Ammonia Production-Haber Process

[Aaron]

@sucahyo

Of course that trying to reach 100% NH3 output require 100% hydrogen, but Aaron reference show that NH3 can be produced on 24V at room temperature.

They won't answer that. Tim claims in the ionization thread that he started
this thread to discuss my 100 year old references. Tim is a disinformation agent
and knows full well that this has nothing to do with the old references I
posted.

[Aaron]

nh3 on demand - low pressure low temp

Here are a handful of references Tim and Farrah Day are scared of - 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.

[Farrah Day]

Jesus, you're like a stuck record Aaron.

What am I scared of...? Why do you keep saying these ridiculous things?

Is all you do is keep on harping back to 100 year old science that is not particularly relevant in the context of what you're suggesting.

Can't you actually apply some common sense and actually think for yourself?

You claim that I lack understanding and courage... while not putting forward any real science to support your own claims?? You unfairly use your power here to patronise and belittle myself and others who pose legitimate concerns and questions.

It is your theory not mine - you're the one that has yet to explain it with any logical sequence of events. You play the classic card of, 'I'm-not-going- to-spell-it-out-for-you... you-have-to-figure-it-out-for-yourself', that everyone who is well out of their depth always plays, when unable to answer questions that are posed.

I'll tell you something that any chemist will tell you tho'.

That is: However you intend to do it, you cannot create any amount of ammonia in the prescence of air (or oxygen). The nitrogen is the least reactive element here and due to it's triple bond is quite stable. Preference for H2 to react with O2 (or the O2 in air) will be overwhelming. The nitrogen won't even get a look in, so I suggest you rethink your theory. Oh... sorry, I forgot you've never actually thought it through in the first place have you?

And besides, as difficult as it seems to be for you to grasp, the combustion of ammonia will result in no net gain in energy. In air it's actually classed as non-flammable!

I'll spell it out for you in those little plastic kiddie bricks and email you a photo if that would help.

How different things around here might be if we were all able to express our opinions without having our intelligences insulted... and you did not have the power to delete posts at a whim.

It's a shame your power on this forum is not matched by your intelligence.

Kind regards, Farrah.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hmmmmmmmmm

Jesus, you're like a stuck record Aaron.

What am I scared of...? Why do you keep saying these ridiculous things?

Is all you do is keep on harping back to 100 year old science that is not particularly relevant in the context of what you're suggesting.

Can't you actually apply some common sense and actually think for yourself?

You claim that I lack understanding and courage... while not putting forward any real science to support your own claims?? You unfairly use your power here to patronise and belittle myself and others who pose legitimate concerns and questions.

It is your theory not mine - you're the one that has yet to explain it with any logical sequence of events. You play the classic card of, 'I'm-not-going- to-spell-it-out-for-you... you-have-to-figure-it-out-for-yourself', that everyone who is well out of their depth always plays, when unable to answer questions that are posed.

I'll tell you something that any chemist will tell you tho'.

That is: However you intend to do it, you cannot create any amount of ammonia in the prescence of air (or oxygen). The nitrogen is the least reactive element here and due to it's triple bond is quite stable. Preference for H2 to react with O2 (or the O2 in air) will be overwhelming. The nitrogen won't even get a look in, so I suggest you rethink your theory. Oh... sorry, I forgot you've never actually thought it through in the first place have you?

And besides, as difficult as it seems to be for you to grasp, the combustion of ammonia will result in no net gain in energy. In air it's actually classed as non-flammable!

I'll spell it out for you in those little plastic kiddie bricks and email you a photo if that would help.

How different things around here might be if we were all able to express our opinions without having our intelligences insulted... and you did not have the power to delete posts at a whim.

It's a shame your power on this forum is not matched by your intelligence.

Kind regards, Farrah.

Hi Farrah,

I'm sure it is not your real name! but it does not really matter, I use my real name and anybody can do a search on me, it does not worry me. Can you tell me what your qualifications are? just for interest, that is if you have any?
Your english is good, better than mine after more than 20years living and working in Spain. You are definately living in the GMT area, so I think you are British! or you do not sleep at night!

I wonder how old you are, sorry should never ask that of a woman
well I am 59years old, still very active, athletic and do most calculations in my head, not with a calculator. Married three times, have 5 children, the eldest 39 and the youngest 15years. I was a millionair at one time, not now, but happy with my life if left alone to enjoy it. I am Bsc in engineering and a lot of other qualifications which I will not go into.

Now what do I do now, well to earn a living I design heating and air conditioning systems from small to very very large, eg. last project was the Empire State Building Reformation, still on going, and just to give you an idea of experience that I have, I also work in the scientific analysis of renewable energy and design.

Now what am I doing here, well that goes back more than 20years when I was paid off, yes paid off, not to introduce in the general knowledge of the world what I know and demonstrated at that time. Now that agreement has lapsed, BUT, they got it wrong on the time scale, 20years was too short, so I am monitored just about every day, especially when I post things that are a bit "close to the bone".

Soooooooo what do I do now? well I help others to get to the point and better,due to new tech: and my improvements because of that tech:, where I was more than 20 years ago. Now I am not going to give it on a plate, why should I?, I have been through a lot over 25% of my life, which is apart from the lead up years to that discovery.

Now believe it or not, I AM STILL LEARNING, I think I have discovered something new in the world of science and molecular structure of which I would like to make a new thread for this, problem is I do not know if I will have the time to dedicate to all that I have to do, my brain is racing, and that can lead to mistakes and I do not like making mistakes, but they happen

Now Aaron is like a sponge, he absorbs a lot of information, a bit like I used to be when I was his age, but the thing I like about him is that he investigates and weighs up all the pros and cons, so you would be well advised to listen to him and be constructive not distructive in your comments.
By the way that goes with me as well

Now IF you are not involved in the world of science, I advise that you read the things that are posted and ask questions in a civil maner. Now IF you are a scientist please show your cards, I will talk to you on a one to one whenever you want, just PM me and I will give you my skype address.

Here on this Forum there are some very highly qualified people, they may only add up to 2% or a little more in the electronic and general scientific field, but also there are the real workers whom are experts in metal and plastic manipulation, and not to foreget the real core of all this, the people who replicate and are dedicated to new inventions outside and inside this Forum to possibly better the human race and to push these inovations down the throats of those whom do not want them for commercial reasons, that is it would destroy an existing commerce such as oil and gas production and all the taxes involved with them.

Well I could go on and on, it is a pet subject of mine, but this is going OFF topic and I am sorry for that

Now on topic, the atoms of the gases are extended, what is that? well that is my pet subject and theory. Just think of a balloon which is half inflated, that is an atom, now what if you could inflate that to twice it's size? NO this is not breaking an atom as in fusion, just extending it by creating a vacuum around it. Don't ask me more on this, as I said above, it would need a new thread.

Mike

[chasson321]

last edit...

[Farrah Day]

Hi Mike

I know I'm not the easiest of people to get along with, diplomacy has never been one of my strengths (and I'm half expecting Aaron to ban me), but I have no ulterior motives or secret agendas, I simply enjoy science. Science being the operative word.

I've tried to remain civil, but it's difficult with someone constantly clawing at your back.

My gripe is that it's all very well folk suggesting that, this and that might happen... and then we might get this... and the other, but it just doesn't cut it. It is not science, it is not scientific and ultimately this kind of wild speculation, unless backed up with something more than hot air, is quite meaningless.

Mike, you also clearly seem educated, so you must see where I'm coming from with some of my issues - though you no doubt have much better social skills than myself... and better survival instincts. This aside, you must also see some of the problems in these speculations that I see.

I, myself would never dream of wildly speculating on something unless I had at least an idea of the reactions occurring and a logical sequence of events for these reactions. I'm called disruptive, and made to look like the fool for simply asking for clarification... it's simply not on.

Although I'm now finding Aaron to be quite offensive by constantly insulting my intelligence, I can't see that I have posted anything to deserve this. I merely questioned the theories... what is wrong with that?

You may have noticed that I tend to get frustrated quite easily, and that I do not respond well to being taken for a fool. I have a decent education and can hold my own with most people on a scientific basis. But I'm not so good at tolerating ignorance or coping with the 10-year-old playschool mentality that sometimes thrives on these forums.

Yes, I lost my rag with Aaron in my previous post, but his constant condescending attitude simply got the better of me. However, I daresay, if he was not the moderator, a few more people might be a little more vocal.

Education and knowledge is not everything, a little common sense and intelligence goes a long way, but there are clearly charlatans abroad.
I've met very clever scientists that are so unnarrow-minded that, take them out of their comfort zone, and they are next to illiterate - completely useless and often quite incompetent. One scientist did not even know how to change the fuse in a 13 amp plug! Another had no concept of the workings of a car engine, putting water in the oil filler when his vehicle overheated!

I like to think I'm far more worldly-wise. While not being particularly highly educated in any given field, I'm relatively well educated over a broad spectrum, hence I'm not often completely out of my depth. And, I'm nobody's fool.

If I were Aaron, I'd start at the beginning, working from the electrolyser stage, through the logical sequence of events until I got the the end. I would break down each part into sections whereby I worked out what reactions were taking place and how, before moving on to the next stage. I would provide balanced equations for all the reactions (whether real or speculative), with relevant explanations provided for each stage, before moving on to the next.

I surely would not simply say that we add H2 and O2 to air, do a bit of ionising and... voila! We have ammonia. This is not science as I'm sure you well appreciate.

My pet subject - as you're probably aware - is electrolysis. And incidentally, I guess we're both a lot older than Aaron then.

We're all still learning Mike. But if you're not very careful on these forums, learning can take a step or two backwards due to the great amount of misinformation posted - or indeed if you are gulible enough to believe everything you read. I say again, a little intelligence and a good dose of common sense can go a long way.

As regards the highly qualified people on the forum, I just wish one or two of them would provide some unbiased input from time to time.

Nice talking to you Mike... it's good to talk isn't it?

Farrah

[Aaron]

common sense

Jesus, you're like a stuck record Aaron.

What am I scared of...? Why do you keep saying these ridiculous things?

Is all you do is keep on harping back to 100 year old science that is not particularly relevant in the context of what you're suggesting.

Can't you actually apply some common sense and actually think for yourself?

You claim that I lack understanding and courage... while not putting forward any real science to support your own claims?? You unfairly use your power here to patronise and belittle myself and others who pose legitimate concerns and questions.

It is your theory not mine - you're the one that has yet to explain it with any logical sequence of events. You play the classic card of, 'I'm-not-going- to-spell-it-out-for-you... you-have-to-figure-it-out-for-yourself', that everyone who is well out of their depth always plays, when unable to answer questions that are posed.

I'll tell you something that any chemist will tell you tho'.

That is: However you intend to do it, you cannot create any amount of ammonia in the presence of air (or oxygen). The nitrogen is the least reactive element here and due to it's triple bond is quite stable. Preference for H2 to react with O2 (or the O2 in air) will be overwhelming. The nitrogen won't even get a look in, so I suggest you rethink your theory. Oh... sorry, I forgot you've never actually thought it through in the first place have you?

And besides, as difficult as it seems to be for you to grasp, the combustion of ammonia will result in no net gain in energy. In air it's actually classed as non-flammable!

I'll spell it out for you in those little plastic kiddie bricks and email you a photo if that would help.

How different things around here might be if we were all able to express our opinions without having our intelligences insulted... and you did not have the power to delete posts at a whim.

It's a shame your power on this forum is not matched by your intelligence.

Kind regards, Farrah.

Stuck record - I would call it CONSISTENT.

Thinking for myself? All I see you do is regurgitate ultra conventional
perspective on all of this - and you thought that all up yourself or
just memorized what the books tell you?

Unfairly use power? This is how you wish you could deceive people but
the truth is, it is the Ionization thread that I started that I had an issue
with you and a few others simply not answering valid questions, which
you did refuse to answer. In the electrolysis thread, I asked you one
question, you answered and I left you alone. That appears to me,
as the reality of the situation shows, that you're free to give your
opinion in this forum when it disagrees with mine. So, please, don't
pull the "abuse of power" line because it simply isn't true. Don't talk about
belittling, your sarcasm soaked comments are simply not appreciated in
the ionization thread and if you can't see that you simply have not even
been respectful in asking anything then you're not going to get much
cooperation.

If anything, YOU and a few others are belittling us for our perspective
simply because you don't understand or believe it. It's like, "Well,
what are you guys talking about? Nh3 on demand? What's the point?
What a waste of energy! etc..." That in fact is exactly how you
introduced your presence and questions in that thread but you spin is
as if I'm the one attacking you. lol

In this thread, all I did was post other
references to NH3 production since some people want to pretend that
the full blown Haber Bosch process is the only way in the world to create
NH3. Those references COMPLETELY VALIDATE various ways that NH3 is
created essentially out of thin air, water and electricity as a fact and
under circumstances MUCH MORE relaxed than the industrial haber bosch
process.

And what I'm mentioning is relevant. If the nitrogen is already ionized,
especially simply lacking multiple electrons so that is is super positively
charged, do you still think the haber boche temperatures and pressures
are needed?



Seems Shamus is honest enough to tackle a real question head on and had
no problem with a "figure it out for yourself card" - what he mentioned
is a very simply but profound piece of scientific fact about nitrogen
stripped of 3 electrons which has evaded 100% of all "skeptics" including
you. Sucahyo, Mike (vrand), etc... also seem to have enough integrity to take it
on head first without complaining. If you want to talk about common sense,
you have to demonstrate it yourself. Nitrogen is part of air, air gets
ionized and nitrogen can get split in the process. That nitrogen will be
seeking electrons from somewhere and my goodness, if the electron
happens to be attached to a hydrogen atom, then what in the world
could happen?

Due to its triple bond Nitrogen is quite stable? This is a deception!
That is MOLECULAR nitrogen that is quite stable and non-reactive. That
has NOTHING to do with ionized nitrogen, which is EXTREMELY REACTIVE.
So if you're trying to deceive people into believing that I'm talking about
a MOLECULE of N2 reacting with hydrogen, then you absolutely have not
comprehended anything still! You have got to be joking if this is your
argument. There is no way you could have got that from anything I
posted, which leads me to believe you have a different agenda here and
it has nothing to do with figuring out what we're talking about. Shame
on you!

So, sorry, it is you that has yet to think any of this through in any manner
whatsoever.

Ammonia is combustible in the combustion chamber because the
required parameters are met.

Please don't talk about intelligence, if your comprehension of everything
I posted leads you to argue that molecular nitrogen is non-reactive
with hydrogen, then you reveal what your own level is - as not one single
person in the thread that believes in the nh3 on demand process has
EVER discussed molecular nitrogen bonding with hydrogen but only ionized
nitrogen.

[tutanka]

Now my questions are simple show me where the NH3 is going to be created in either of these two systems




Forgive the words on the last one I just copy and pasted these two different systems Meyer used from another forum.

But my question is show me where NH3 is going to be made with an arrow in these two system used by Stanley Meyer. The top one is a direct injection system just like a diesel engine and the bottom one is like an LPG system with injectors. There is no oxygen separation like shown in every process in Aaron post. The LPG type one is under a vacuum and the direct injection system I don't know if it is being injected at TDC or BDC. This is a very fast process that keeps up with the engines needs on demand. So where is the NH3 going to be made on demand for combustion inside of the combustion chamber or in the intake system just prior to being injected into the combustion chamber? Just show us all with an arrow.

The reason why I ask this is the nitrogen theory is claimed to be how Stanley Meyer really ran his car on water or as they put it, it is the key to it all.

Tim

Figure 1 -- WORKING SYSTEM
Figure 3 -- NOT WORKING SYSTEM (FAKE)

[Aaron]

molecular nitrogen??? lol

Although I'm now finding Aaron to be quite offensive by constantly insulting my intelligence, I can't see that I have posted anything to deserve this. I merely questioned the theories... what is wrong with that?

However, I daresay, if he was not the moderator, a few more people might be a little more vocal.

Education and knowledge is not everything, a little common sense and intelligence goes a long way, but there are clearly charlatans abroad.
I've met very clever scientists that are so unnarrow-minded that, take them out of their comfort zone, and they are next to illiterate - completely useless and often quite incompetent. One scientist did not even know how to change the fuse in a 13 amp plug! Another had no concept of the workings of a car engine, putting water in the oil filler when his vehicle overheated!

I like to think I'm far more worldly-wise. While not being particularly highly educated in any given field, I'm relatively well educated over a broad spectrum, hence I'm not often completely out of my depth. And, I'm nobody's fool.

If I were Aaron, I'd start at the beginning, working from the electrolyser stage, through the logical sequence of events until I got the the end. I would break down each part into sections whereby I worked out what reactions were taking place and how, before moving on to the next stage. I would provide balanced equations for all the reactions (whether real or speculative), with relevant explanations provided for each stage, before moving on to the next.

I surely would not simply say that we add H2 and O2 to air, do a bit of ionising and... voila! We have ammonia. This is not science as I'm sure you well appreciate.

My pet subject - as you're probably aware - is electrolysis. And incidentally, I guess we're both a lot older than Aaron then.

We're all still learning Mike. But if you're not very careful on these forums, learning can take a step or two backwards due to the great amount of misinformation posted - or indeed if you are gulible enough to believe everything you read. I say again, a little intelligence and a good dose of common sense can go a long way.

As regards the highly qualified people on the forum, I just wish one or two of them would provide some unbiased input from time to time.

Nice talking to you Mike... it's good to talk isn't it?

Farrah

Arguing that molecular nitrogen is non-reactive after everything posted
is a serious insult to the intelligence of everyone in an IONIZATION thread
along with all the posts describing ionization.

There are others that actually are more vocal - they private message me
asking me to stop wasting my time with "those fools." That is their words
not mine. The quickest way to end your conversation there is to ignore
it. However, when your posts are filled with misdirection and deceit as
is your post here about how non-reactive molecular hydrogen is, then I
will call you on it straight up.

Again, you pull this deception in this thread
so that anyone gullible and naive enough to believe you may think, "Aaron
expects molecular nitrogen to bond to hydrogen? That's crazy." If that is
your goal, few will be fooled and if that is not your intent, then you
really, really have comprehended 0% of anything posted in that thread.
That proves my point, you have not read it, comprehended it and you
refuse to answer questions that I ask that if you were willing to answer,
it would spell out the process automatically.

[Farrah Day]

You should have been a magician with your creative slight of hand.

Spiritual leader.. more like Master of Illusion?

Really looking forward to the 'proof of concept model'.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Figure 1 -- WORKING SYSTEM
Figure 3 -- NOT WORKING SYSTEM (FAKE)

Agree Alex, albiet missing something, well only a simple diagram. Fig:1 as close as posible to a working diagram

Mike

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

Farrah Day,

Making these insults and remarks is a sign that you
simply are not qualified to argue any of this and
have no valid argument at all.

You can put your spin on it but can you discuss why
you are trying to spell out how molecular nitrogen is
non-reactive with hydrogen when that has absolutely
nothing to do with with anything that was discussed?

You will probably refuse to answer that since it will
simply show that you really haven't comprehended
anything I posted and wonder why myself and/or
others may be frustrated with your posts in that
thread.

Please stop your manipulation and insults.

[Aaron]

block diagrams are not schematics or blueprints

Now my questions are simple show me where the NH3 is going to be created in either of these two systems

You shouldn't confuse simple "block diagrams" as actual schematics for
a system. Virtually every Meyer diagram in the tech manual for example
are simple conceptual drawings that do NOT indicate the actual system.
The block diagrams for the bifilar windings are incorrect in because if
you wire them like that, you get an opposing magnetic field at the cell,
etc... Those are not diagrams to build your system on but to only share
the concepts. If you guys are taking those diagrams literally, then that is
a major part of the problem.

And if you go back to the Ionization thread, I quoted Meyer in very large
print in response to H2oPower where Meyer spells out the nitrogen
necessity.

[chasson321]

last edit...

[admin]

Energetic Forum Guidelines ~ Read Before Posting

Energetic Forum Guidelines ~ Read Before Posting
Energetic Forum is a place for the sharing of positive uplifting ideas, technologies, modalities and discussion.

We believe that all humankind is connected at a fundamental level...

We believe that each of us is responsible to conduct ourselves, individually, and in relation to all humankind, in a manner that reflects only light.

Questionable posts that threaten to disrupt the purpose, flow and good nature of this forum will not be tolerated.

It is important to follow these simple rules so as not to jeopardize your account.


READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING (public posts AND/OR Private Messages)

1. DO NOT post messages that could be considered offensive, inflammatory or that are aimed at starting problems with other members.

2. DO NOT post messages that might infringe upon the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, rights of publicity, or other proprietary rights of others.

3. Do not SPAM this forum with Messages or unsolicited advertisements for products or services.

4. Do not create multiple accounts. Each member should only have 1 account for themselves that they post from. Multiple accounts from one IP must be cleared with the Administrators.

The Administrators of this forum reserve the right to remove any messages or users from this forum for any conduct that they deem to be outside, or against, the positive nature of this forum.

The Energetic Forum Community is a powerful force for discovery, self-help, and change. Every Member is equally important and valuable.

We understand that anyone may make mistakes, respond in a negative emotional manner, lose their temper, etc., however if someone repeatedly acts in a manner that is non-productive, unfortunately, we will need to take action.

Please take a moment to view our Terms of Use and Disclaimer: http://www.energeticforum.com/legal.html
__________________
Energetic Forum Administrator
http://www.energeticforum.com