If anyone finds
the other free full articles, please post them if you want to return the favor.





The Chemistry and Manufacture of Hydrogen
by P. Litherland Teed
164 pages 5.5x8.5 inches [size]

Knowledge Publications
has one of the best books ever written on Hydrogen, this is the first printing of The Chemistry and Manufacture of Hydrogen since 1919! With the republication of this book and others like it we are realizing the most fundamental purpose for producing written records: the preservation and rediscovery of knowledge. - Schpankme

----------

What of Meyer’s original WFC?

Thanks!

Here is a pdf of the 1919 version - IT'S FREE.
http://www.archive.org/download/chem...00teedrich.pdf - (me)

----------

What of Meyer’s original WFC? - (me)

I looked through about 75% of the book that Schpankme posted
last night - very simple straight forward explanations - even nh3 reference
from just nitrogen + hydrogen + silent electric discharge

page 26 - "With Nitrogen* Donkin has shown that when a
mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen is subjected to the
silent electric discharge, a partial union of the two gases
takes place, with the formation of ammonia :
N2 + 3H2 = 2NH3 .

However, this reaction could in no way be regarded as
commercial, as the quantity of ammonia produced after
the gases have long been subjected to the silent electric
discharge is only just sufficient to be identified by the
most delicate means.

Recent investigations have, however, shown that if
the two gases are mixed and subjected to very great
pressure (1800 Ib. per sq. inch) in the presence of a
catalytic agent, union to an appreciable extent takes
place. This process, which is now being used on a
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 27

commercial scale in Germany, is known as the Haber
process, but few details as to the method of operation
are available. In the earlier stages of the working of
this process the catalytic agent was probably osmium,
but it is considered doubtful if this is still being employed. "

Yes, not sufficient for commercial production - however,
super ionized nitrogen is NOT accounted for amongst a few
other parts of the full reaction - but I'm happy to see the
reference and further proof of NH3 on demand production.

[Shamus]

Well Aaron, since you've thrown it out there, I might as well take a stab at it...

An N2 molecule has 14 electrons between them, 3 of which are shared between the two atoms. The outer valence shells are full; the atoms are happy. Now when you break those guys apart, you still have 14 electrons; seven in each atom with five in the outer valence shell. Now the atomic nitrogen atoms very much want their outer valence shells to be full, and they each have space for three electrons.

Those electrons can come from just about anywhere: A passing electron, or another atom looking to do the electron swapping thing like an atom of hydrogen. If the outer valence shells of the atomic nitrogen fill up with free electrons (what some might call a "natural electron extraction circuit") you end up with an atomic nitrogen ion with a 3e- charge. If the outer valence shells find hydrogen atoms, then covalent bonds are formed and you have a molecule of ammonia. Other combinations are of course possible, depending on energy levels among other things. But that's the basics as far as I understand them.

So which is it then, nitrogen ions or ammonia? I think it's probably both, though the proportions are probably heavily dependent on just what's flying around your reaction vessel.

[sucahyo]

With respect Sucayho, electrolysis is an endothermic process. It requires energy to produce H2 and O2. The heating of the solution itself is a by-product of inefficiency.

All I know is it heat up when more than 1.24V applied.

No it does not. It explodes. It only implodes after initial explosion if there is no residual thermal energy to prevent the resulting water molecule from going to liquid state. This is not the case in the combustion chamber of and ICE. I reiterate this is a common myth.

The test:
YouTube - Knallgas HHO Implosion Versuch 1

If there is explosion before implosion, the end result of being sucked in an instant after that would be damaging to the engine.

with that stan mean that he had mixed the h2 gas with non combustible gases before sending to the nozzle as to have = to or safer than that butane or other combustible gas transport inside the tube.

Ok, I believe that is the main process.

But what of the limiting reagent and conservation of mass & energy?
As the amount of hydrogen is limiting and changing it into something else doesn't do a whole lot of good.

Invalid logic, no one start with hydrogen. we all start with water. Funny that if I replace the word hydrogen with water, it will look more like what sceptic say:
"As the amount of water is limiting and changing it into something else doesn't do a whole lot of good."

And there already people run engine partially with water. Changing water to something else can do a good thing.

And the limiting reagent is hydrogen is it not? Then if one takes H2O and makes NH3 it you will get less NH3 than H2O for the NH3 molecule takes three hydrogens and the water molecule only has two to give.

You will get heavier molecule:
CHEMTUTOR MOLS, PERCENTS, AND STOICHIOMETRY

The real way we measure amounts is by weight (actually, mass), so 28 grams (14 g/mol times two atoms of nitrogen per molecule) of nitrogen and 6 grams of hydrogen (1 g/mol times two atoms of hydrogen per molecule times three mols) make 34 grams of ammonia.

6 grams is smaller than 34 grams.

Meyer mention gas retarding processes. I think the only viable solution to make hydrogen burn slower is by making them heavier. Heavier = slower to burn.