Ionization & Water Fuel

[sebosfato]

When you have 60 bolts of lightning per second Nitrogen fixation is not a problem.

I have it tuned in quite nicely. I am losing very little energy and dependability is looking to be at optimum.

I get too much heat at 240hz, 120 is nice.

What are you talking about?

[vrand]

When you have 60 bolts of lightning per second Nitrogen fixation is not a problem.

So you actually discharge? I thought you did not want the sparks/arcs and only needed the corona discharge?

What voltage are you using?

Regards, Mike R.

[Farrah Day]

Hi

Can I ask, are you all talking about dissociating N2 with a plasma arc?

I ask this as, for some reason I was under the impression that most of you were thinking of employing high electric fields, a la Meyer, to do this.

If so I think I probably owe Aaron an apology as an electric arc is very confined and will undoubtably react with N2 as well as O2 in air. I had in mind large electric fields pulsing across the whole gas chamber.

Can you people just clarify this for me. Thanks.

Farrah

[tutanka]

When you have 60 bolts of lightning per second Nitrogen fixation is not a problem.

Pengrove maybe you refer to Hz.. However seem that you have ask with Mike privately but him don't have main stage at this time.. know only final part..

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

Yes. Higher energy reactions will always be preceded by lower energy reactions.

Yes, that's how I see it.

I really don't know if it holds true under every condition, it is only my opinion. It may well come down to how you intend to dissociate the N2. But to illustrate my point, if you consider ozone generators for example, you never hear of them dissociating nitrogen do you? And they reside in this sea of N2.

Yes, I would have thought so, do you have any figures for this reaction. I have not yet looked further into this.

But this brings us back to my others point, if we are getting all the energy from the recombination of atomic nitrogen, what part is the HHO playing - if anything?

If solely for the creation of ammonia as a by-product... why go to all this trouble? Let's face it, ammonia is not a particularly nice product to be issuing forth from your exhaust pipe into the atmosphere.

Still no clear or distinct path to follow in all this yet. I'm still struggling to find any logical sequence of events that instantly make sense, and feel that my Eureka moment is still some way off yet.

You asked me this before and I'm unsure as to what specific answer you're looking for. Are you looking for heat?

The problem as I see it is that no one has yet laid down a specific set of events and reactions that take us logically from A - B. There seems to be much doubt about what reacts with what, where in the sequence of events these reactions actually take place, where the high energy exothermic reaction fits in, and indeed what the resulting 'ashes' are?

Clearly many people here have there own ideas, which greatly confuses and complicates the issue - particularly as no two ideas would seem to be the same.

The best thing for everyone to do would be to lay out their interpretation of the reactions and the sequence of events, from the very start, to the very finish. This way we could compare everyones views and analyse better the possible results.

Farrah

Remember: It's what we learn after we think we know it all that really counts!

Actually yes, I have heard of ozone generators splitting nitrogen because
this happens with every ozone generator. Nitrogen is split right
along with oxygen producing a small amount of nitrogen oxides. This is a
very elementary fact about ozone generators.

I don't have the figures handy on nitrogen heat release. I have a
ridiculously large archive on nitrogen but these references are available
through google. That is where I found all of them. Oxygen does the same
thing.

Where do you get the idea that ammonia is being pumped into the
air? There is ammonia naturally in the air anyway of course in small
amounts but when ammonia is combusted in an engine, it produces water
and nitrogen. That is all that is leaving the exhaust with small amounts of
nitrogen oxides and all of this or at least whatever amount you want is
ducted to the water cell.

Nobody is going to lay out the sequence of everything because it is
desired that people actually think it through. It isn't a game being played.
People work hard to get to where they are and there is way more
information in this thread than necessary to lay out the entire sequence.
I mentioned that the ionized air could be mixed with the output of the
water cell or that it can be pumped into the water cell to bubble through
the water as the water is being electrolyzed.

What I don't understand is why it is so difficult for anyone to simply
draw out an ionizer, draw out a water cell and there are a finite amount
of practical ways to connect them and put an engine in the sequence.
Then there is the exhaust and a finite amount of things that have been
discussed about it. etc... By doing this, many things become self apparent.

Remember: It's what we learn after we think we know it all that really counts!

That is great advice for anyone that is having difficulty understanding
this process.

[Aaron]

@vickers

Alright Aaron, Your first drawing. I think it second post on water spark thread. OK. Sorry dude.

Here's the pic in the second post:



Now what is your question about this? lol

[pengrove]

Pengrove maybe you refer to Hz.. However seem that you have ask with Mike privately but him don't have main stage at this time.. know only final part..

Mike? I have not talked to mike privately sorry.

[Aaron]

Langmuir

Hi

Can I ask, are you all talking about dissociating N2 with a plasma arc?

I ask this as, for some reason I was under the impression that most of you were thinking of employing high electric fields, a la Meyer, to do this.

If so I think I probably owe Aaron an apology as an electric arc is very confined and will undoubtably react with N2 as well as O2 in air. I had in mind large electric fields pulsing across the whole gas chamber.

Can you people just clarify this for me. Thanks.

Farrah

Farrah,

There is the ionizer and the plasma arc is the ignition in the combustion
chamber - 2 different things.

The plasma arc dissociates whatever H2 is in the combustion chamber,
but what property of the arc does the dissociation?

I did give 2 Langmuir references.

[Farrah Day]

Aaron

Nobody is going to lay out the sequence of everything because it is
desired that people actually think it through. It isn't a game being played.
People work hard to get to where they are and there is way more
information in this thread than necessary to lay out the entire sequence.

What gives you the idea I'm playing games! It is quite clear that there are many different interpretations of things on this thread, so many people are talking cross-purposes. Hence there is little in the way of clarity.

I don't think anyone will lay out their thoughts on the reactions and processes involved in their interpretaion, not because they want me to think it through, but because they can't do it.

Don't you think I've been thinking this through? I wouldn't be asking the questions if I hadn't. All I come up with is unlikely reactions and problems. And when I ask questions, I'm told to figure it out for myself!

Surely this is not what the forum is all about... I thought we were here to share our thoughts, insights and information.

Farrah

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

Aaron

What gives you the idea I'm playing games! It is quite clear that there are many different interpretations of things on this thread, so many people are talking cross-purposes. Hence there is little in the way of clarity.

I don't think anyone will lay out their thoughts on the reactions and processes involved in their interpretaion, not because they want me to think it through, but because they can't do it.

Don't you think I've been thinking this through? I wouldn't be asking the questions if I hadn't. All I come up with is unlikely reactions and problems. And when I ask questions, I'm told to figure it out for myself!

Surely this is not what the forum is all about... I thought we were hear to share our thoughts, insights and information.

Farrah

I'm referring to us not playing games in response to the multiple posts
by yourself and others that we're making everyone "figure it out for yourself"
or whatever. Those posts imply that we're playing games with everyone.

There are behind the scenes projects and some want this disclosed
without revealing anything proprietary and to hear claims that you won't
be told not because it's secret but because we don't know is a complete
insult and untrue.

Other people's privacy of proprietary information should be
respected by all and the fact that so much has already been shared
in this thread has, is a very fortunate thing for everyone that actually is
taking the hints to heart and working it out.

I'm not going to tell someone to go figure it out if no hints were given
on many specific parts of the process - that would be abusing people.
I figured out a few parts on my own with much less to go on that what
you and everyone else has. Someone that has been doing this longer
than anyone else here offered to talk to you and if you refused the offer, then
that is to your disadvantage. Fortunately, because I did take to heart
what was initially share and didn't complain, I was able to learn more
from a few others.

People are only encouraged to think it out themselves when there are
very blatant hints that spell it out. It is because of these hints that in
my opinion, nobody has an excuse not to figure out the basic system
or concepts.

H2opower and his crew can't figure out where ammonia is created in the
process. That's ridiculous. First of all, they focus on oxygen ionization
up to various levels and are completely unable to comprehend that nitrogen
is being ionized and/or split at the same time. So when the nitrogen is
split, when it comes in contact with electrolyzed hydrogen, the hydrogen
atoms can bond to the nitrogen. They now appear silent on this since
they couldn't figure that simple part out for themselves while they post
bogus chemistry and math, etc... that only applies in a world where
nitrogen doesn't exist in ambient air.

Do you even have any comments that you claimed an ozone generator
doesn't split nitrogen when it does? Your idea about the lower level reactions happen
first, etc... is completely founded on an opinion and seems
to be based on no experimentation. Do you actually do any experiments
or do you just read about them? I think that is a fair question.

Ozone 101

"Ozone is also produced with a high voltage electrical discharge. Called “corona discharge” or “CD”, it is the method most commonly used to generate usable amounts of ozone for most water treatment applications. The idea is to actually create a small, controlled lightning storm, which involves producing a constant, controlled spark (corona) across an air gap through which a prepared feed gas is passed. This feed gas may be air that has simply had most of its moisture removed or air with enhanced oxygen levels. The key to an efficient, reliable CD ozone generator is making sure that the feed gas is dried to a dew point of at least -60ø F. This is important because as the electrical discharge splits the oxygen molecules, nitrogen molecules are also being split, forming several species of nitrogen oxides. They are normally benign, but if combined with moisture (ordinary humidity), these oxides form a very corrosive substance called nitric acid. Consequently, proper air preparation is critical, as is choosing a generator utilizing high quality materials in the construction of the reaction chamber and associated cabinetry."

Any nitric acid that may wind up in the water cell is a natural electrolyte
and a pH below 7 appears to be optimum.

[chasson321]

last edit...

[sebosfato]

YouTube - 237-PART 1 of 6-Joe Pipe testing using modified swirl device. A must see.

Have you seeing a joe pipe???

[Aaron]

@Tim, h2opower's spokesperson

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to strip three electrons away from that atom? It takes 4578.1 kJ/mol and I don't see any of you creating that kind of energy.

To call the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass false propaganda is an insult to the whole world and shows your simple mindedness when it comes to science.

If you understood just how Stanley Meyer's technology really worked you would see just how ignorant that statement really is.

The many flaws in this theory leave it so it so badly damaged it is no longer worth talking about. Plus the theory can't be questioned or examined due to NDA's.

Tim.

Simply focus on splitting nitrogen, which you are going to do ANYWAY
in your ionization process if you have a decent one.

Mass/energy - you're free to believe in fossilized science if you want.
I know better.

H2OPOWER THINKS NITROGEN SIMPLY GETS IN THE WAY TO SLOW DOWN
THE BURNING OF HHO. SO, PLEASE, TELL ME WHY ANY SMALL ENGINE
RUNNING ON HHO THAT IS USING AMBIENT AIR (WITH 78% NITROGEN)
THAT IS MIXING WITH THE HHO BURNS FAST AND DOESN'T SLOW DOWN
SINCE ACCORDING TO YOU/HIM, ALL THAT 78% NITROGEN FROM
AMBIENT AIR SHOULD BE SLOWING DOWN THE HHO BURN, WHICH IT
DOES NOT! Please, explain.

You're using basic math but are applying it to solve the wrong questions.
Please don't discuss the concept of ignorance.

NDA doesn't stop anyone from using plain and simple COMMON SENSE
to digest the info that has been posted so no more excuses please.

SO TIM, IN MEYER'S PROCESS, WHEN IONIZING AMBIENT AIR, DOES ANY
NITROGEN GET SPLIT IN THE PROCESS? I DARE YOU TO ANSWER THAT.

[Farrah Day]

Aaron

There are behind the scenes projects and some want this disclosed
without revealing anything proprietary and to hear claims that you won't
be told not because it's secret but because we don't know is a complete
insult and untrue.

The last thing I want to do is fall out now that our friendship is blooming, and if people felt insulted by my last post, I'm sorry, that was not the intention. I was merely highlighting the fact that there is little point in all this if no one is sharing details... after all the devil is in the detail.

Someone that has been doing this longer
than anyone else here offered to talk to you and if you refused the offer, then
that is to your disadvantage. Fortunately, because I did take to heart
what was initially share and didn't complain, I was able to learn more
from a few others.

I have no idea just what you're refering to here!

I'm not going to tell someone to go figure it out if no hints were given
on many specific parts of the process - that would be abusing people.
I figured out a few parts on my own with much less to go on that what
you and everyone else has.

This is part of the problem. If these so-called 'hints' do not seem to make sense (as I am finding) and people are reluctant to elaborate or discuss them further, then everyone can be on a completely different page without knowing it. And what some of you see as, 'having it all figured out', I only see as very questionable.

Hence my confusion as to how you were intending to dissociate N2.

H2opower and his crew can't figure out where ammonia is created in the
process. That's ridiculous. First of all, they focus on oxygen ionization
up to various levels and are completely unable to comprehend that nitrogen
is being ionized and/or split at the same time. So when the nitrogen is
split, when it comes in contact with electrolyzed hydrogen, the hydrogen
atoms can bond to the nitrogen. They now appear silent on this since
they couldn't figure that simple part out for themselves while they post
bogus chemistry and math, etc... that only applies in a world where
nitrogen doesn't exist in ambient air.

My problem is not in the creation of ammonia, it is why would you want to do this? And the fact that the ammonia created is only proportional to the hydrogen evolved in the first place! I see no net gain here, just energy wasted in the creation of ammonia.

The trouble is if you're splitting nitrogen in the presence of oxygen, you're immediately going to create nitrogen oxides, so in order to have any chance of creating ammonia in the first place, you've got to remove the O2 from the air.

These are all issues of importance, details that seem to be being completely overlooked. I ask so many questions because I can see issues that others seem to either be unaware of, are overlooking or worse, simply ignoring.

Do you even have any comments that you claimed an ozone generator
doesn't split nitrogen when it does? Your idea about the lower level reactions happen
first, etc... is completely founded on an opinion and seems
to be based on no experimentation. Do you actually do any experiments
or do you just read about them? I think that is a fair question

Ok, yes, we get some N2 reactions from an ozone generator, but it is a tiny fraction of that of the O2, even though the N2 content of the surrounding air is nearly 4 times that of O2. My point was that O2 will always dissociate before N2 given the chance (but at the time I was assuming you intended to use an electric field to do this).

We already touched on the reformation of the N2 molecule from atomic nitrogen is likely a very exothermic reaction, but according to you this is not the energy part of the equation. You want to form NH3 somewhere in the process and combust that.. right?

If asking for a little clarity on the sequence of events is asking too much, I apologise, but I don't see how you guys here can possibly move forward until you establish some common ground. It would really help things if you were all reading from the same script, but unless each of you fully detail your thoughts and processes, it will never happen.

Ok, I'll politely bow out on this thread as I can't see anything other than muddy water.

Farrah

[Aaron]

@Tim

@Tim

" 01-31-2010, 03:40 PM
h20power vbmenu_register("postmenu_83309", true);
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 644


Would someone like to circle number 1 for him showing the water inlet. The gases that are called "ambient air gases" are gases that are dissolved in water at the time when the water is being broken down and are nothing more than trace gases and can be ignored. Did you look up the solubility table of gases in water Aaron as I requested you to do? Sure doesn't look like you did when you see the real numbers you are saying are vital to producing thermo explosive energy. Solubility of Gases in Water

Notice that it is a gram of gas per 1 kilogram of water, noting that there is from .03 to .01 grams of N2 in the temperature range from 0 to 60 degrees C, and how many grams of hydrogen and oxygen are in 1 kilogram of water? Do you need me to solve that one for you telling you how many grams of hydrogen and oxygen are in 1 kg of water? Now do you see what I mean when I call them trace gases? Follow the science not the NDA team!


h2opower.
"

That is from Stanley Meyer Explained Thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/83309-post1506.html

That is what H2opower says about dissolved gasses in water. I'm posting
this for the record since his followers are spreading misinformation in
this thread and elsewhere.

Here is what Stanley Meyer's says about dissolved gasses in water:

Stanley Meyer: US Patent # 4421474 -- Hydrogen Gas Burner

USP 4,421,474 Hydrogen Gas Burner
Stan Meyer


"It has been found that all water in its natural state whether it be tap water, well water, sea water, or fresh water is a saturate of ambient air. Further, in that ambient air contains a substantial amount of nitrogen, all natural water will have entrapped therein nitrogen. Again, the percentage of nitrogen entrapped in natural water has been determined to be a fixed percentage and very uniform at seventeen (17%) percent -- irrespective of the source of the water or its impurities. Hence, a natural water gas analysis will show a seventeen percent of nitrogen relative to the hydrogen and the oxygen."


H20power says nitrogen in water is a trace gas that can be "IGNORED."


Stanley Meyer says it is 17%. That is almost 1/6th content according to Stanley
Meyer - that is in no way a trace gas. Ignored? Only when wanting
to ignore what Meyer is saying.


Does anyone know where Meyer gets this number? It seems high.

Even if Meyer is making it up about 17% dissolved nitrogen in
water, h2opower ignores the fact that nitrogen from the exhaust is pumped
back to the water fuel cell. So it is common sense that even if water on
its own has a small trace amounts of nitrogen and Meyer is deceiving
people, the water will have way more nitrogen because of the exhaust
being pumped into it.

Here is what Meyer says:

"an excellent source of non-combustible gasses are exhaust gasses."

We've all seen this patent I think. It was pointed out to me today but
I never noticed that Meyer said water has 17% dissolved nitrogen in it.
Where does this 17% come from?

And of course we have:

Stanley Meyer: Water Electrolysis -- Canadian Patent # 2067735 -- Water Fule Injection System

I think most of us have seen this to:



"In the fuel mixture condition that is created by the injector, water (H2O) is atomized into a fine spray and mixed with (1) ionized ambient air gasesand (2) other non-combustible gases such as nitrogen , argon and other rare gases, and water vapor. (Exhaust gas produced by the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is a non-combustible water vapor. This water vapor and other inert gases resulting from combustion may be recycled from an exhaust outlet in the injector system back into the input mixture of non-combustible gases). The fuel mix is introduced at a consistent flow rate maintained under a predetermined pressure. In the triggering of the condition created by the injector, the conversion process described in my patent # 4,936,961 and co-pending application serial # 07/460,859 is set off spontaneously on a micro level in a predetermined reaction zone. The injector creates a mixture, under pressure in a defined zone (or locus) of water, ionized gases and non-combustible gases. Pressure is an important factor in the maintenance of the reaction condition and causes the water mist/gas mixture to become intimately mixed, compressed, and destabilized to produce combustion when activated under resonant conditions of ignition. In accordance with the aforementioned conversion process of my patent and application, when water is subjected to a resonance condition water molecules expand and distend; electrons are ejected from the water molecule and absorbed by ionized gases; and the water molecule, thus destabilized, breaks down into its elemental components of hydrogen (2H) and oxygen (O) in combustion zone. The hydrogen atoms released from the molecule provide the fuel source in the mixture for combustion with oxygen."

So, we have:

WATER/HHO/VAPOR/MIST, ETC...

mixed with:

IONIZED AIR + NON COMBUSTIBLE GASES, which comes from the exhaust
after combustion.

The mixture is destablized AFTER the water gas is mixed with ionized air
and recycled exhaust.

"Pressure is an important factor in the maintenance of the reaction condition and causes the water mist/gas mixture to become intimately mixed, compressed, and destabilized to produce combustion when activated under resonant conditions of ignition. "

When the arc hits, water is split (in this injector system) but look at the
explanation. ELECTRONS ARE EJECTED FROM THE WATER MOLECULE
AND ABSORBED BY IONIZED GASES. This ionized gas is almost totally
NITROGEN. The nitrogen as explained by Meyer is acting as an EEC or
electron receiver. This mixture burns slow and releases some real THERMAL
energy. H2opower claims the nitrogen just "gets in the way" but we can
see CLEARLY that the nitrogen is not just getting in the way, it is
receiving the electron to prevent the water molecule from forming. If the
molecule of water forms easily, then there can't be a flame that sustains
under these conditions - because we know the burn rate is much too fast
for regular hydrogen/oxygen mix.

"when water is subjected to a resonance condition water molecules expand and distend; electrons are ejected from the water molecule and absorbed by ionized gases; and the water molecule, thus destabilized, breaks down into its elemental components of hydrogen (2H) and oxygen (O) in combustion zone. "

So, basically, TIM (h2opower's messenger):

1. why does h2opower claim there is almost no nitrogen dissolved in
water when Meyer says it is 17% - 17% is HUGE.

2. why does h2opower claim nitrogen is just getting in the way when
Meyer spells out that the ionized gas, which IS ionized air, mostly nitrogen,
is receiving the electron from the splitting of water, splitting of water gas,
splitting of vapor, etc... bottom line, the nitrogen is absorbing the electron
to keep the hydrogen and oxygen from recombining.