NOBODY LISTENS
Started by unknown · date unknown · 48 posts
-
#1 ·
This is not a combustion process! Stoichiometric combustion of H and O (H2 -->O) creates a white/orange flame. What we are seeing here is Stan's "ION flame". Where hydrogen is solely responsible for the color emission we see.
This is Atomic Hydrogen....and it is what Stan ultimately did with his gasses from "Stage 1"
I will now prove it is Atomic Hydrogen...and that it is the SAME process Stan was using to run a car on it.
Pg 20 (of the pdf reader)....lines 6-40 on the left side of the page....
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w152/Jdub6d9/StansIons.jpg)
AKA...Atomic Hydrogen.....
Congratz Aussepom...NO LONGER THEORY!!!! (never was theory...ppl are just blind)
I have attempted to get people to look at this MOST CRUCIAL point...to no avail, I believe now seeing the awesome nature of Atomic Hydrogen they will begin to see it. (The "forest through the trees" that is
)
Stan is genius...he used the electron defficient O3 molecule to act as his "bump down" energy sink to get Atomic hydrogen to form back down to Molecular hydrogen...it's INGENIOUS!!!!!!!!
The beautiful part is that the O3 is made at the same time through H.V. ionization
Now, to get your system up to par with Stan...you need to look into his chokes that limit electron flow from power circuit through the "dead short" arc in your steam there.
US5149407.pdf
-
#2 · date not recorded
This is not a combustion process! Stoichiometric combustion of H and O (H2 -->O) creates a white/orange flame. What we are seeing here is Stan's "ION flame". Where hydrogen is solely responsible for the color emission we see.
This is Atomic Hydrogen....and it is what Stan ultimately did with his gasses from "Stage 1"
I will now prove it is Atomic Hydrogen...and that it is the SAME process Stan was using to run a car on it.
Pg 20 (of the pdf reader)....lines 6-40 on the left side of the page....
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w152/Jdub6d9/StansIons.jpg)
AKA...Atomic Hydrogen.....
Congratz Aussepom...NO LONGER THEORY!!!! (never was theory...ppl are just blind)
I have attempted to get people to look at this MOST CRUCIAL point...to no avail, I believe now seeing the awesome nature of Atomic Hydrogen they will begin to see it. (The "forest through the trees" that is )
Stan is genius...he used the electron defficient O3 molecule to act as his "bump down" energy sink to get Atomic hydrogen to form back down to Molecular hydrogen...it's INGENIOUS!!!!!!!!
The beautiful part is that the O3 is made at the same time through H.V. ionization
Now, to get your system up to par with Stan...you need to look into his chokes that limit electron flow from power circuit through the "dead short" arc in your steam there.
Thats Great! But this is aussepom's Invention. He did not find it in a book, And I'm pretty certain that nobody came to aussies place to show him how to do this setup. I'm also sure Aussie has many many hours in even getting this device to work. Stan had lots of devices, But, he did not give any instructions on how to completly make any of them. Aussie took the time to experiment and learn, And this device is what Aussie has to share with you, Therefor, This is NOT stans device, It's True inventor is Aussie, Assuming he didn't get the ideal from the already working Plasma machine thats very simular, Allthough a plasma can not do what assues device is doing.
My recomendations was to add a burner to reduce flame temp allowing aussie to cut back on his production uses and reduction in power usage also. If aussie chooses to do that because i Thrown some patent at him, and he succeeds, Will you then call this Stans hydrogen gas burner?
NO, Stan didn't make it, Aussie did. Doesn't matter if aussie was looking threw stans patents or not, Stan gave no direct instructions.
It also may be described as all the references in your post, I'm just pointing out that aussie is to be credited here, Not Stanley A. Meyer, Thats all i'm saying and nothing more.
I can only thank aussie for sharing, Much appreaciated.
Good day -
#3 · date not recorded
You must realize that if this effect is exactly what meyer got, that it adds up to stan's credibility. -
#4 · date not recorded
@Aussepom,
Your device is very interesting.
Have you posted any details at all on this device other than these videos? If so can you direct me to where I can find them?
From what I am seeing on the videos, the device simply injects a water mist through a plasma arc. The supply is a standard plasma arc unit.
Is that correct?
-
#5 · date not recorded
@Warp
Are you serious??...I'm sure he was just...."Oh lets make a plasma flame from water and air" just randomly out of nowhere huh? Even though he belongs to a STAN MEYER FORUM....bet he never read a single Stan Meyer patent...no way!!?
,,,,GET REAL!
Just as Stan's injector worked and looked remarkably like a plasma cutter.....hmmm so does Aussepom's (hmmm plamsa cutter power supply?)...I'm not saying he built the same exact thing...but, it operates on the same principles...and I am sure with time Aussepom will tell you so.
If you understand the Stan text I posted above....you should see how similar they are...Aussepom is supplying air and water....and arcing through it to create atomic hydrogen ions and O3 (ozone) ions....it's EXACTLY THE SAME
Line 36-41 put it in as blunt terms as possible...once you ACTUALLY STUDY the accepted scientific phenomena known as "Atomic Hydrogen", you will realize it's not a theory at all, and in fact is widely known about in the scientific community. Then (presuming you know "Atomic Theory") you will realize that it is actually an easy process. Hydrogen only has one outer electron equal to it's one inner proton. This produces as charged balanced atom...but, there is a problem, the lone electron does not equal the mass and creates an unstable orbit. This is the reason atoms prefer full outer "Valence" shells (orbits), so Hydrogen links up to a MOLECULE of Hydrogen with itself (hydrogen surrounded by hydrogen).
So, in nature (on Earth) hydrogen does not exist as a single atom (every element on Earth has already reacted and balanced out)....it is however possible to recreate environments found in space, see space is full of high energy particles as Lance Armstrong saw "Z" particles that shot through the spaceships hull...anyway, we see now that Hydrogen needs a full outer valence shell, and for the 1st shell, you only need two electrons, so hydrogen only needs one extra electron to support single atom state. An arc is a literal "sea of electrons"....there are so many free electrons in an arc it's rediculous. Well, if you pass a hydrogen molecule through an arc, two things happen. First the molecule absorbs infrared wave, or "heat" energy. The heat expands the molecule to a larger size (most elements expand when heated)...this larger sized molecule when it becomes part of the circuit in the arc is bombarded by high energy particles (fast moving electrons)...this polarizes the molecule and breaks it apart as it begins to conduct...however, the velocity of the incoming water/hydrogen stream removes it from the stream before the ions equalize.
Anyway, do more hard-core research before telling me what is what...and furthermore...why are responding for Aussepom??...I'm sure he can do it just fine...and it's his place to say whether or not he built it loosely off Stan's technology....not yours...so shhh -
#6 · date not recorded
Oz,
Can you explain what is happening? Are you making hydrogen? Is it Meyer's injector? -
#7 · date not recorded
This oz injector looks purely amazing and awesome.
As far as i can tell this seems to be an amp related process, rather than a voltage related process, am I wrong?Are you sending air and water through a plasma arc?orAre you sending air and water through an amp restricted voltage wave guide?
-
#8 · date not recorded
Quote"I'm not saying he built the same exact thing.
.Quote"you would see how similar they are"
.Quote"...it's EXACTLY THE SAME"
.
First it's not exact. Then it is similar. Then finally it is exactly the same thing.
If Aussepom is doing "exactly" the same thing as Meyer, then where are the lasers, pulsing circuits VIC's. electron extractors, and other things that Meyer used ?
I would wait a bit before we start erecting a statue to Saint Meyer. Let's first let Aussepom provide a few more details and some explanations if he chooses to do so.
Meyer didn't invent "atomic hydrogen" and was not even close to the first to build a device that disassociates hydrogen with a plasma arc.
http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html
-
#9 · date not recorded
Nice try buddy....put em in context QuoteI'm not saying he BUILT the same exact thing
Quoteit OPERATES on the same PRINCIPLES
Quotearcing through it to create atomic hydrogen ions and O3 (ozone) ions....it's EXACTLY THE SAME
I am speaking about two different things buddy, FORM (as in what he built).....and FUNCTION (Creating charged ions of -Hydrogen and +O3...then using the +O3 to "bump down" the -Atomic Hydrogen spontaneously w/o the need to hit a metal!!!!!!
You like most people need to separate FORM from FUNCTION!!!!!!!!!!!!
The two may be different in design....However, their FUNCTION is the same!!!
ANYWAY what are you guys' problems??.....I do believe you have NOT ONE THING to do with it....Aussepom is a grown * man, if he feels I am doing him injustice for saying so...let him say it. Or, if I am wrong in assuming this is ionic flame...only he can say...so like I said.....why?
P.S.
All the lasers...the choke coils....etc are all meant to RAISE EFFICIENCY....Not very efficient to use an ARC as it's a dead short which means max amps flow....GET A CLUE -
#10 · date not recorded
The real problem I see here "BUDDY", is that any scientific objectivity you may have once had, has vaporized as a result of your sycophantic adoration of all things related to Meyer.
Someone runs water mist through a plasma arc and you use it as an opportunity to canonize Mr. Meyer as a "genius" and offer it as "proof" of Meyer's theories which you declare (by fiat) were never really theories at all, but irrefutable facts.
How are you any different in regard to Meyer as some others are in regard to Faraday and Maxwell ?
One must wonder if you are really interested in the science here or in simply confirming Mr. Meyer and his theories, which in turn confirms your own "genius" as being one of the chosen few who CAN "see the forest through the trees" and who is not like "most people" who are obviously blind and cannot tell the difference between form and function.
It must be lonely there in the forest all by yourself.
Goey
-
#11 · date not recorded
HMMM...what's the name of this site again? IONIZATIONx.com?
YET NONE OF YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IONS....and, yet you claim I have no scientific objectivity....IGNORANT assumption. I have used MANY fields to UNIFY Meyer's system and explain it completely....u sir...need not address me because I have NO INTEREST IN ANYTHING YOU SAY....I will not state the obvious in this circumstance...if anyone finds any shred of ANYTHING in what you say...they deserve to believe u.
We'll see if Aussepom has anything to say about the similarities to Stan's injector...until then...keep stroking your e-peen if you wish.
P.S. It would seem you are the un-objective scientific mind....you seem to have let your Meyer failures canonize in your mind that it is faulty...so much so that you seem to have forgotten all other scientific proofs that have been provided by many others.
I'm not saying Meyer invented Atomic Hydrogen...He was the first to get a car to run on it...you have some Meyer issues buddy...and probably a Napoleon Complex too by the way you interact with people you feel are inferior to you...hope your 100k education hasn't left you jaded and confused.
My intelligence has nothing to do with the proofs provided...neither does it have to Meyer...after all, it's nothing new...it's just a new application of existing KNOWN phenomena...I do have a gift...the gift of Mental Retention (aka Photographic memory)...I have ever since I was very young (probably has to do with my head being split open multiple times???)....see unlike you I realize that my KNOWLEDGE comes from the compiled works of others...I just remember what I read very well.
As for proving myself right...I already have...you just don't know it yet, AND I DON'T CARE...
I believe we are doing this for completely different reasons (good luck with yours).......and, F.Y.I. no it's not lonely in the forest...
I'm never alone....I feel sorry for those who are. -
#12 · date not recorded
In the most pleasantly light hearted humorous way possible
(http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/arguing.jpg)
-
#13 · date not recorded
Gentleman,
Please keep focus here.
Stop arguing on who is right and who is retarded.
At the end, we all want the same, is it.
Aussepom build a nice device. Lets learn from that. Not important if he was inspired by Stan or not. Fact is that he build a working device that works in a specific way with specific results.
Please try to make similair devices.
Maybe it really creates enough power to push a piston down, in stead of burning the piston into pieces....
Aussepom: Great work. We hope to hear soon more from you with more details.
Br
Steve
-
#14 · date not recorded
HMMM...what's the name of this site again?
IONIZATIONx.com?
YET NONE OF YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IONS....and, yet you claim I have no scientific objectivity....IGNORANT assumption. I have used MANY fields to UNIFY Meyer's system and explain it completely....u sir...need not address me because I have NO INTEREST IN ANYTHING YOU SAY....I will not state the obvious in this circumstance...if anyone finds any shred of ANYTHING in what you say...they deserve to believe u.
Original reply deleted in the spirit of Steve's last post.
-
#15 · date not recorded
This is to Each and every member here on this forum. You had better listen, and listen to me well!
I do not post, I mostly post when I feel i need to.
A; When I Post, "I do it with respect."
B; Stanley A. Meyer ("IS") An inspiration to Each and every one of us!
C: Most of us build devices because we're inspired by him, Not everyone is here because of Stan Meyer.
D; This Forum is NOT a stanley meyer forum, Do not assume we are trying to replicate his work, Allthough -
You will find much of stans work here, and much talk about it.
E; If someone makes an hydrogen gas gun by Dedicating his Her hours, Even in they used Stan meyers Patents for a reference, and they succeeded, Stanley A. Meyer IS NOT TO BE CREDITED, It is the one that got it working that gets the credit! Stan Meyer Gave no Step By Step Instructions --
NOT ONE OF HIS DEVICES HAS BEEN PROVEN TO WORK TO DATE.
F: Do Not Attempt a Battle with me.
G;Do not Tell someone, For example, Aussie, That he was successful in replicating one of stans devices. THAT IS A DISCRIMINATION TO THE CREATOR.
Understanding, Aussie may choose not to share anything else with you, Instuctions Or videos, All because you had a comment of, "Nice to see your getting stans devices to work."
I do not blam aussie if he does not post, I'd be danged if i sit there and let you tell me my hours invested was to be credited to stan, I think Not!
BOTTOM LINE, It will not be tolorated here, You will credit the researcher the way they deserve to be credited or you will removed. I will not watch you sit there and say aussie got stans device working, Or any other member on this forum. NOW, if it was something of the VIC then that be diff, stan has his claim on that. Point is, not everything is stans mate.
When you work on something, and you get it working after investing many hours into your device, "INSPIRED" by stan, I will not allow someone to say you got stans device to work, I will have your back just as i have Aussies.
Here, at ionizationx, you will get the credit you deserve.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, If you feel i have affended you in any way shap or form, I havent. Take my advice and think before your next post, I am not targeting anybody. I'm sending a messege, Do what is right and stop making comments that dont relate.
If you want to show your ass after my post here, You are simply asking for a TON of trouble. I like each and every one of you right now, Lets keep it that way. Carry on, As we have learned an important Fact here.
End this right now! No more talk of it!
Now that this is cleared Up, Aussie, If you want to continue sharing what you started, Then please do, This is your thread, And you OWN THE RIGHT TO DELETE ANYTHING IN IT, EVEN THIS VERY POST.
Good Day
-
#16 · date not recorded
Again, I am Making A DOUBLE POST.
I want this to be Real Clear, I have no hard feelings toward anyone here at all, Understand that. Everything is ok, Drop it. The important thing here is realize that other people have, Money, Time and effort in what they have for show and tell, For that, they do not deserve to be told that they got John Does device working, Its simply their work.
This will be the THIRD TIME i will repeat this. Do not cause a seen upon yourself, as everyone here is ok. We all learn together, Pick our selves up and carry on.
Good day -
#17 · date not recorded
HMMM...what's the name of this site again?
IONIZATIONx.com?
YET NONE OF YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IONS....and, yet you claim I have no scientific objectivity....IGNORANT assumption. I have used MANY fields to UNIFY Meyer's system and explain it completely....u sir...need not address me because I have NO INTEREST IN ANYTHING YOU SAY....I will not state the obvious in this circumstance...if anyone finds any shred of ANYTHING in what you say...they deserve to believe u.
Original reply deleted in the spirit of Steve's last post.
Thanks!
Steve -
#18 · date not recorded
Gentleman,
Please keep focus here.
Stop arguing on who is right and who is retarded.
At the end, we all want the same, is it.
Aussepom build a nice device. Lets learn from that. Not important if he was inspired by Stan or not. Fact is that he build a working device that works in a specific way with specific results.
Please try to make similair devices.
Maybe it really creates enough power to push a piston down, in stead of burning the piston into pieces....
Aussepom: Great work. We hope to hear soon more from you with more details.
Br
Steve
@ Steve
If the gas is actually atomic hydrogen then the flame temperature should be around 4,000 degrees C. and could be be even hotter at the point of recombination. It should be able to melt tungsten , which has a melting point of about 3400 C.
If if can't melt tungsten then it is probably not atomic hydrogen. A diatomic hydrogen flame with oxygen (3000 C) will not melt tungsten.
But even at 3000 C it will boil aluminum and melt steel. So it would be a challenge to use in a normal piston engine. Ceramic pistons maybe ?
Goey
-
#19 ·
Master Meyer, shows us the combination of the air ionizer, the exhaust gasses and the injector all together.
So, maybe...when you have a flame like Aussepom have and you let it work in a compressed gas environment which all those different components....
Lots of work to do, do we...
Steve -
#20 ·
I argue for only one reason...not because it proves Stan Meyer right, and in turn myself for understand it...I argue because the accepted science supports every single claim of Meyer's system. The fact is that there is a state of Hydrogen that when "bumped down" in "net" energy level...(ie siphoning an outer electron charge) shrinks back down to a stable molecular state. Stan's lasers, bifilar chokes, and EEC all re-create the events in an arc....but, with out the dead short condition that creates max amp inflow. It is crucial we see the stages in Meyer's system....first Gas production for example, efficient resonant pulsed electrolysis, various Hydrides (salts/metal salts that when heated release hydrogen), or straight DC electrolysis...second is ionization of those gasses (Many ways to ionize a medium, with UV bombardment being on of the most efficient)...then is triggering stage, which is removing the surplus energy allowing single atom Hydrogen to be stable (an extra "stabilizing" electron)...this removal of an electron triggers the atom(s) to "time-share" the orbits of each of 2 Hydrogen atoms' electrons...this "emulates" a full valence shell (where 1st shell needs 2 electrons)
The new "molecule" of hydrogen has a "tighter" orbit of electrons, the result is the "unit" of hydrogen is more massive but, smaller...this shrinking action results in friction...which creates intense heat.
Like Steve said...the third hottest flame known to man (atomic hydrogen is that hot!!) can more then easily super heat compressed gasses (non combustible gasses...aka air)....after all, all ICEs are heat exchangers using the expanse of an explosion to move the cylinder down.
Again, I have no hard feelings...it's just that I believe what I believe because it has become obvious to me...which took my entire life's experience to get...things I have read in Discover magazine (Plasmonics) right after I had spent weeks on patent research of Stan and Tesla., orhaving studied Stan much more making the connection between the Outer Ionoshpere and Stan's work....(Light and other high speed particles ionize atmoshperic gasses)...ie Stan's laser(s) (certain infrared LEDs...and Stan's UV "hydrogen "E"-aser)
Anyway...it's a conviction of mine to set certain misconceptions straight....I apologize for what may seem "confrontational"...I mean no disrespect to anyone.
-
#21 · date not recorded
E-aser, didnt see that one without the dash, it really acts like a laser according to the descrption, another +1 for meyer.Quoteall re-create the events in an arc....but, with out the dead short condition that creates max amp inflow.
So the conditions for an arc must be estabilished, but it may not arc over, how do you think this is accomplished?
I think that all energy must be 'absorbed' by the chokes while creating a static HV on the output terminal.
actually the conditions are recreated for a stream discharge, or corona, which can easly be done with a heavily insulated 10kohm coil. -
#22 · date not recorded
@Aussepom
so whats the output of this plasma cutter.. most i have ever seen use 20 amps up to like 80.. they use a arc to produce current in return heat then it uses the air to catalize the molten metal.. they create cleaner cuts then a acetlyne torch.. and use no fuel but electric.
so my question is, is this a form of regular electrolysis at high out put hitting a small cell??? is there heat build up in the cell? im sure you may get similar effect with standard electroloysis???
if the cell remains cool or just mildly warm
have you taken readings of you plasma cutters output? or read the amps running threw the ground cable?
-
#23 · date not recorded
here are the spec to a average low end brand name plasma cutter, this is a 27 amp they go up to 80 in standard single phase...
it says its output is 27 amps at 92 volts max @ 35 percent duty..
you said you made some safety adjustments to your unit.. i can see bypassing the saftey features to make it run in conditions it usualy will not allow it self to.. like the torch has a trigger and if you pull the trigger while its not close enough to the material being cut it will cut off the torch in like 3 seconds..
miller
Spectrum® 375 X-TREME™ Cutting CapabilityRated: 3/8 in (10 mm)Quality: 1/2 in (13 mm)Sever: 5/8 in (16 mm)Input Power115 - 230 V 1 PhaseInput Amperage Circuit RequirementA 120 volt, 20 amp (min.)Compressor Requirement
- 30 amp recommended or 230 volt, 15 amp (min.) individual branch circuit4.5 CFM (128 L/min.) at 90 PSI (621 kPa)Rated Output at 104° F (40°C)27 A at 92 VDC, 35% Duty Cycle (240 V input)Net Weightwith torch: 18 lb (8.2 kg) -
#24 · date not recorded
@Alan
I believe that the choke coils play the biggest part here. The two windings create a magnetic lag between each other...the magnetism fills up around the coil/core, and since amperage has a definite charge, it is affected by the fields.
So, even though the conditions to arc over are reached...the choke coils hold back the majority of amps...so amps don't flow, yet the gas is ionized.
-
#25 · date not recorded
and this is why you need more inductance then capacitance? a bifilar choke built to tesla's standards allows you to slow current and up voltage.. but only works when it has more capacitance in the choke wire (parasitic) then the load (capacitors static load)? this keeps your driving tranformer from feeling like a dead short?
in other words does more inductance mean that the choke has a higher static area capacitance then the cell with parasitic capacitance in the wires and bobbin..?