Ionization & Water Fuel

[tutanka]

First of all i'm not here to raise interest in my project.

I'm here only to try making you think!

You keep running away from my questions. I will answer yours anyway.

Bmw used compressed h2 in a car and it works as perfect as gasoline. So my hydrogen is going to work like a charm in any engine. You just need to understand that hydrogen must be injected using like direct injection (like diesel) common rail...


Sebosfato.. your answer is finally clear and from that I understand that you don't have experience of endothermic engine.
You know that BMW have abandoned tests on hydrogen??
Also because you can INJECT ONLY hydrogen inside cylinder but in that way you lost some HP power, why? Compression of mixture burnable increse HP inside your engine. But you cannot aspire hydrogen inside your engine because exits everywhere. You can try how I ask using little H2 tank and an little engine.. However you are trying to produce on car a lot hydrogen and use directly inside engine..right? FOR SECURITY USAGE .. any government authorize you to distribute your system because is very very dangerous .. and.. as you know hydrogen use cryogenic tank and high pressure inside car but also with that car have limited autonomy because you need a lot of hydrogen for obtain same power of gasoline.
IN THAT WAY YOU CAN'T USE DIRECT HYDROGEN WAY ON AN CAR AND THE SAME FOR HOME USAGE.. VERY DANGEROUS FOR USERS!!


2°My method is more valid because without any kind of doubt it multiply the energy inputed by more than 100. So is clear enough that i have a net gain in energy. I'm not that interested in having a car running on h2 yet as there are other industries that would benefit from it more readily.

Of course i could excite the gas with my extra energy as to be able to use less water for a big travel. However my principles as human being don't allow me to use it this way or even to study something that is know to avoid the reformation of the water molecule. This i will study further in the future but i would only release this technology when i will have absolutely sure that water molecule reform completely. Imagine if we release a technology that consumes the water in this world... is the end of the world in few centuries...

For me 50km with one liter is more than enough

Ok Nitrogen as i said is very important. Yes it will retard the combustion of the hydrogen. But if you use air you are going to create nox on the exhaust. So thats another reason to use only or mostly the exhaust gases as the flame retardant because they wont burn again because have no extra oxygen for the reaction. This is already used in gasoline cars but is to reduce emissions only, it makes worst the burning efficiency of the gasoline anyway.


NITROGEN is the key for more things and as final result you obtain new molecules with correct atom mass.. also bipolar voltage of air processor is important.. because not only N(OH)2 is created with the process..


Sucayo read your answers and think to your self if you have being enough specific as i'm requiring.

Aron Yes i have youtube channel is YouTube - sebosfato's Channel
You will find info on my concept and my first prototypes that allowed me to discover everything.

tutanka i guess i answered your question. Now please answer mine questions.

Regards

[sebosfato]

WELL I ACTUALLY DIDN'T RUN ANY CAR YET AS YOU KNOW but i saw many cars and other motors running. and seems to go well.

My h2 production is on demand so no need for compress the gas...

the gas is very safe if you use correctly the quenching circuit.

about the gas escaping i really never heard any serious study talking about that. However as i said is not my goal. Our goal is electricity and heat generation now also for a question of sizing. We won't use motor and not fuel cells. instead a technology witch converts the h2 into electricity with at least 95% efficiency. so using an electric motor and this technology you would need 3 times less water to run the same distance because of the efficiency however...

You said bmw stopped their testings because of this, Yes you would have a little less horse power for a same engine size. Because the gases are not heated together? but you can also inject more gas if you want to have a very similar burning. There are endless possibilities with enough gas in hand. And is clean and free.

In few years all cars will be replaced by electric cars so cars are my last thought for now.

About the n2 you are claiming i really don't understand what it could change that much. I believe you but i still don't understand. (maybe you are creating bigger combustible molecules to avoid loss of gas escaping everywhere). This would interest you if you are not injecting the gas as i proposed... Maybe ionized air lets the h2 to mixture well inside the engine...
well if you can't give the info out we will never now, unless we spent the money you spent on your research too... I already spent a lot too...

I wish good luck to you my friend

Best regards

[tutanka]

We won't use motor and not fuel cells. instead a technology witch converts the h2 into electricity with at least 95% efficiency. so using an electric motor and this technology you would need 3 times less water to run the same distance because of the efficiency however...

You convert H2 directly for create electricity.. similarry fuel cell or maybe use an controlled reaction of electrons .. in all case you must to work hard
In all cases I and sebosfato are friends.. but we have different visions.. for now..

[tutanka]

Farside, yes, he evolved everything to make a better technology and
more practical... this diagrams hows you exactly what Stan Meyer deems
to be necessary for the process...

HI Aaron..
Today I want explain my concept about Meyer patents.. All patents are controlled first to public, I know for sure that government have many hidden technologies (MANY ARE OLD) for protect petrol industries and at same they (as government). H2OPOWER as more peoples read patents and it thinks that these are authentic instead I believe that they are false. We suppose this.. I change only one word from oxy-gen the new word becames nitro-gen. At this point patent change completely but in fact I have changed only one word.. I exort to think to you

[dave_cahoon]

Patent fraud

Tutanka

I noticed that FACT about patents while replicating the Babington Burner/Spray nozzle. One of nasa's engineers work.

Clearly misleading when it finally works, and you look back at the patent.

Another case; the lifters.
Read the NASA Patent and description US 6,317,310 granted November 13, 2001

And compare to

US Patent 2,949,550 Aug 16, 1960 Electrokinetic Apparatus; from Thomas Townsend Brown

Their bold attempt to hog tie up the tech for themselves after the public domain takes notice.

Sorry about being off topic but its true. If your a company thats gona spend resources on a patent try to have the inventor directly involved.

Dave

[sucahyo]

I'm saying this because i doesn't matter if you ionize oxygen or nitrogen or whatever it is because to make any chemical change in a chemical element you need to apply energy!

If you talk about quantity, bomb, Pantone Reactor, ICE give more output than input. A 200hp car do not require 200hp input. A 1 megaton bomb do not require 1 megaton of energy. If it is about the need of energy input for ionizing to happen, a battery will give energy if you close loop it and ionizing (chemical reaction) it self to "death".

Your argumen false.

Sucayo read your answers and think to your self if you have being enough specific as i'm requiring.

Sorry, I don't know how to be more spesific since I think the flaw of your argument is chemical always have equilibrium, which is false.

Our goal is electricity and heat generation now also for a question of sizing. We won't use motor and not fuel cells. instead a technology witch converts the h2 into electricity with at least 95% efficiency. so using an electric motor and this technology you would need 3 times less water to run the same distance because of the efficiency however...

Bob Boyce do mention that the future for his system is not hydroxy. So, instead of using it to power WFC, it might be better to use it to power motor directly. Might as well forget hydrogen engine if we use WFC to power it.

Bob Boyce replication fully disclosed

By the way, Mark Snoswell visited the factory and I demonstrated a toroidal power system (like that used on the 100 cell system, but with the secondary not connected) to him and some other people he brought along. I had them do the power in vs power out comparisons themselves. They witnessed the output power being triple the current at double the voltage of the input power, or about 6X power gain. Lots of pictures were taken, maybe even some video. I don't know if they published any of this or not. Oh, and when I shorted out the secondary that would have normally been connected to the cell, the charging output current doubled and output went to about 12X the input power. Unfortunately for the hydroxy gas crowd, electrical power generation is where I feel the future for this technology may be.

Ok Nitrogen as i said is very important. Yes it will retard the combustion of the hydrogen.

What meyer state in patent is rather questionable, he obviously do not talk about H2, and it maybe H compound with other gases:

Hydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hydrogen gas forms explosive mixtures with air in the concentration range 4-74% (volume per cent of hydrogen in air)

Ammonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ammonia does not burn readily or sustain combustion, except under narrow fuel-to-air mixtures of 15-25% air.

Air-fuel ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For gasoline fuel, the stoichiometric air/fuel mixture is approximately 14.7 times the mass of air to fuel. Any mixture less than 14.7 to 1 is considered to be a rich mixture, any more than 14.7 to 1 is a lean mixture - given perfect (ideal) "test" fuel (gasoline consisting of solely n-heptane and iso-octane)

TECHNICAL PAPER FOR STUDENTS AND YOUNG ENGINEERS

Hydrogen has a very wide range of flammability in air (lower limit 4 %, upper limit 75 %). A significant advantage is that the engine can work with very lean mixtures, in other words, the air/fuel ratio can be very high (more than 120:1).

Hydrogen as an energy carrier

Hydrogen burns in air at volume concentrations from 4 % to 74.5 % (methane burns at 5.3 to 15 % and propane at 2.1 to 9.5 % volume concentrations).

Compare it with patent:
Hydrogen gas fuel and management system for an internal combustion engine utilizing hydrogen gas fuel - US Patent 5293857 Description

(2) that the combustion "window" for hydrogen in an oxygen containing atmosphere is exceedingly narrow, and is considerably narrower than that of a fossil fuel. A fuel such as gasoline or diesel oil will satisfactorily perform and support combustion over a wide range of fuel mixtures having different proportional quantities of oxygen. Hydrocarbon fuels typically support engine speeds over a wide range in an internal combustion engine because of its broad combustion envelope; hydrogen in contrast, will combust satisfactorily only when a hydrogen/oxygen mixture in the ratio of 2:1 is present.

I am not saying that Meyer is lying, I am saying that we shouldn't assume that he refer to H2 when he mention hydrogen fuel, it can be any other hydrogen based molecule.

[sebosfato]

If you talk about quantity, bomb, Pantone Reactor, ICE give more output than input. A 200hp car do not require 200hp input. A 1 megaton bomb do not require 1 megaton of energy. If it is about the need of energy input for ionizing to happen, a battery will give energy if you close loop it and ionizing (chemical reaction) it self to "death".

Your argumen false.

Sorry, I don't know how to be more spesific since I think the flaw of your argument is chemical always have equilibrium, which is false.


Bob Boyce do mention that the future for his system is not hydroxy. So, instead of using it to power WFC, it might be better to use it to power motor directly. Might as well forget hydrogen engine if we use WFC to power it.

Bob Boyce replication fully disclosed

An atomic bomb uses a starting energy that initiate a chain reaction of neutrons that hit other atoms and maintain the reaction. And the initial energy to initiate such a reaction is enormously big. And is not only ionization.

So all i'm saying is that is practically impossible to create fission reactions in your air processor. and you don't want radioactivity mixed with water. And you may want the water to reform. so

I'm saying that maybe is not about ionization but just accelerating the gas.
I'm saying energy to do this can come from an energy source. Witch is not the battery. The battery serves only for start up and minimally to keep the system going. But is not only two plates with diodes and 40kv 1ma....

Chemicals aways want to stabilize. And most of them are aways neutral.

Sorry but you are not really sure of what you are talking about.

Don't talk about geet or generally if you don't have a working unity on this to explain it all. Try to study a lot and argument about the things you know well, is much more constructive. Geet uses gasoline. Is only more efficient and clean...

a 200hp car need 200hp chemical energy input to develop 65 hp mechanical output. Now think about using this 65 to recharge your battery. In what world you live? this 65 will become max 4 going to your alternator...

So you would need 50x more energy to drive your system using 3kwatts of power. Can it come from a 12v battery no? With this amount is possible to ionize the gas to have a gain of at least 50x to drive your car... humm guess not.

So is very clear energy must come from somewhere else.

Think about where can it come from. There are some sources that is everywhere. no batteries no ether no alternators no magic. Tesla knew what i'm talking about

stan
dingel
puharich
brown
...
they knew too


What stan said ?

he aways told us the true but we were aways thinking he was aways big lier. He just protected his tech. If we were as skilled in the art as was him we would understand his project. 99,99999% of the people studying this are not expert in anything and at the same time have a very good soul because in most cases invest some of the life time to develop such technology or try to understand with the better intentions without any success. ,1% becomes scamers, 79% becomes like h20 (come on i'm joking) i meant believe so hard on something that want to teach the others something they still don't know yet and are not practically sure of it but continue to insist on errors, 10% follows the forums and wants to learn, 3% become so arrogant we cannot even say they are wrong, 5% will aways repeat that they discovered it before without being true. and 0,00000001% of the people understand and discovered everything and is not believed. But them all have something in common a great heart and probably good ideals! Of course there are also business mans that don't care about the world too but this are not %able.

He was right in everything he did and did protected it very well i'm sure. clearly divided the technology in his patents. VERY VERY CLEARLY

GooD LUCK to all

New zealand videos can clear the ways.

[sucahyo]

Sebosfato, I truely lost guessing the answer you expect.

There are some word confusing me. Like "converts the h2 into electricity with at least 95% efficiency" which is not fuel cell, since what I know is fuel cell is only <50% efficient MAX, and that still not counting the energy needed to produce the H2.

From my perspective, creating H2 gas from super circuit and then convert back the H2 to electricity is inefficient. utilizing electricity directly from the super circuit is better. If converting radiant electricity is a problem, at least we can crudely convert it using motor/generator tandem which is far better in efficiency today compared to fuel cell or electrolysis.


And why do you think H2 in ICE do not perform chain reaction too?

There are GEET device that use urine. Urine is not considered direct gasoline replacement.

In mid school I learn that chemical reaction can be reversible and irreversible, some reaction need energy, some reaction release energy, some require strict condition before it start reacting, some happen right away, I still believe it now.

[Aaron]

neutral plasma

Hi Tutanka,

The neutral plasma gas processor method sounds interesting.
Haven't got it through my head yet

But, it seems like moisture/steam and ambient air going through
an an ionizer of both polarities can rip apart and put back together
N2, O2, & H2O.

I'm just guessing if it is moisture or steam with regular air both
going into the AC gas processor.The output could contain N(OH)2
and probably some other combos of H, N, & O.

Then that mixture gets compressed, heated and ignited.

[tutanka]

Hi Tutanka,

The neutral plasma gas processor method sounds interesting.
Haven't got it through my head yet

But, it seems like moisture/steam and ambient air going through
an an ionizer of both polarities can rip apart and put back together
N2, O2, & H2O.

I'm just guessing if it is moisture or steam with regular air both
going into the AC gas processor.The output could contain N(OH)2
and probably some other combos of H, N, & O.

Then that mixture gets compressed, heated and ignited.

NO.. My air processor is used ONLY for air treatment.. and use AC/DC voltage

[Aaron]

air processor

NO.. My air processor is used ONLY for air treatment.. and use AC/DC voltage

Right, got confused on a different issue... here's your old post

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

"
Tutanka, to clarify, the neutral ions in the air processor you mention is
processing both air and water at same time?

Neutral ions (positive/negative) are only based on ambient air and not water treatment (circuit posted isn't the same used, we use high HV field 30+30Kv for increase ionization treatment)

Otherwise, there is still a method of + ionizing air and - water right or
have I misunderstood something?

As written I don't see the instructions of meyer exaclty, these inputs are referred to Gas Processor and water steam used inside meyer process for increase time of reaction ..

What % of light spectrum in plasma is ionizing UV for these particular
plasma ignition systems?

You can see with your eyes..
Attached Thumbnails "

[tutanka]

Right, got confused on a different issue... here's your old post

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

"
Tutanka, to clarify, the neutral ions in the air processor you mention is
processing both air and water at same time?

Neutral ions (positive/negative) are only based on ambient air and not water treatment (circuit posted isn't the same used, we use high HV field 30+30Kv for increase ionization treatment)

Otherwise, there is still a method of + ionizing air and - water right or
have I misunderstood something?

As written I don't see the instructions of meyer exaclty, these inputs are referred to Gas Processor and water steam used inside meyer process for increase time of reaction ..

What % of light spectrum in plasma is ionizing UV for these particular
plasma ignition systems?

You can see with your eyes..
Attached Thumbnails "

My air processor used special circuit double HV output 30+30Kv, the main output is AC, the other (grid) negative DC. With that I obtain positive/negative ions..

[sebosfato]

Sucahyo

I tried to explain that if we can spent 100w to create 10kw of gas and we use this new tech we have we are going to have 9.5kw of electricity out of it. If we used a fuel cell we would have bout 50% efficiency and motor about 30%.

Just to mention a few

[sebosfato]

Inside the chamber many things happen and it is a kind of chain reaction ( explosion) of course but wont release neutrons and you will not have fusion or fission at 1200° celsius so Is quite hard to believe that the people without being able to understand the basics principle meyer told us, that they can achieve thermal power economically like he described. There is a way but all it works with the same principle. Find the _Energy Source_
I repeat thermal energy as he stated would incur in not recombining water after the reaction and this is very dangerous for our planet. Maybe was more directed to space travel, rockets. I don't know.
Regards

[Aaron]

atomic fusion/fission or molecular dissociation

Sebosfato,

Is someone claiming nuclear fission by splitting the nucleus of an atom?
I have not seen this.

It is possible there is fusion from the plasma ignition and some eventual
transmutation of metal of the electrodes, which has been shown in laboratory
tests, but still, I haven't seen anyone claim nuclear fission.

The only thing mentioned is molecular dissociation where a molecule of
2 atoms are split so that the elements are in atomic state of single atoms.

This is SAFE atomic energy.