Author Topic: Open letter to P. Lindemann  (Read 24391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #40 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

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2010, 19:21:22 pm »
yes, Volume of HHO-Gas Converted ~ 1800 * Volume of Water

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #42 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.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #43 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

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #44 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.



















Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #45 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

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #46 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.     

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2011, 03:37:28 am »
Everything I said was correct. You have some more learning to do.