Ionization & Water Fuel

[Aaron]

mass/energy conservation fraud

the conservation of mass/energy?

First of all, there is no such thing as mass/energy conservation.
Second of all, there is no such thing as mass/energy conservation.
Third of all, there is no such thing as mass/energy conservation.

You have to first know what energy and potential is and once that is
understood, points #1, #2 and #3 are self-evident. And I'm not talking
about the ABSTRACT CONCEPT of potential that virtually no
professor or book in the world properly defines.

Any science that has it's premise in mass/energy conservation is
a fairy tale.

[Aaron]

exhaust

Well if we are looking for the answers the to the archieblue phenomena then we should look at what is in exhaust gasses. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), including nitric oxide (NO) and nitrous oxide (NO2), are formed if the combustion temperatures within the combustion chamber exceed some 2,500°F. We would be very close to producing N out of N2 in the combustion chamber. But replicating the break down of N2 to N with out combustion, heat and pressure may be difficult. And starting an engine with out the reaction taking place already wouldn't work.

Or there is actually atomic or ionized nitrogen leaving the exhaust and/or
the exhaust is treated.

EDIT: I'm not saying there is not other nitrogen compounds leaving the exhaust because there would be - Meyer produced nox and other nitrogen
compounds and he discussed ionizing the exhaust to break it apart after it was created.

[Aaron]

talking elements

Do you all remember when meyer said " i'm the big oxygen atom, and i'm missing electrons, hey you hydrogen molecule give me your electron...."

I don't understand how N should be included in this reaction and i think that would not be such a good idea as it would generate more nox theoretically, wouldn't???

You don't understand how?

Maybe oxygen isn't the only one that can talk.

[Aaron]

ionization is the point

BTW, h2opower point that I was wrong to call dissociation as ionization. From this moment on, I will refer the process of breaking up water, N2 and O2 in ionizer as dissociation, not ionization. Sorry, for the confusion.

Ionization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no confusion. Your goal IS TO IONIZE those molecules in the ionizer.
You are NOT looking for simple dissociation. If you have just atomic nitrogen,
what is the point? Also, if you dissociate nitrogen into atomic nitrogen,
how long will it remain atomic until it binds to another nitrogen or something
else? That ought to tell you something about the nitrogen.

And an ionizer is an ionizer, not a dissociator.

[Aaron]

@Sucahyo

Sucahyo,

How many electrons are in a molecule of nitrogen, N2?

[chasson321]

last edit...

[Aaron]

@Tim

Changing the free hydrogen into NH3 results in no energy gain, but an energy loss. Only you would think he or I would mean mass divided by energy for you never bothered to read the information and/or couldn't understand it, what ever shoe fits.

How many others out there thought that h2opower or I meant mass divided by energy conservation?

Tim

Tim,

No energy gain, but an energy loss you/he says? There is nothing in that
sentence that bars nh3 from being made. So I take it that you finally
understand that nh3 can be made in this process, however, your argument
seems to be that it isn't as powerful but not necessarily that it is
impossible.

Well, for now, let's say it is less powerful, but still possible. Who cares?
Even IF it is less powerful, if it can be made on demand and run an
engine, it doesn't take too much analysis of that concept to really see
the implications that it represents.

Why do you say it is less powerful? Are you simply using a btu/pound
chart as your reference?

You're twisting my words on the conservation bit.

[Aaron]

old references

And Tim,

Any comments on those old references? Seems like you might be avoiding
them for some reason. Kinda weird.

[tutanka]

Tutanka
[ my object now is run properly an engine for that I have decided to use gas production way using normal spark plug and secure method of gas production. About catalyst .. that is every chemical way for accelerate reaction but you don't need in that process.. you don't have to read patent of meyer but only see designs present inside these. Regards

You have changed your mind? I see you have edited your earlier posts on original process. You now u want to make ammonia? Was original process to dangerous? Radiation?[/QUOTE]

I don't have changed anything, all remain the same, the chemical formula isn't changed.. maybe can be changed method of production using new mechanical/electronics..

[sebosfato]

Hi aron

Do you remember the formula meyer gave to us?

Ein = GAS // DET Md C^2

this formula means:

whenever you have more mass reacted you would have more energy output...

It's a variation of the Einstein Relativistic Theory witch states whenever you lose mass the loss in mass must become energy....

The calculation meyer showed wasn't invented by him... and it states :
whenever more mass is reacted even not having a loss in mass you have greater energy output.

For me is quite clear that he was creating or trying to create OH+ only, at the output, and saying that it were a de energized form of water... Because when this ions receive photons and get contact with other water they will reach equilibrium and become normal water again...

I think that tutanka created the NH3 or whatever also because of this, maybe he found that with this molecule, because of the nitrogen witch also react with the oxygen in the combustion process, shouold gives up more energy..

however if is this the goal, they should consider that they will be creating a lot of NO's much more than a common engine do actually, and this is a very problematic greenhouse gas.

[chasson321]

last edit...

[Aaron]

plasma

Do you remember the formula meyer gave to us?

Ein = GAS // DET Md C^2

e=mc2 is irrational and so is anything that has it's premise in e=mc2.

Plasma changes everything, by the way.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Nitrogen

OK, what have we got to start with and what can we make out of it?

Water=H2+O2
AIR= 78% N2 + 20% O2 + 2% other gases which we can forget

So we have one source for H2, N2, and two sources for O2

Now what can we make from this which will run an engine other than just pure H2 burning in O2, which would require a lot of H2 which we do not have?

Well we could make NH3 or N2H4; N2O;NO2;NO. what ever if you mix the three gases you are going to have NITROGEN in the equation, so why did Meyer talk of none combustible gases (nitrogen) to such great extent. Later I will tell you why, and it is to do with gaining energy.

Mike

[Aaron]

@Tim

You ask me to answer your questions but never have answered any of mine and I don't find that far at all.

You have a 100% track record in refusing to acknowledge any
facts presented thus far. You have to give before you can get.
This is my thread, not yours, by the way.

Pride is useless here - acknowledge facts presented and then perhaps
you may get more. The bottom line is that if you and h2opower want to
understand this, it most certainly will NOT be done your way, ever. If you
don't like that, it's your loss, not mine. You can't say you were never
given a chance.

Please realize that I pretty much saw the process as h2opower and others
have in the past. But I gave up on massive hho production because it
became common sense that it never had anything to do with that.

If h2opower's understanding of Meyer is so superior, explain something to
me: YouTube - Hydrogen Meyer/Lawton style
That is his water fuel cell with the massive quantity of tubes.
It takes about 12-13 seconds before seeing any signs of gas production
and at about 20 seconds he says and I quote: "Production is very, very
fast." That was two "verys" by the way.

Then he says, "Meyer's technology DOES work."
If Meyer's technology "DOES work" from that test, why isn't he running
his car on it?

And, "And here's the surprising part; there's the amps. Only 4.83 amps."
(I corrected the amps that he said to match the meter) "...Operating at
12.8 volts."
(That is 61.82 watts at whatever frequency/duty cycle)

And, "All this gas production but little to no power."

61.82 watts and he considers that little to no power? Go hold onto some
electrodes and crank it up to 61.82 watts and tell me if that is little to
no power. Considering that to be little to no power to me completely
disqualifies h2opower from having any sensible rationality about analyzing
any of this.

Here is just an old test of mine after the tubes were conditioned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphxVYYnEvA

That is 36 watts, gas production there in my opinion actually is very,
very fast like less than a second from turning on power. That is ONE single
tube set hooked up out of seven powered by rectified ac for 120hz
galloping dc. That is almost 1/2 the power h2opower is using with all
the fancy circuit, 1/30th or so the tubes hooked up and the gas production is
more.

H2opower's cell looks pretty though.

Anyway, even if you get hundreds % of Faraday, that is NOT enough to
run a car, period - it is profoundly naive to believe you'll make enough
HHO to power a car from a cell setup with these types of circuits.

Now, I believe it IS possible to have massive hho production, but it isn't
happening in any of these circuits - that isn't even debatable. If you want
to debate it, show it - you CAN'T - because you and h2opower lack
the understanding of massive hho production to run a car and the only
understanding demonstrated is how to make small volume hho. This is a
FACT evidenced by everything presented by you both and recorded in
his videos.

Therefore, if that small volume of hho production is considered to be
Meyer's technology "working" ("does work" in h2opower's own words
documented in that video), then that means Meyer's
technology is based on small volume hho production according to
h2opower - but you and h2opower simply don't understand what to do with
that small volume of hho production. Only a small amount has ever been
needed anyway - that will continue to be a thorn in your mind.

I was looking for an ionization key for a long time and a few posts in
Tutanka's messages in h2opower's Meyer thread stuck out like a sore
thumb. You can see my early posts in this thread were an attempt to
flush out this key. Then I got it and it was common sense and I was simply
able to let go of all my pre-conceived belief's about how I thought Meyer's
method works - really - it is common sense. I have no problem letting go
of anything that I am or was attached to if something else comes along
that simply makes more sense in every self evident way - I don't know
why you guys have such a hard time letting go of erroneous beliefs.

And the way to realize the truth (real-eyes) is to see them as they
are. The only way to see something as it is - is to see something without
judgment. When two eyes become one, there is illumination in the mind.
That means to see without judgment or preconceived ideas. Any other
way of seeing something is flawed from the get-go and is a deception.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas
in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Not even permitting the understanding of opposing ideas is your and
h2opower's challenge - it is not from a lack of information in this thread,
period, so please don't even pretend that it is.

[Aaron]

Nitrogen

if you mix the three gases you are going to have NITROGEN in the equation