qiman

If you think you see 480 liters per minute of HHO being produced by Stans wfc, show it It
is irrelevant and unnecessary. Stan talked about THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY and that has nothing to
do with a lot of HHO and is apparent nobody here knows what thermal explosive energy means
or what it is in reference to! Those gas production claims are bogus as is most of his explanations
on what his process is.

What is wrong with everyone that they think Stan Meyer even told the truth about
his whole process? You go with those explanations and you get the corresponding results, which is
nothing like what he described.

Again, results speak for themselves and there are already people (that is plural)with results and
ALL of them are using small amounts of HHO  as a matter of FACT - learn your chemistry people,
I gave you references of what to search for.

I am not wrong in what I have said and in time you will see that you are only interested in
maintaining what you already think you know instead of learning something that actually works.

You all have the answers so you don't need anything from anyone else. Your results (lack of)
speak for themselves. Good luck on your big hho production!

I can see why you guys haven't succeeded.

I see no point in producing amonia on-board except for the fact that H takes up a lot of room in the combustion chamber which decreases power, relative to a petrol powered engine??

Atomic hydrogen has 3 times the power of H2. You cannot contain atomic hydrogen that is introduced
into the engine, you will lose it past the rings, etc... You need a bigger molecule that will carry hydrogen
into the engine and THEN have atomic hydrogen freed AFTER compression and when the plasma
ignition hits.

If you try to produce atomic hydrogen from the WFC, which you will not succeed - it simply combines
back to HOH or HHO. So creating a lot of water gas in hopes of providing a lot of hydrogen in HOH,
HHO or even atomic hydrogen isn't even the point of the WFC. (0.3 liters per minute is the cell setup
that Stan recommends "small scale" according to the referenced page). Most others with WORKING
knowledge of water fuel are making 3-6 liters per minute so more than Stan recommends but
A LOT LESS than is really needed to run an entire engine on HHO because running the engine on
HHO is not what Stan Meyer was doing. Every cell he ever showed running in any video never showed
enough HHO production to run an entire car engine on just HHO.

Small 600cc engines can work with just HHO to run it but then hook it to
a generator and make enough electricity from that to make its own HHO. It won't work because
you're only getting a fraction of the power from hydrogen by burning it HHO form.

HHO (small amounts) is only a catalyst that
when the plasma hits, there is dissociation of diatomic hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. This small
amount of hydrogen that is sourced from HHO or HOH is burned and nh3 in presence of atomic
hydrogen and atomic oxygen is extremely combustible. The ammonia is your main source of hydrogen.
Remember there is heat and pressure at this point.

The exhaust is a tiny amount of h2o and a lot of nitrogen. There can be traces of nitrogen oxide type
compounds that can be recycled.

Between those that have success, they each have their own specific viewpoints on the sequence
of steps in the reactions. However, there is no debate about the fact about ammonia.

Steve,

I appreciate the straight up response.

Energetic Forum is not as focused on the water fuel topic as this forum and we have a
handful of popular threads on the subject.

Dankie may have some issues with this forum, but you are at arms length from a lot of
people that seem to at least have a WFC in one configuration or another already built.

It wouldn't be that much work to add an air ionizer and also bubble part of the exhaust
back to the WFC or at least ambient air. Warmer the better. I posted quite a few references
in Meyer's own words and diagrams that shows definitively that Meyer was absolutely
recycling exhaust gases back to the front and that nitrogen (ambient air) was indeed what
was responsible for slowing the burn rate of the water fuel way down to actually get some
thermal explosive energy from it. He even said word for word that nitrogen slows down the
bonding of oxygen and hydrogen. Therefore, if oxygen and hydrogen are not able to easily
bond back together, you don't get a quick fast hho pop that just turns to water, you get
real thermal combustion from the hydrogen and water is not a byproduct. Therefore, the
engine won't get damaged. There is water produced, but about the same as what gasoline
will do anyway.

Meyer's spelled that part out in no unclear terms but many are still focused on trying to
produce as much hho as they can with minimum power but it was never really about that.
Just a small amount of hho and water mist and ionized air. And it is more simplified these
days with more advanced in plasma ignitions.

If we have slow thermal release from the water fuel, timing can stay the same as a gasoline
engine. Everyone is focused on delaying ignition until after TDC because nobody is doing what
they need to in order to slow down the burn. Therefore, working around the fast quick pop and
implosion issue by turning back into water so shrinking volume is not even a concern if the
nitrogen gets in the way of oxygen and hydrogen combining.

Anyway, I hope you or your members can benefit from this. Anyone can go back to Meyer's patents,
tech brief, etc... and see that the above is actually what he was saying. He just never spelled out
the creation of ammonia and never spelled out that yes the oxygen is getting electrons stripped
but so is the other majority of the gas - nitrogen. He referred to it as
ionized ambient air, which is true, but atomic nitrogen is needed for any of this to work.

I pointed out one reference in my forum to 1807 Davy found that nitrogen will bind to electrolytic
hydrogen in the presence of water when it won't bind to other hydrogen. All the answers are
available to everyone really - just takes time and effort to piece it together.

I'd recommend that anyone that is interested, see what Tutanka and Alex have said about their
nascent plug and explore EVERY reference or acknowledgment given about it.

Anyway, thanks again Steve.

Stan had his gasses tested after they were, made at a lab,and it came out two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen.It's in the videos and the evaluation report to.
No mention of ammonia.
Don

Just because Stan doesn't discuss ammonia - the ace in his sleeve, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Anyone can use their nose to verify ammonia creation - it doesn't take very much.

Davy 1807 - "nitrogen will bind to electrolytic hydrogen in the presence of water" when it normally
won't bind to other hydrogen.

Search Storch & Olson, etc... it is all spelled out in no uncertain terms.

I think it assumes a lot that Stan's patents, etc.... can be taken word for word. He obviously
wants to protect his intellectual property. Also, if you go on anything based on everything he
says in his own documents, you get the corresponding results - hence, lack of water powered
dune buggy replications anywhere.

All the people that are getting results - real thermal release just just fast quick hho popping,
are creating ammonia point of use.

Study Langmuir.

And release energy potential from ammonia? Use real plasma ignition and not regular spark.

But for those that want a large amount of gas with a small amount of electrical input, that above patent, plus the information from Dynodon, couldn't lay it out any better.

5 gallons per hour - so that is 19 liters per hour. 19/60 minutes = 0.3 liters per minute

HHO is only a catalyst - the real fuel is nh3. Anyone should study Davy, Storch & Olson, etc...
from a hundred years ago and it is all spelled out. There is no getting around the fact that
"nitrogen will bind to electrolytic hydrogen in the presence of water" when it won't bind to
other hydrogen normally. Davy 1807. There is so much spelled out on all of this in the 1900's
too especially in the 1920's & 1930's.

Now for qiman.I don't see anything new in what your saying.But there are some errors in it.First off the nitrogen from ambient air does nothing to the power output of the hydroxy gasses.Yes it allows the burn rate to be adjusted down to equal gasoline.Thats it.It doesn't stop the link up of hydrogen and oxygen,it just slows it down.They still link up.Also the exhaust gasses do the exact same thing,slows down the link up.No change on power output.The only thing Stan states is that the ionization of the ambient air is one way to improve the power output of the hydrogen.But it will take in the order of 20kv for that to happen.If we never find out how to restrict amps and allow voltage to rise,we will never get anything to work.Because it all relies on the one very important thing.

So yes we still do need alot of hydroxy to get an engine to run.Only then can we increase the power output of the gasses.First the gasses then the power increase through ionization.It can only happen that way,and it will only happen through high voltage across the water,in excess of 1kv.
Don

I agree the nitrogen slows the combination of o and h. But seeing that exhaust has only about the
same amount of water as gasoline combustion, for practical purposes, it prevents it. Atomic nitrogen
acts as EEC but you have to see that when atomic nitrogen is created by ionization, when it
recombines in combustion chamber, it releases a lot of heat and light (active nitrogen afterglow).
That emission contributes to the reaction.

I've been able to get several hundred volts sitting on  my cell - in the beginning, 2v was max. I
know someone that has a cell sitting at almost 1500volts. So I don't think restricting current is the
issue, but is also isn't necessary with the right chemistry.

On my tay hee han cell, I could get some gas production with zero current and nothing but
high frequency high voltage... about 50kv impulses going to 2 opposing plates with a 0.5mm gap.
I coated both plates with super corona dope, the xylene HV dielectric...restricts 4000v per mil and
I had 1mm on each plate for a total of 80kv dielectric. Distilled water split, small amounts but it
happened and not small current, I mean zero amperage flowing. The only modification I had to
the cell compared to the simple setup tay hee han had was that I also had a HV capacitor in
parallel with the plates. Anyway, zero current "leakage".

Anyway, atomic nitrogen will bind to hydrogen to create nh3 or ammonia and ammonia is the
densest source of hydrogen - more dense than pure liquid hydrogen. So seeing that nitrogen makes
it possible, I would say that the nitrogen definitely indirectly contributes to power. nh3 with some
atomic hydrogen is extremely combustive.

Ps.
Is the Tutanka Alex the same as Alex Petty?

I'll look for the other thread. Can you post your timing and exhaust temp in there?

Different Alex.

Check Mike's post in response to Jetijs' thread he started on "My take on water fuel"
or something like that. Also see Tutanka's post on the Joe Cell in the Ionization thread.

Anyone read the Quantum keys book from Lindemann and Aaron? I heard from a friend a terrible story: They urge you to hook up your mind to theirs every week so they can tap you off of your information in case you have some.....

Well, mind control is what they are after and their employer should be obvious to anyone in here...

Fact is they never presented anything functional in 30+ years, just wasting your time. Aaron once said he "saw" his first Gray engine in -94...... Where and how did that happen??....

Forget them and keep working open source, my advice.

Steve, have you considered for one minute that "no more questions" simply means he is too busy
with his own life and work to answer questions that he has answered over and over for years
online? Sometimes, the easiest and most common sense explanation for something like that is
the right one.

Another thing for this group, I have no "masters" - first and foremost Peter and John are my
personal friends and usually when we get together, we don't even talk about energy. They're
friends of mine - and I will defend them especially on my own forum. They are both honest
people that will not say they know something, have something or can do something unless
they do. They have integrity behind this and that is an indisputable fact and I have witnessed
this over and over countless times throughout the years that I've known them. Some people
are mistakenly under the illusion that they are somehow entitled to other people's intellectual
property - and then demands are made of them even when they do share stuff. Totally and
completely disrespectful.

It is a fact that most experimenters have no what the differences are between efficiency,
cop or overunity. They're three totally different things and Gauss, you wouldn't know over 1.0
cop if it hit you in the face. You were booted for being a troublemaker and for continuously lying,
but I guess that misinformation is embraced here seeing that it is in alignment with the misinformed
slam attempt against myself and my friends. This is about as productive as beauty salon gossip!

And here you go again spreading your disinformation garbage. I saw my first Gray motor in 1994?
You are fabricating this idea that I claimed this from your own delusional mind as I have never
said any such thing - you are outright making up bs out of thin air as usual.

Nothing functional in 30+ years? The rotary attraction motor is over 1.0 cop but Gauss, you don't
have enough common sense to even know how to calculate it if you wanted. This is the problem
with you and other that are the ones that are blinded - I'm not the one that is blinded by "masters",
it is a matter of common sense. Do you know how many times in the rotary attraction thread
Peter and I hinted to the importance and significance of shorted coils? It took FOREVER for anyone
to get it. Look at Bob Teal's patents, what do you see? Shorted coils aren't required, but just goes
to show that most people don't even pay attention to what is said! I see this all the time and
people go off rambling about "tell us something." It is the same old unoriginal storyline that everyone
repeats over and over because they don't get it - just follow up on things that are referred to and
progress just might be made.

"They urge you to hook up your mind to theirs every week so they can tap you off of your information
in case you have some..... " If you're not on drugs, you need professional psychological help Gauss.
Does anyone buy this pure unadulterated garbage here? Hook your mind to ours and we tap
information from you! That is so pathetic I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh or cry?! What are you
Guass, a 6 year old kid in reality hooked on sci-fi comic books for a hobby and you can no longer
distinguish between fantasy and reality?

Come on
everyone, Guass is saying we're doing the Vulcan Mind Meld with people to pull information from
their minds - "in case you have some..." And Gauss has a friend that had a bad story or experience
from it? LOLOLOLOL - HAHAHAHA - am I the only one to notice  what this kind of claim from Gauss
implies about him and his character? Maybe everyone in this thread is under his spell of deceit.

In case you all haven't noticed, Gauss is a source of disinformation and in one single
post there are two pieces of disinformation! ROFLMAO At least if you're going to spread this
disinformation you might as well make it something extraordinary like this so it isn't so boring! lol

This thread is a gossip board - it is people throwing snowballs from behind a wall based on 100%
speculation.

And it is stated here that Tutanka - it is 95% chance it is a fraud? If nobody can take the hints
about which direction to keep the oxygen and hydrogen from combining during and after combustion,
then that's too bad. And Tutanka is not the only one with working models. Knowing the entire
reaction is not even required as long as you do the right steps. Everyone can go on their quest
to produce massive amounts of hho and might eventually come to the realization that hho isn't
releasing any true thermal energy as Meyer explained. Why is that? Tutanka may have the most
elegant solution but it isn't the only one. I'm interested in understanding his own process through
his own eyes and if he doesn't reveal it all, that's fine. What he has shared 100% corroborates
with other successes that have also understood the importance of nitrogen. Meyer deliberately
deceived almost everyone though his patents obviously for the purpose of protecting his
intellectual property. In any case, you have more truth about the water fuel in the few nitrogen
hydroxide threads at Energetic Forum than anywhere else on the net combined. It would be
easier for people to understand if did realize that the nitrogen hydroxide fuel created is actually
ammonia and nitrogen hydroxide is not the proper term for it. That is what Stan Meyer created,
the ammonia fuel as others have before him. But everyone is free to go on the "lets beat
Faraday" trip if they want....make as much HHO as you want, you still won't ever have the fuel
to release thermal energy from the hydrogen.

And cracks against Peter's book that saves people money on their home energy bills? What kind
of infantile objection is that? I'm the co-author by the way and that book has saved homeowners
more money on energy bills than every "free energy" forum in the world combined. Think about it!
All the real free energy technologies are small scale prototype versions that are not scaled up
enough and very people are applying any of it in in any practical application in their homes.
Having a real book that does save money on homes should be respected since it isn't abusing people.
It is real info that people can apply with readily available solutions NOW that actually produce results
and that is commendable I think.

All the magnawork scam free energy books and the rest of them are 100% frauds posting vids of
other people's work making it look like people can replicate it from their books. Free energy
researchers ought to have enough common sense that sealing and insulating a home first to
keep heat you make and keep heat out in the summer when you don't want it is the first step to
making good use of the exotic solutions. It is common sense. If you cut your home energy usage
by 50%, then suddenly, how big of a battery bank do you need now?

Feel free to boot me Steve for defending myself here if you want.

If this badmouthing of myself and my friends are what goes on here, I don't think I can benefit or
contribute from this forum.