Ammonia Production-Haber Process

[tutanka]

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

Mike

Figure 1 is just diagram of injection system but I can assure you that work! Of course.. inside that is missing one important component and without that meyer injection system can't work (it is not what you are thinking). However for your reference I attach here position of missing component on diagram of meyer injection. Regards

[tutanka]

Figure 3 looks like it's working to me: YouTube - Stan Meyers water powered Buggy as this is the gaseous fuel injection system.

So please copy and past or use a photo of figure 3 of your own of the same drawing and place an arrow where the NH3 is being made on demand.

The one way you two have out of all of this is to denounce your claims of finding the key to Stanley Meyer's water for fuel technology and that your process is yet something totally new to science having nothing in common with the works of Stanley Meyer other than water being also used by your method.

This shows no chemical breakdown, or a balanced equation, and gives away no trade secrets all you are doing is placing an arrow where the NH3 is being made on demand nothing more.

Tim

SORRY BUT I KNOW PERFECTLY HOW MEYER SYSTEMS WORKS.
IF YOU READ BETTER ON FIG.1 ON INJECTOR STAGE IS SPECIFIED ONLY HYDROGEN/OXYGEN FROM WFC NOT OTHER .. (SEE IMAGE ATTACHED) AND WITH ONLY THESE YOUR ENGIN CAN'T RUN

[chasson321]

last edit...

[sucahyo]

The nitrogen is the least reactive element here and due to it's triple bond is quite stable.

Re: Energy required to disassociate the water molecule: photon and/or temp

"In other words, the breaking up of water into its constituent atoms is a two step process. The first step involves pulling off the first proton to
leave a "hydroxyl radical" (represented as OH). This requires a
wavelength of 243 nm. Translating that into temperature is a little
harder as it requires that we define temperature and that means that we
need to consider the vibrational modes of the molecule. That is more
difficult than space would allow, so simply put, it is 243 nm or 117.59
kcal/mol.

The second stage of turning H2O into 2H + O is the breaking up of the
hydroxyl radical which occurs at a slightly different energy and
wavelength (281 nm; 101.76 kcal/mol"

In sum, energy needed to dissociate water is 117.59 + 101.76 = 219.35 kcal/mol. Which is just little less than the energy needed to dissociate the nitrogen molecule:

Bond dissociation energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nitrogen Bond Dissociation Energy = 226 kcal/mole

Nitrogen is just as inert as water vapour.

In air it's actually classed as non-flammable!

Ammonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

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

It is better to point with word since it is Meyer who talk, which should have bigger authority than h2opower post. And I hope you are not forgotting that h2opower version of non-combustible gases is oxygen, while in nitrogen theory non-combustible gases is nitrogen. From meyer technical brief, water fuel injection section:

Injected non-combustible gases (45a xxx 45n) retards and controls the combustion rate of the Hydrogen Fracturing Process (100) of Figure (4-8) during gas-ignition.

In essence, then, the Water Fuel Injector system (40) simply processes and converts water into a useful hydrogen fuel on demand at the point of gas ignition ... thereby, co-equally or superseding fossil-fuel safety standards ... especially when ionized ambient air gases (400 xxx 46n) and non-combustible gases (45a xxx 45n) are intermixed with water supply (47) prior to entering Water Fuel Injector Plug (20/30), as illustrated in (40) of Figure (4-2) as to (10) of Figure (4-1).

Meyer already mention the place, from patent the same that image taken, fuel gas 10:

FIG. 3 illustrates an appropriate mechanical configuration adapted to the overall system shown in FIG. 2. An intake manifold (not shown) directs ambient air 101 to air filter assembly 31 operatively interconnected to an inlet valve 32 which is regulated by the management module and controls the flow
of air into air processor 33 which produces a source of ionized non-combustible gases 102, that in turn may be mixed with non-combustible cylinder/engine exhaust gases 103 introduced at exhaust gate 15.

These gases are mixed in the intake manifold 35 with gas from the fuel cell 7, introduced at injector port 19 whereupon the modulated combustion mixture having the hydrogen fuel component in the correct proportion with oxygen is delivered to the cylinder at a burn rate equivalent to that of a fossil or hydrocarbon fuel. An oil inlet port 110 for lubrication is optional. Thus, in the air processor ambient air 101 is ionized and the ionized gas 102, and other modulating gas such as the exhaust gas 103 is mixed until the fuel gas 10 for introduction to the cylinder at the modulated bum rate. Lubricating oil mist is shown at 111

h2opower description is wrong for fuel gas 10. It should be "fuel gas with modulated burn rate" or "fuel gas with a burn rate equivalent to that of a fossil or hydrocarbon fuel", which is obviously not hydrogen.

It is obvious that Meyer gives hint of a reaction to produce new kind of fuel gas co-equalling gasoline.

[Farrah Day]

Sucahyo, you left out this bit from wikipedia::

NITROGEN: one of the strongest bonds
production of ammonia consumes significant energy

Whereas energy required to produce H2 and O2 results in stable molecules that require no further energy to maintain, dissociating N2 into atomic nitrogen does not. It takes continual energy to prevent the atomic nitrogen from simply rebonding into a stable molecule.

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

Exactly. So to get ammonia to combust, you have to somehow reduce the air content by 75 -85%, in order to increase the ratio of ammonia - or add pure oxygen to the mix. Yet another complication not considered.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of using ammonia as a fuel. But the crux of the whole matter is the concept of on-demand ammonia. Why make it at all when you only want it for the hydrogen content??

However you get there, is all you are going to do is ultimately combust the ammonia, by simply making use of it's hydrogen content. A very long-winded and energy sapping way of getting the hydrogen that you had in the very first place from electrolysis!

Why people are struggling to see this problem is a mystery to me.

I have mentioned the implosion myth, but no one seems to care about this. It is a common misconception that appears still to be thriving here.

Irrelevant of what some people think, (and don't take my word for it - wiki it) there is a massive thermal energy release when you ignite H2 in O2. An explosion. The following implosion when the resulting water vapour turns to liquid state does not occur in a combustion chamber of an ICE. Water remains in gaseous state due to the residual heat. Only on the very first few cycles in a cold engine might you get some water vapour condensing on the initially cold cylinder walls.

There is no problem with running and ICE on hydrogen, and there is little to suggest that it damages the engine due to hydrogen embrittlement, because hydrogen embrittlement is mainly an issue with atomic hydrogen. There is also not an issue with it going past the piston rings and damaging the engine. If there were, the old WW2 engines, with there far less precise engine tolerances would have blown up.

The greatest problem may well be the fact that hydrogen is a dry fuel as opposed to petrol, so has no natural lubricating action.

This however is also a factor with LPG (liquid petroleum gas), which we use in our vehicles. The engine stays very clean on hydrogen or LPG, the spark plugs do not get dirty and the engine oil remains clean far longer. But in some cases it can be beneficial to drip feed an additive into the air intake to help lubricate the cylinders.

Farrah

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

But the crux of the whole matter is the concept of on-demand ammonia. Why make it at all when you only want it for the hydrogen content??

Why people are struggling to see this problem is a mystery to me.

I have mentioned the implosion myth, but no one seems to care about this. It is a common misconception that appears still to be thriving here.

Irrelevant of what some people think, (and don't take my word for it - wiki it) there is a massive thermal energy release when you ignite H2 in O2. An explosion. The following implosion when the resulting water vapour turns to liquid state does not occur in a combustion chamber of an ICE. Water remains in gaseous state due to the residual heat. Only on the very first few cycles in a cold engine might you get some water vapour condensing on the initially cold cylinder walls.

There is no problem with running and ICE on hydrogen, and there is little to suggest that it damages the engine due to hydrogen embrittlement, because hydrogen embrittlement is mainly an issue with atomic hydrogen. There is also not an issue with it going past the piston rings and damaging the engine. If there were, the old WW2 engines, with there far less precise engine tolerances would have blown up.

The greatest problem may well be the fact that hydrogen is a dry fuel as opposed to petrol, so has no natural lubricating action.

This however is also a factor with LPG (liquid petroleum gas), which we use in our vehicles. The engine stays very clean on hydrogen or LPG, the spark plugs do not get dirty and the engine oil remains clean far longer. But in some cases it can be beneficial to drip feed an additive into the air intake to help lubricate the cylinders.

Farrah

I mentioned multiple reasons for not just using plain hydrogen and you
refused to comment on any of them. Claiming it is all unscientific is a
cop out. You should be able to see the reasoning if you're honestly
trying to.

You and a few others are struggling with it because you refuse to
acknowledge the points mentioned in the other thread that I am referencing
here in the first paragraph.

I discussed that hho explodes first before it implodes several times and
most of the times were before you ever posted in this forum. The implosion
is not a myth. The implosion being the only thing that HHO does is a myth.
It explodes, releasing very little energy and then it forms water and
shrinks in volume.

How many hands on tests have you done exploding
HHO after you created it in a commonly ducted cell? Zero? One? or more?

You say electrolysis is your gig but that usually means separating the h
and o at each electrode for real separation. Keeping them together is
a different topic - they are NOT the same and don't give the same
result. This is an indisputable fact.

Igniting H2 and O2 if you're bringing them together separately acts different
than igniting HHO (commonly ducted gases that are never separated out
of the cell and brought back together later.) It sounds like you are
lacking hands on experience with igniting commonly ducted gases from a
water cell as opposed to separating the gases out of a cell and then
bringing them back together in various ratios.

And wikipedia is one of the poorest scientific (or any other) references
the world has ever seen but that is another topic. I sometimes reference
wiki but that is for simple convenience but usually, you need real
references and wiki is NOT a real reference by any stretch of the
imagination.

The implosion doesn't occur in a combustion chamber? Do you have any
idea how fast it "burns" and recombines? HHO is a
burnable water molecule. It is NOT the same as H2 and O2 brought
together. If you think it is, you need to do some experiments.

Besides the embrittlement issue, which to me is a lesser concern, there is
the fact that you simply do NOT want a bunch of water forming from the
combustion. How much experience do you have working on engines,
rebuilding them, racing them, tuning them, etc...? Just curious. I've been
doing it for barely over 20 years for my own personal satisfaction and your
descriptions of everything doesn't indicate to me that you have
the same experience.

There is something used in the ww2 engines that you don't know about.
It was an enhancement to the oil lubrication process and was classified
for many years and was developed originally by and for the oil/gas
refinery industry. And are you saying the ww2 engines were running on
atomic hydrogen?

You're right about one thing, the lubrication necessity from a dry fuel.

"This however is also a factor with LPG (liquid petroleum gas), which we use in our vehicles. The engine stays very clean on hydrogen or LPG, the spark plugs do not get dirty and the engine oil remains clean far longer. But in some cases it can be beneficial to drip feed an additive into the air intake to help lubricate the cylinders. "

Well, my cars run on gasoline, the engine stays very clean, the spark
plugs do NOT get dirty and the engine oil remains clean far longer.
As a matter of FACT, my oil can stay good for 1 year or 10,000 miles
without a change on an engine running on gasoline.

I don't have carbon buildup in my engines, not on my plugs, my oil stays clean
for a very long time. There are possibly many things you have not
considered.

Meyer showed in some concept diagrams adding oil for lubrication in the
manner you suggest. But if you use the right lubrication or enhancement,
you don't need to do what you suggest with any dry fuel and the only
thing better may be getting into ceramics, etc... The high end experiments
with ceramics shows that you can run engine with ZERO oil at all because
it isn't necessary. But of course we won't see these in production and
they would cost as much as a house.

[sucahyo]

Sucahyo, you left out this bit from wikipedia::

NITROGEN: one of the strongest bonds
production of ammonia consumes significant energy

Already answered if you scroll a little bit.

NITROGEN: one of the strongest bonds (226 kcal/mol), not too far from water vapour (219 kcal/mol). If you can dissociate water vapour, you can also dissociate nitrogen.
production of ammonia consumes significant energy, and yet Honda motor claim to made it at exhaust

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of using ammonia as a fuel. But the crux of the whole matter is the concept of on-demand ammonia. Why make it at all when you only want it for the hydrogen content??

Hydrogen is not the right fuel for ICE.

Have you familiar with GEET system? With water as part of its input the GEET output is not hydrogen. It replace up to 80% of fuel with water, 20% with used oil.

Have you ever visit waterfuelforall? There is a thread where a truck have more hydrogen in its exhaust with hydroxy added. Hydrogen is wasted and not burning, waste of energy.
high H2 exhaust emissions

However you get there, is all you are going to do is ultimately combust the ammonia, by simply making use of it's hydrogen content. A very long-winded and energy sapping way of getting the hydrogen that you had in the very first place from electrolysis!

Changing engine ignition timing is a very costly process. If the hydrogen can be made to burn as the same rate as gasoline, it would be a great saving to sacrifice 100watt energy to convert hydrogen to NH3.

Currently my 5mm spark maker require 6watt (400mA@12V) and already produce ozone. multiplying it by 15 should allow a lot of ozone and NOx.

The following implosion when the resulting water vapour turns to liquid state does not occur in a combustion chamber of an ICE. Water remains in gaseous state due to the residual heat. Only on the very first few cycles in a cold engine might you get some water vapour condensing on the initially cold cylinder walls.

Is that on demand hydrogen engine or ready made liquid hydrogen? Can we find reference of on demand hydrogen on wiki or university lab website?

I already post some article mentioning the bad thing of hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel is dangerous. Meyer claim it safe because he convert it something else. Seeing a box on top of exhaust manifold make me suspect that even Daniel Dingel do not use 100% hydrogen too.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

box thing

@Suchayo

You have a good eye for detail, I wonder if we could expand on the box on exhaust pipe thing, nothing on a plate, investigate

Mike

[chasson321]

last edit...

[sucahyo]

@Suchayo

You have a good eye for detail, I wonder if we could expand on the box on exhaust pipe thing, nothing on a plate, investigate

Mike

It already mentioned in waterfuelforall forum, I just copy it here. fes33 said he will visit daniel dingel and see if there are some kind of ionizer in his car.

[chasson321]

last edit...

[sucahyo]

Still waiting on an answer tutanka, as these are not trade secrets, just want to know what wavelengths of light are you using?

Tim

Why would tutanka mention wavelength if he don't use LED or Laser?

Water engine can work without LED.

[chasson321]

last edit...

[sucahyo]

I am talking to Tutanka, not you! You have no idea what I am talking about or why I even ask, but you act as if you can speak for Tutanka. His drawing of the LEDs can be seen here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post82209. So stop trying to speak for him he has his own mind and yours is of no concern to me or anyone else for that matter.

Tim

Note that h2opower use the idea, using atom orbit to explain Meyer adding energy to the atoms, from me. He previously never use it and explain electron stripping as the only way to add energy like seen in his first post in his Meyer theory.

We all learn from each other, we have to be open minded too.

I answer because I think tutanka will unlikely respond your post.


About LED. To be honest, I find that using a low power LED to strip electron is a stupid idea, it is no where near LASER. LED is not LASER. LED would perform much much worse than LASER. Even h2opower post lab experiment where LASER only able to change electron orbit and may need high power to strip the electron.

Speaking as if LED can replace LASER is misleading. Explaining how the LED work by referring to LASER lab experiment is misleading. Thinking that LED can replace LASER is stupid. Laser has grade, and when referring LASER experiment it is important to know what energy level / energy input is being mentioned. Treating high powered LASER lab experiment as similar with toy LASER is stupid. Treating it as similar to LED is also stupid. Never see a warning no to look straightly to the LED.


Thinking that oxygen will not change its resonance frequency on varying pressure and temperature is stupid. They measure oxygen resonance on very stable consition which may not apply in rapidly changing environment. Without a way to measure gas processor output, no one will know the uselessness of LED on any wavelength.