Ionizationx: a clean environment is a human right!

Stanley Meyer => Stan Meyers system 1 => Topic started by: Steve on January 11, 2010, 18:56:37 pm

Title: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 11, 2010, 18:56:37 pm
Here my post on the energetic forum where dr. P. Lindemann is.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5212-open-letter-p-lindemann.html#post80524

 
Open letter to P. Lindemann

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear mr. Lindemann,

I have been reading about your work and i have seen some video's as well.
Like many others, i have been researching free energy. Tesla work. Stan Meyers work, and of course my own.

I was very impressed by your knowledge and by your explanation of many subjects in the field.

Please dont take this wrong, and i think you wont, because you are a smart person:
A smart man once told me. The most stupid question is the qusetion who is never asked....
Do you know a way of getting serious OU?
I just wanna be sure. Thats all.

Secondly.
How about your explanation on Stan Meyers patents?
Are you still behind your theory, which we all seen on youtube?
If so, maybe its time for you to help the many out there and explain how to make a replica. That way, you can help them very much. They all spend much money on that.....

Again, i really appriciate your hugh contribution and i trully hope that some one finds a way to deliver a system which can provide clean free energy to all the people around the whole world.

Steve
ionizationx

Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 12, 2010, 00:34:03 am
His answer!


Dear Steve,

Of course I know how to make devices that produce more energy than they run on. In fact, I know quite a few ways.

The MYTH of Free Energy is that hobbyists can build one of these things in their spare time! The fact is, that 99.9% of all people could not even make a ball-point pen from scratch parts in their garage, or even something as well understood as an internal combustion engine. These are major engineering projects that take time, energy, money, KNOWLEDGE and SKILL.

I work for a living. That means I don't have much time for these projects anymore. I set out to study Free Energy technology in my early 20's, in 1973. Since then, I have learned much more than I ever imagined was possible about this field, and having stayed alive, I ended up being considered "knowledgeable" by comparison with others.

I have been told, by people who knew Stan Meyer, that my explanation of Stan's system, as presented in the YouTube clip, is essentially correct, but slightly over simplified. But that was the purpose of my lecture at the KeelyNet Conference, to make things understandable to the whole audience.

As for why I haven't published exactly how to do it, Aaron and I were going to work the whole thing out, at the end of the summer in 2008, when the big crash happened. We both ran out of money and had to stop all of our projects. In the meantime, a number of other people have worked it out and there are some Yahoo Groups right now showing people how to run an engine/generator set on water.

Good luck with your research. That is all I am going to say here. No more questions.

Peter
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 12, 2010, 02:55:11 am
He doesn't say what his OU concepts are.
Then he says "No more questions."

Not a useful answer.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 12, 2010, 03:11:59 am
i would say yea he's knowledgeable but has the wrong perspective in life and has coward down or shall i say broke like a horse into the acceptance of working for a living and giving up hope for a better society...  he talks highly of him self and what he knows then tells u to fuck off. he downs the main population by saying that they are a bunch of idiots and could never learn how to do anything by his examples of the pen and motor..
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 12, 2010, 04:22:08 am
Steve, great questions from you, crappy answers from Peter. It seems the thread has started to migrate towards the usual endless banter of opinions with absolutely no new information at all. I am curious as to why you think he knows any more about what you are looking for than you or the other patrons in this forum? In my opinion, this site is the best of them all and should be considered as the first stop for any pertinent information. This is a "Doer's" site as well as great documentation, not to mention, great discussions. Besides, black is my favorite color too. Much easier on my eyes in the dark.  :o

Good Day!
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 12, 2010, 04:32:56 am
hows this for somthin new...   the config in his set up is one i havent seen before... he has only one lead from hot hooked to 4 way bridge rectifire with only one lead from primary... he takes other end of primary from the common microwave transformer and connect to a excitor.. then the other exciter is connected to secondary through a diode and that same excitor has a connection to neutral..  the neutral that is not being connected to the rectifier i think.. anyways check out the vid by kevin west.. interesting watch

Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 12, 2010, 13:54:09 pm
For me he have nothing steve. 
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 13, 2010, 16:11:50 pm
For me he have nothing steve.

I was a bit drunk, when i send him that question.
I am sure he doesnt know how it all works.
Read his answer. The great Dr. Lindemann in a daily job? Is this the man from
Borderland, trying to solve the great mistery's?

http://www.borderlands.com/home.htm

I am a bit shocked by his request not to ask more questions. Thats such a signal that he doesnt want to get REAL questions.

As Stan said: you have to aske the right questions. Well, my questions towards Lindemann did obvious hurt him on the right spot.....



Steve






Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 13, 2010, 18:26:00 pm
I saw some of Peters videos,and my impression is,He Doesn't Know Crap!!!
Not from what I've learned first hand
Forget about him,just another wanna be trying to say he knows how to do it,but doesn't.
Don
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 11:49:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 12:15:25 pm
Its been a while since I've seen his video about Stan Meyer, but if I remember
correctly, his explanation basically boiled down to a capacitor discharging across
the tubes. 

That is nothing but standard electrolysis.

He doesn't know jack sh!t.

If he knew as much as he thinks he does about overunity, he would be selling real products or plans to build overunity devices, not some crappy book about how to conserve energy around your house.

He's a smug a-hole IMO.

Mikemongo
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 12:25:24 pm
We all have seen his presentations and lots of his info on forums.
He is a very smart man. No doubt about that.
And he knows a lot too.
But propably not enough...... ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 13:57:38 pm
Thank you so much Steve for starting this thread over at energetic. The response's were expected. Bla, Bla, Bla, you people don't know shit Bla, Bla, Bla...

A lot of talk but no substance. Its funny how post's get turned around but the question is never answered or proven.

BTW, I know how to turn led into gold.
No more questions. ;D
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 15:23:16 pm
You know the real goal of the Alchemists was not to turn Lead into Gold, but to turn Gold into a white powder that you eat and increases your brain power usage from about 3% up to... maximum!

Laurence Gardener explains it, very fascinating, on youtube...

There are 9 parts to his lecture.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 18:11:07 pm
Just look at his website and cv and notice obvious things which disqualify him. He failed to complete his degree in engineering, got stuck in the alternative medicine scene and his Dr. which he's probably proud of because he mentions it before his name around one million times is from this  (http://www.oiucm.org/)respectable "college" (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/337425.html) where you can get your doctor, master, diploma or whatever you want if you only stay there for a few months (and "donate" some money i guess..). it's all fake but he's making a living of it so he has to answer, even if it's obviously very vague answers.

someone bring us a good laugh and ask him to upload his dissertation.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 18:47:18 pm
I dissed and cursed both Aaron and he a few months back , I am now banned for life .

Could go back with a prozy but that site is not worth reading , so much crap everywhere .

So much crap these days , there was gray motor thread was good tho , had a good video replication , thread is dead now ... silly noobs ...
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 14, 2010, 20:20:13 pm
I was soo surprised when i just looked at that forum.
So many replied to my question.

Well, her emy response:

Hi researchers.

Never had the idea seeing people like Peter Lindemann and John Bedini responding on a topic i started.
Thats because i am impressed by the work they have shown to us all.
That question i asked was one who is very relevant and you see all reactions here.

Sure everyone must decide what to do with the knowledge they have.
Make money or not. Share knowledge or not.
And of course the old wishdom of learning people to walk, in stead of pushing their feet.

I made a decision. I trully share everything on my forum. And if i find the holy grale, well, you all will.
Reason? Money? The whole energy market is so big. You never ever can get a grip on it alone. Look on how frustrated Stan Meyer became.....
Now look at the world. Nuclear powerplants exploding in Russia and killing many people and animals. I seen the results of that thru the nothern of europe.

Do you have family? Do you have kids? Do you have loved ones?
Long story short to you all:
You all dont have enough time and money in your life to do the learning stages from scatch. We need a good level to start from.
If one of you have schematics, plans or whatever, just give them to the public! You only loose by doing nothing....
John Bedini and Peter Lindemann are getting older as Peter said.....
We all die. I am 42 and have burried most members of my family......
Grumpy old man you all are. Die and take you techno with you. Is that what your goal is? Or do you live forever......

Change the world!

Steve
Peace to you all in your harts and minds.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 10:19:11 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron 
Wow, John has put more proprietary company info into the public domain
that anyone I know - his patents are goldmines, which HAVE SCHEMATICS.

I have always failed to understand why people want to cripple themselves
by allowing themselves to be locked to specific schematics. John and Peter
both have given out a lot of schematics over the years and if anyone
understands them, in concept, then anyone can design their own schematics, which is what empowers someone.

When I built my first roller skate wheel motor, I didn't even know what a
transistor was but it was common sense enough to see the b,c,e
on the diagram on the package and any 3 year old that has a coloring
book and did a connect-the-dots could apply the same skills to knowing
what wire went to what dot. For a while, I saw the energizer through
the eyes of the schematic and realized that the mechanics of the
circuit aren't as important as knowing what the circuit is doing - for
years I have seen the SG as a gas pump/valve - I don't even see it as
an electric circuit.

Obviously many people, even skeptics, have no problem getting the wheel
to spin and of course tuning is another matter all together, which is easier
when "knowing what the energy is" but the skeptics are looking at a non-
conventional circuit through the eyes of conventional electron theory
models. Well, if I saw someone try to translate a Chinese document and
they have a language degree in French, I would honestly think they should
probably be committed because it is insane. I mean literally in the full
psychological sense, it is totally and completely psychotic.

A couple years after I first met John, he told me, "You have to know what
the energy is." Looking at it from this perspective, it makes all the
difference in the world because you can just use common sense to make
your own circuits that apply certain concepts to get the results you want.
I may not know what the energy is, but I think I have a pretty good idea
and it has enabled me to innovate my own circuits that continually do
what the skeptics say can't be done.

These days, I consider common sense to be "out of the box" for most
people, which is a crying shame.

Steve, you say you're impressed with the work Peter and John have you
done with what they did share? You turn around and say they're
grumpy old men and you want them to post schematics and you sign off
with Peace and Love?

I came up with the idea for this forum for the purpose of positive and
constructive sharing. This is our home and anyone that comes into it,
pulls their pants down and pees on the floor is simply not welcome or
appreciated.

It isn't skepticism I have a problem with, there are threads here discussing
a "case against overunity" and whatever. That's fine, I'm all for anyone
expressing their own beliefs but don't insult or disrespect the members
of this forum. John and Peter can obviously stand their own ground but
this is my home and this is unacceptable to me.

Like all the rest of the skeptics who don't understand or appreciate what
is spread out all over the internet for years, you make demands, insult
the ones sharing the info and ask for more. Would you do the same thing
to someone in person? You'd probably be knocked for a loop in one second
flat.

This is seriously disturbing and
is absolutely indicative of some serious cognitive dissonance. There are
two contradictory thought processes going on at the same time and
only one is yours, you really should figure out what the other one is,
I already know the answer. This isn't some cute way of putting things,
this other process going on is literally what is responsible for this world
being in so much trouble and very soon, I'll make it very easy for people
to solve it for themselves. Tyson is right, it isn't about money.

After meeting John and learning some legitimate concepts, it strengthened
my relationship with God beyond anything I ever imagined because it is
a holistic science that doesn't insanely compartmentalize and isolate
concepts so the left hand doesn't know the right. It integrates and
unifies so many things on so many levels that it has brought more light
into the area of unconscious incompetence beyond all other fields.

Having a spiritual perspective of life and "saving the world" isn't about
sitting in a circle, holding hands singing kumbaya waiting for the world
to be saved. It is about eternal vigilance and taking responsibility and
making no excuses. It is about busting one's own butt to make our own
lives how we want it so that we can only blame ourselves in the end
for anything that we think we haven't been given.

Many people are brainwashed into believing "Good things come to those
who wait." Even though Lincoln is greatly responsible for the downfall of
American freedom, that isn't even what he said and despite his treason
against the American people, his original ENTIRE quote is a pretty good
one:

"Good things come to those who wait, but only things left behind by those who hustle." — Abraham Lincoln

That is 180 degrees opposite of what the first half of the quote means
by itself. I know one thing, I'm not going to be one of those that are
left with the crumbs.

Steve, you're welcome to post and can be as skeptical as you want but
please leave your demands and insults out of it. This is to every skeptic
that is reading this.

Aaron,

Its dissapointment speaking.
You may clean my post, if you want. At least i say where i stand. Just hope that that is appriciated in a free world of thinking.
Didnt know how to say it in other words either. No bad words where choosen.

Yes, i was/am impressed by the knowledge of many people like John and Peter for example. Thats a compliment.
But the more i learned about these subjects, the more i came to my senses and realised that some of them didnt tell the whole story.
And thats what i cannot understand at all. Call me ignorant.
Yes, i seen the schematics of JB and i seen the much of Peters work.
But i know for sure that great minds like they have, must be able to think much bigger. And they absolutely do. But why not sharing those thoughts?

Peter is probably right with the fact that building a good OU system is not done with kitchen equipment. Then why not telling us about what systems he is thinking about , when he talks about that?
Why is he making that decision for us?
Maybe we are in a position where we can get money and build a nice clean powerplant. The less polution the better.
The world is changing. Green is not a bad word anymore. Investors see that.
We need them. They need us.
Now we need the good idea's.
If someone really knows, then there is always a solution to find. If you want money, then just say so. Make a deal. If money isnt the issue, then share.
Its that simple.

For me, life is too short. I hope to be able to make a change for the good.
You all can....if you really want.

Steve
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 13:26:15 pm
Again Aaron takes a hard left to nowhere and totally missing the point then turns it around and makes you out to be the bad guy.

If a person makes a claim be prepared to back it up otherwise be scrutinised.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 14:32:30 pm
Well dont start begging or whining at him , that just makes him wanna not share .

They are gonna sell these things soon , life rent and copyright laws just like a car or any other product . Maybe if you smart enough you can build , invent or replicate one for less , thats it , they will leave you alone but dont break the laws .

You cant buy vcr today that can be replicated LOL . Its all private components etc ... What you expect from energy LOL ...





Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 14:53:22 pm
Again Aaron takes a hard left to nowhere and totally missing the point then turns it around and makes you out to be the bad guy.

If a person makes a claim be prepared to back it up otherwise be scrutinised.

Aaron is totally blind on them....
They are his "masters" 
Now he indead, forgets to think clearly..



Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 15:13:18 pm
Has anyone ever seen evidence of a Bedini motor actually operating as OU?

Any youtube videos that come to mind?

Or the attraction motor?
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 14, 2010, 21:20:52 pm
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.
 





Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 14, 2010, 21:44:11 pm
Yes I agree Qiman , this site is boring , I like energetic more now .

So Tutanko did something special ? Plz confirm that the video showed something awesome.

I work months to release a new product very nice for HHO research and this is how ppl act . Nobody even says good job . I release the best manual pwm in history on this site and nobody even builds it because my drawing didnt have all the component names and pins lol .

I pains me to say that energeticforum has the best threads and best researchers now . I feel alone on this site , can I plz come back to energeticforum.com . Im sorry If I insulted the site , I deeply regret . I promise I will be 100% following the site's agreement rules , 100% sware .

http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1087.30.html

These peeps here never build anything serious , besides a few people this site is monkey see monkey do , they dare not avdenture themselves away from something they can copy word for word 

I will soon launch my product , see my project section for more details . Should be getting it any day now

Is a super oscillator/hvdc supply/dual solid state 3 phase pure sine alternator/ AM mixer .

I was even selling the pcb for people to build themselves for 200$ but pppl here sayd its too expensive . This is not a scam deal , even yet I risk being scammed and robbed because everything is exposed ,  just so I can start a new round of research of my HHO passion , HH0 has been stalling so it needs a boost .
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 14, 2010, 22:29:58 pm
Dankie, you gotta get off the booze before it kills you!
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 14, 2010, 22:40:59 pm
Dankie, you gotta get off the booze before it kills you!

See Qiman this is what this site has comed to , there is no leadership or no desire to do anything . There is just these hating old guys with a tubular cell  that didnt work and dont understand nothing further than metal and electricity flowing with some pulsing that they dont understand either . Somekind of old depressed town with boozers and a closed factory with 200 habitants .

I must move to the city Qiman .

You cant even come around this site doing stufff cause these guys just hate , but they dont build anything themselves and want everything , se basicly nothing gets posted besides this anecdotal **** about Stan's coloring book . The guys that know a bit dont even bother to come around anymore that much . 90% of em are like ghosts , spooky sometimes .

Shhh ... I dont drink booze @ this hour , in fact I am making an cad design plan for school .

And you gotta get yourself some skills because your skills are monkey see monkey do .
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 14, 2010, 23:03:50 pm
all bow down to the allmighty dankiefied oscillator that he has shown no results nor videos of that he has only gossiped about as if its the latest product on the market.. worship dankie with his monkey see monkey no do project achievments posted in picture form or video other then rambling and rambleing and rambling and rambllllllingggg  on and on and on and on that his poopy dont stink and falls out as golden blobs that will ultimately lead to alls salvation praise all mighty dankie and the magnificant unseen but dakiefied descibed 200 to 500 dollar oscillator amen.!!! if you get your head out your butt u might get some 02 and start seeing the light?  i can care less what you think of this site i like it nor do i care less if you go brown nose with the other site go thread to thread salesman! you got kick off energetic fourm in the past.. didnt you get kicked off this site before two and begged your way back on... you should be a bridge builder since you tend to burn bridges and have to rebuild them lol... come on danke show us somthin stop talking as if you bring so much...  the only thing i have seen you bring is perspectives and wire, sorry to hear about your wire getting 5 finger discounted that sucks.. but stop whining and show somthing lol..
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 14, 2010, 23:06:29 pm
Monkey see monkey do is a bad thing? I guess that's how I learn, is by doing. College wasn't enough for me anyway, They just teach good slave skills for the most part. Now that I think about it, I never found to much inspiration in my school days. Everyone was so close minded and creativity was almost nil. What inspires you Dankie? Did you just know all you know or did you copy something that has been understood for years already. To be creative, one must first learn all the different ways of creation before him. Monkey see, monkey do, monkey make better. Isn't that what you did with your oscillator thing with all the busted scope shots?
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 00:26:29 am
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.


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.

Hi Aaron,

The answer is no. The answer Peter gave, came on to me like it came from a person who felt himself too big to give answers to the "simple" man.
It might be my intepretation of the english language, which is not my native language. I understand and respect your point of view and i have no intentions at all to boot you. You speak from the hart. I do too.
If i was in your shoes, i would do the same as you are doing.
No worry.

Again, my first writing on your forum was done from a dissapointment feeling.
Please tell Peter that i am sorry for not reading his words well. If i am wrong, then i am man enough to say that i was wrong.


Steve




Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 00:45:52 am
Dankie, you gotta get off the booze before it kills you!

See Qiman this is what this site has comed to , there is no leadership or no desire to do anything . There is just these hating old guys with a tubular cell  that didnt work and dont understand nothing further than metal and electricity flowing with some pulsing that they dont understand either . Somekind of old depressed town with boozers and a closed factory with 200 habitants .

I must move to the city Qiman .

You cant even come around this site doing stufff cause these guys just hate , but they dont build anything themselves and want everything , se basicly nothing gets posted besides this anecdotal **** about Stan's coloring book . The guys that know a bit dont even bother to come around anymore that much . 90% of em are like ghosts , spooky sometimes .

Shhh ... I dont drink booze @ this hour , in fact I am making an cad design plan for school .

And you gotta get yourself some skills because your skills are monkey see monkey do .

Dankie,

This forum on which you have posted more then 1100 post is now a bad place?
You are really unbelievable.

Mr. Dankie, forum entertainer.....










Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 02:11:29 am
This forum has suffered battle wounds , most experimenters have been injured .

The only alive thing is Donald's build , 190 members are ghosts with nothing to say or share .

All posts since months ago are nothing but trivial . This site officially blows .

Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 02:44:12 am
dankie we are sorry it blows due to the fact we monkey see and monkey do as you so say...what you want us to do lol... arrrg "every one is monkey see monkey do" P.s will somebody please blow money on my magic oscillator and follow me!!! ?? even though i dankie say its wrong lol...

i kinda feel sorry for ya and your thought process.. i bet if  you had 5 monkey sees and monkey dos's marching behind you with dankiefied oscillators and somewhere around 1000- 2500 in your back pocket you would be marching to a different tune...  all i see now is a fool trying to down a fourm because you didnt get the toy you wanted while shopping with mommy at the grocery store. wahhh wahhh wahh but i want but i want wahh wahh wahh i hate you mommy wahh..

do you need a binky? need someone to wipe your nose? are you groggy from missing your afternoon nap time?

get over it and your self ego.. you think your are so advanced and think you have much knowledge to share rofl.. i can read dankie as can many others.. i do experiment as do many others.. answers are out there and whoever remains faithful and practice what they take in they will understand this stuff enough  to make somthin of it in the near future.. we dont need your whining when things dont meet commy dictator dankies standards..


 yes danke go ahead say im leaving and laugh it up fellas my magic oscillator and i will find other people to work with and buy my stuff.. we will show you ionization x guys that i dankie am right because i am allways right. rofl

Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 04:25:21 am
Hi dankie

I believe energetic forum is not as good as here, there are more posts but full of shit too. Here we at least have serious people really interested and doing some experiments and sharing ideas and findings. There you find only unilateral ways of thinking.

I hope you can keep doing your research and keep working on it, you are young and we will need young people in this world. Study a lot, read a lot, work a lot and try to put some money together. Don't let anyone make you fell down. Don't expect anything from the people, you will only fell bad (disappointed) when you see people can't help you or give you the attention you believe to deserve. Don't waste time fighting for points of view. Be very professional and nobody can say nothing about you. Be the best you can always. Every little thing is going to be alright. 

I hope all the best for you and all the others and hope you can do a great job with your new oscillator. If it don't work big deal you just found a new very important information, another way that wont work. Don't let this make you feel down, Instead remember that doing anything you are aways learning and what you learned can be useful in the future to understand new things and to be able to do many other things.

All the best
sebos
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 09:08:18 am
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.





Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 13:37:45 pm
Hi Aaron,

I ran all my engine tests on pure HHO, always in combination with ambient air.
Ambient air does 2 major things.
1. it add volume to the process (engine = airpump)
2. it slows down the combustion rate

The fact of using ionized air helping the process is still under investigation.
But i will know it very soon.
I stopped testing ionized HHO for the moment and i will have an air ionizer soon ready for my engine test.

This test will be easy, because i have my 600cc 4 cylinder engine running on 100%HHO and ambient air.

I will use around 7kv at like 20khz DC/square. Or would AC be better in that case?

Ammonia is probably right. I have some notes here, from a year back.
I will make a separate topic on that, so we can let this topic rest in peace.


regards
Steve

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












Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 16:27:02 pm
I say good by to dankie,we don't need him.He's not productive to this group.What has he given us?All he seems like he wants to do is make money by selling his work.What happened to open source here?I haven't seen him post anything that shows he has a project,in the effort to figure this thing out.
I'm either researching everyday,or working on my project.I have been working very hard at this thing now straight for over a year.Nothing else.Just because I don't give every detail of what I'm doing on here daily,doesn't mean I'm not doing anything.I've done more and learned more than most all of this group put together.And I'm still going.It's just alot slower because I've been laid off for the last three months.No money to play with,had to work with what I have.Plus I'm working weekly with the owner,setting up meetings.So enough about that.

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 
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 15, 2010, 16:29:18 pm
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.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/5gph.jpg)

There certainly is something about that. Haven't you read the patents and watched the videos?

I agree there certainly are more people fumbling about in their own theories than actually focusing on the documented systems and trying to build them. 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.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 18:05:03 pm
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.

Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 18:17:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 18:22:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 19:08:03 pm
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.

That would be 0.3 liters of liquid water converting to gas a minute.

I forget the exact number but isn't liquid to gas conversion in the neighborhood of X1800. 

Mike
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 19:21:22 pm
yes, Volume of HHO-Gas Converted ~ 1800 * Volume of Water
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 21:17:52 pm
5 gallons per hour - so that is 19 liters per hour. 19/60 minutes = 0.3 liters per minute

As said above... just to express the magnitude of this performance in clearer detail...

that is 2.5 gallons of gas per second at 0 psi
that is 150 gallons of gas per minute at 0 psi
that is 568 liters per minute at 0 psi, with a system running on, less than a few hundred watts.



I don't know what your experiments are about, what results you have, or anything about you, I don't know your education or professional background, but if you want to talk about the water fuel cell technology, lets talk about the water fuel cell technology.



You think the gas production was a cover up for the real secret that was ammonia, well ok.

You are trying to say Stan really used ammonia, so here are the flaws in that

Hydrogen and Oxygen leaving a cell will either be H2 and O2, or monatomic H and O, positive ions, missing electrons, whereby they repel all other positive and neutral atoms and molecules and will not bond to anything.

The monatomic H and O positive ions only occur when you use an Electron Extraction Circuit, and remove the covalent electrons, forcing them to be positive ions and maintain their unstable state.

The only time Stan is using the Electron Extraction Circuit is to set up the Hydrogen Fracturing Process

So before you get into that, we know that H2 and O2 are coming out of the cell, and they are stable, no possible way they can bond with N2.

Nitrogen exists in the atmosphere as N2 and it is extremely stable and non-reactive. H2 and O2 are stable and non-reactive. You will not form ammonia, that's just wishful thinking. Nitrogen has 5 electrons in it's outer shel with room for 3, it forms a triple bond with another N making it one of the strongest diatomic bonds.

We know that the introduction of non-combustible gasses, exhaust gasses, including nitrogen, slow down and modulate the burn rate. You can do this to any burn rate and temperature you want "all the way down to leaves and paper" he says.

Guess what. Ammonia would have it's own burn rate, the same as gasoline has a burn rate, and diesel has a burn rate, and propane has a burn rate.

How would burning ammonia (which wont form anyway) give you a modulated burn rate?

Ok so that's busted.

Now, the Hydrogen Fracturing Process, is performed in two ways, to accomplish the same task. This is the only time Stan ionizes anything involving Nitrogen.

First you can ionize the H and O, and keep them unstable monatomic positive ions, that repel everything. Burning this, Stan gets temperatures over 20,000 degrees. Does he mix the ionized H and O with nitrogen in this process? No...

When he takes it to the car, he does not Ionize the H and O. Ever. Doesn't do it.

He ionizes the Air, which is 21% Oxygen and 78% Nitrogen. This O and N is in the form of O2 and N2 in stable state. To bring that to an ionized state, you will either have O2 missing a few electrons, or monatomic O, positive ions, likewise with N2 missing electrons, or monatomic N, positive ions.

But guess what? N2 is largely transparent to IR and visible light, which is what Stan is using in both of the gas processors, Red LEDs. Is there any indication at all that the Ionization of Nitrogen is a focus in these systems? How on earth are we going to get ammonia? Read the tech brief, he shows a diagram of Oxygen being ionized. Not Nitrogen.

Nothing is stopping you from developing the next fabulous ammonia powered car from ionized Nitrogen and Hydrogen from water and air. But you are out on a limb to try and tell people it has anything to do with the WFC technology.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 16, 2010, 21:52:56 pm
Aaron,

If you actually read the original source regarding Rayleigh's nacient nitrogen you would discover that the effects he described occurred at near vacuum and disappeared with more pressure in vacuum tubes.  So in my mind it's more an effect found with Correas' work than what will happen in an ICE.

The production of NOx is an endothermic reaction.  It's a byproduct of combustion at high temperatures.  Cold water fog would alleviate that effect with flash steam and the high heat capacity of water.  The water vapor in the exhaust that Stan recycles he also tries to cool with a heat exchanger or cooling fins.

Over a year ago Patrick Kelly categorized Nitrogen Hydroxide in the "dubious devices" list.  You also proclaimed that the Bedini SSG circuit was the answer to the secret of the WFC Aaron.  I am not joining that bandwagon.  But if someone else sees merit it's their choice.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 17, 2010, 00:28:05 am

The truth is that everybody here is right.

Don, you have read the same papers as i have.
The output of Stans wfc is indead  HHO and thats proven by the test.
You also know that Stan ionized the ambient air by usage of the airgasprocessor.

The proces of making Ammonia is happening after the wfc.

You need in that proces:
1. hydrogen made by electrolysis
2. ionized ambient air
3. pressure
4. electrical discharge

The purpose of the ionizing systems (making ammonia) is for one reason only and that is to slow down the burnrate rate of hydrogen.
Why needed? A quick combustion cannot push a piston down.
You need a certain slow burning fuel, like petrol.

When you are able to slow the burnrate of hydrogen your will get much more efficiency out of it when you use it in an internal combustion engine.

Long story short: you need less HHO.


Stan was a smart man. He tried to help the USA in time of no petrol.
Laws of economics.....Water = free, ambient air = free
By using ambient as a hugh part of the needed fuel, he gained free fuel.


















Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 22, 2011, 15:35:54 pm
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.

Im pretty sure that your cell isn't Tay Hee Han cell. Similarry to Patrick Flanagan you need large capacitors not just an metal electrode coated.. the water split for ionization collision , the dielectrics emits electrons!!! I have just modify Patrick Flanagan electron generator into Tay Hee Han Cell.. As you can see you obtain same result. You can use different cell design but in all cases you need use  ONLY dielectric for split water with low amount of power.  You need high dielectric constant more than water creating an high capacitance necessary for created into water high voltage field >15Kv/mm. That system use only AC high voltage/high frequency
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 22, 2011, 15:56:35 pm
5 gallons per hour - so that is 19 liters per hour. 19/60 minutes = 0.3 liters per minute

As said above... just to express the magnitude of this performance in clearer detail...

that is 2.5 gallons of gas per second at 0 psi
that is 150 gallons of gas per minute at 0 psi
that is 568 liters per minute at 0 psi, with a system running on, less than a few hundred watts.



I don't know what your experiments are about, what results you have, or anything about you, I don't know your education or professional background, but if you want to talk about the water fuel cell technology, lets talk about the water fuel cell technology.



You think the gas production was a cover up for the real secret that was ammonia, well ok.

You are trying to say Stan really used ammonia, so here are the flaws in that

Hydrogen and Oxygen leaving a cell will either be H2 and O2, or monatomic H and O, positive ions, missing electrons, whereby they repel all other positive and neutral atoms and molecules and will not bond to anything.

The monatomic H and O positive ions only occur when you use an Electron Extraction Circuit, and remove the covalent electrons, forcing them to be positive ions and maintain their unstable state.

The only time Stan is using the Electron Extraction Circuit is to set up the Hydrogen Fracturing Process

So before you get into that, we know that H2 and O2 are coming out of the cell, and they are stable, no possible way they can bond with N2.

Nitrogen exists in the atmosphere as N2 and it is extremely stable and non-reactive. H2 and O2 are stable and non-reactive. You will not form ammonia, that's just wishful thinking. Nitrogen has 5 electrons in it's outer shel with room for 3, it forms a triple bond with another N making it one of the strongest diatomic bonds.

We know that the introduction of non-combustible gasses, exhaust gasses, including nitrogen, slow down and modulate the burn rate. You can do this to any burn rate and temperature you want "all the way down to leaves and paper" he says.

Guess what. Ammonia would have it's own burn rate, the same as gasoline has a burn rate, and diesel has a burn rate, and propane has a burn rate.

How would burning ammonia (which wont form anyway) give you a modulated burn rate?

Ok so that's busted.

Now, the Hydrogen Fracturing Process, is performed in two ways, to accomplish the same task. This is the only time Stan ionizes anything involving Nitrogen.

First you can ionize the H and O, and keep them unstable monatomic positive ions, that repel everything. Burning this, Stan gets temperatures over 20,000 degrees. Does he mix the ionized H and O with nitrogen in this process? No...

When he takes it to the car, he does not Ionize the H and O. Ever. Doesn't do it.

He ionizes the Air, which is 21% Oxygen and 78% Nitrogen. This O and N is in the form of O2 and N2 in stable state. To bring that to an ionized state, you will either have O2 missing a few electrons, or monatomic O, positive ions, likewise with N2 missing electrons, or monatomic N, positive ions.

But guess what? N2 is largely transparent to IR and visible light, which is what Stan is using in both of the gas processors, Red LEDs. Is there any indication at all that the Ionization of Nitrogen is a focus in these systems? How on earth are we going to get ammonia? Read the tech brief, he shows a diagram of Oxygen being ionized. Not Nitrogen.

Nothing is stopping you from developing the next fabulous ammonia powered car from ionized Nitrogen and Hydrogen from water and air. But you are out on a limb to try and tell people it has anything to do with the WFC technology.

In part your explaination is correct but you need to consider that.. Brown gas is very reactive gas, is water at gas state .. all peoples burn that but brown gas or just HHO is only an "transition" molecule not an fuel, for create an really fuel you need to convert that (using what meyer have indicated in some paper) using UV irradiation. Water (gas) mixed with normal nitrogen molecule and irradiated with UV field react in strange mode ionizing the same mixture; that mixture passed inside other UV field dissociate water gas creating ammonia and nitrous oxide. You don't need any catalyst as emitter of electrons because the extra electrons are released from the same water gas. Also .. in your explaination you have forget nitrous oxide, N2O is the very important component key for reach THERMAL EXPLOSIVE REACTION as  Meyer explain. Think that... Ammonia and air burns with 8J of energy but ammonia (gas) and nitrous oxide with only 0,07mJ.. spark plug is good enough.     
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 23, 2011, 03:37:28 am
Everything I said was correct. You have some more learning to do.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 23, 2011, 03:40:19 am
Stan did not use UV light. The reason why he did not use UV light is because it would exceed the work function of the SS and create a photoelectric current inside the Hydrogen Gas Gun. UV light would pluck electrons off of the plates and send them into the gas cavity, which is exactly counter to amp restriction process that is required to ionize the combustible gas atoms.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 23, 2011, 03:42:38 am
Nitrous Oxide is discussed in the Exhaust Reclaimer Technology in the Tech Breif, it can be broken down and completely eliminated. It is not desired, and yet even without eliminating it, it is minimal as a byproduct anyway. Listen to him talk about it in his various lectures.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 23, 2011, 08:30:22 am
Stan did not use UV light. The reason why he did not use UV light is because it would exceed the work function of the SS and create a photoelectric current inside the Hydrogen Gas Gun. UV light would pluck electrons off of the plates and send them into the gas cavity, which is exactly counter to amp restriction process that is required to ionize the combustible gas atoms.

That isn't UV???
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 23, 2011, 08:41:28 am
Nitrous Oxide is discussed in the Exhaust Reclaimer Technology in the Tech Breif, it can be broken down and completely eliminated. It is not desired, and yet even without eliminating it, it is minimal as a byproduct anyway. Listen to him talk about it in his various lectures.

Sorry but you forget if you think that only hydrogen produced from WFC run an engine 100%.  Nitrous oxide is formed from oxygen of water during the process and is, with ammonia, the other main component for reach right green fuel. Document attached is extracted from scientific analisys.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 23, 2011, 08:44:05 am
Everything I said was correct. You have some more learning to do.
Sorry .. in part is correct.. however explain chemically with formula what is your water fuel. If you know for you is simple write that.. My formula is 8N2+6HHO+Hv=4NH3+6N2O.. yours??
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 24, 2011, 00:53:49 am
Stan did not use UV light. The reason why he did not use UV light is because it would exceed the work function of the SS and create a photoelectric current inside the Hydrogen Gas Gun. UV light would pluck electrons off of the plates and send them into the gas cavity, which is exactly counter to amp restriction process that is required to ionize the combustible gas atoms.

That isn't UV???

If you list all of Stan's technologies, UV light is not required for any of them. That is talking about recycling water AFTER it's been used. This is not required, it's just another approach instead of letting the water go out the exhaust pipe and then into the atmosphere, and through the cloud/rain cycle. If you use UV light anywhere else in the process you will screw it up by creating a photoelectric current.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 24, 2011, 00:56:42 am
Nitrous Oxide is discussed in the Exhaust Reclaimer Technology in the Tech Breif, it can be broken down and completely eliminated. It is not desired, and yet even without eliminating it, it is minimal as a byproduct anyway. Listen to him talk about it in his various lectures.

Sorry but you forget if you think that only hydrogen produced from WFC run an engine 100%.  Nitrous oxide is formed from oxygen of water during the process and is, with ammonia, the other main component for reach right green fuel. Document attached is extracted from scientific analisys.

That doc is not related to Stan's work, you are confusing different systems. Read the exhaust gas reclaimer technology in the Tech Brief, it will tell you how to completely eliminate Nitrous Oxide.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 24, 2011, 00:58:27 am
Everything I said was correct. You have some more learning to do.
Sorry .. in part is correct.. however explain chemically with formula what is your water fuel. If you know for you is simple write that.. My formula is 8N2+6HHO+Hv=4NH3+6N2O.. yours??

It's not a chemical process, it's a physical process. I see you are not working on Stan's tech at all, you are doing something else. I wish you luck with that. I hope my comments here serve as a record to other researchers that they may distinguish between Stan's work and the other theories out there. I correct your statements in reference to Stan's technology only.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 24, 2011, 04:09:59 am
Physical or chemical, does it really matter? We found here a big claim, and i don't think we should deny new theories.

I still think there is something else stan was talking about... in the end he clearly says that he can transform hydrogen into energy at 100% mass decay. But of course he worked thru many things in 30 years, i'm sure he might had used this system tut is talking about at maybe the initial time...   later he was going to use the injectors only...
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 24, 2011, 16:13:59 pm
100% Mass decay into energy would be E=mc^2 from Einstein. Stan supersedes this, as he mentions while teasing Einstein's theory for only being 3 dimensional in the New Zealand video. Mass energy is one thing and Stan's Universal Energy is another. You can find out more by reading the Universal Energy Balance of Water in the Tech Brief.
Title: Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 24, 2011, 19:33:51 pm
100%? That doesn't sound right. Doesn't that mean something turns to nothing? Not to be a nag or anything, but, could you give me a better description? Why is it considered "decay"?