Author Topic: Open letter to P. Lindemann  (Read 24395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #32 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

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #33 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.






Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #34 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?













Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #35 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 

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #36 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.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #37 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.


Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #38 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.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #39 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.