Author Topic: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!  (Read 17051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« on: February 24, 2010, 17:49:53 pm »
Hello everyone!

I have been thinking a bit about how air ionizers work and finding some rather peculiar similarities to how Stan describes his inventions. Often, Stan spoke of high voltages but never really stood on a specific range. I assume from reading his works, 5Kv on up to 40Kv(depending on the device) were the most mentioned numbers. And as usual, very low current is consumed. I also believe it has been established by the general public, the gases produced from the first process are ionized for several reasons unaddressed in this writing.

The first patented Air Ionizer or Ozone Generator was invented by none other than Nikola Tesla. US Patent #568177. Review closely the drawings illustrated in the patent and see how closely the apparatus resembles the inventions of Stan Meyer. There is one major difference, though, with these two in comparison, a detail which is mostly overlooked or not yet understood. The "Polarity" of the circuit...

Air Ionizers have a polarity. Just by switching the polarity from positive to negative or vice versa, we change the polarity of the ions produced. An ozone generator produces negative ions, while, the reverse will produce super-oxides or unstable atoms of oxygen. Let it be known that these resulted positive ions or super-oxides are not the healthiest elements to be mishandled or consumed by the human body. Super-oxides are destructive when they encounter living cells. Household cleaners like "Oxyclean" use super-oxides for the reason being the atom will accept just about any particle it can get to try to reach equilibrium. Super-oxides may even aid in splitting water. My local water treatment plant uses ozone to treat our water, why not super-oxides?

So, now I have to re-look at my WFC replication and wonder if my setup is polarity positive or negative. Should this small detail make the bit of difference from a working and non-working replication? Is the VIC nothing more than a liquid water to gas ionizer? I had mentioned a little bit of why I think it is a good thing for the trapped bubbles to recirculate back through the tubular array in such a way as to possibly ionize the hydrogen gases therein. Steve had commented and asked about it, which I did not reply. If I may, I wish to address that question with this thread as a whole. I apologize for not replying in a mannerly fashion, for, I had none at the time.

When an atom loses electrons it becomes "electronegative" or also known as unstable because of it's inherent attraction to negative particles, trying to become stable. The more electrons stripped away, the greater the electronegativity. A quote from the Wiki...

Electronegativity, symbol ?, is a chemical property that describes the ability of an atom (or, more rarely, a functional group) to attract electrons (or electron density) towards itself.[1] An atom's electronegativity is affected by both its atomic weight and the distance that its valence electrons reside from the charged nucleus. The higher the associated electronegativity number, the more an element or compound attracts electrons towards it. First proposed by Linus Pauling in 1932 as a development of valence bond theory,[2] it has been shown to correlate with a number of other chemical properties. Electronegativity cannot be directly measured and must be calculated from other atomic or molecular properties. Several methods of calculation have been proposed and, although there may be small differences in the numerical values of the electronegativity, all methods show the same periodic trends between elements.

The most commonly used method of calculation is that originally proposed by Pauling. This gives a dimensionless quantity, commonly referred to as the Pauling scale, on a relative scale running from 0.7 to 4.0 (hydrogen = 2.2). When other methods of calculation are used, it is conventional (although not obligatory) to quote the results on a scale that covers the same range of numerical values: this is known as an electronegativity in Pauling units.

Electronegativity, as it is usually calculated, is not strictly an atomic property, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule:[3] the equivalent property of a free atom is its electron affinity. It is to be expected that the electronegativity of an element will vary with its chemical environment,[4] but it is usually considered to be a transferable property, that is to say that similar values will be valid in a variety of situations. The opposite of electronegativity is electropositivity: a measure of an element's ability to donate electrons.


I can only imagine that when highly unstable oxygen atoms are introduced to a certain amount of water and voltage potential , the water will not only disassociate, but may even combust with very little input to the system in an optimally design device.

I am short on time once again, but, I would like to go over the different gas ionizer topologies and there history to related inventions of others. I have found a wealth of information that I would like to share to anyone venturing into the realm of Stan Meyer.

Thank you and have a great day!

Bubbles(Bubz)
« Last Edit: February 25, 2010, 08:45:03 am by Bubz »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2010, 19:26:42 pm »
Bubz,
By all means share the information we are all ears.
The WFC and all related are still wide open as it appears there are a few experiemnters but nothing of any significant difference has been made or shown.

I understand the ozone part of the processor.
Have not looked into polarity of this process after all most of the aim is to pull off an electron from the shell of oxygen.
No one ever spoke of nitrogen, but I believe its here that the nitrogen is also effected.
Also there seems to me there is a dualism.

Sure oxygen with its radicals in various forms od O o2 o3 o4 o5 and maybe more!
But what of the 78% of nitrogen that is not spoken of.
Okay maybe the reformed oxygen effects the water molecule a little I don't know as there is no real proof here yet shown.
To add to the what if, that 78% of nitrogen went through the same field as the oxygen on those polarized plates of hi-voltage in some of the other threads they are speaking of ammonia also.
I think its all in the process because pretty much if you are messing with oxygen you are messing with the nitrogen too!

So now you have various stages of (O) and (N) charged water H2O few H1's More of the H2's then mixes of NH3.
All happening at the cylinder after the mixture leaves the injector with its last hi-voltage field.
We know that O3 is not that good of a product to have around various metal surfaces from the fact it produces oxidations.
So maybe there is not enough O3? to be an oxidant.
Or maybe the final O3 charge is absorbed in the final water mist?

Bottom line I agree is that the procerss of air-ionizers is very much the same process as what is being used here to produce the final fuel.
Yet many unanswered questions, and a huge opening here for devices to be made.

So on the question of polarity, how exactly can we change the polarity?
 
 
 
 

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2010, 21:36:59 pm »
Fantastic post,

From Tesla's Patent

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture23-3.png)

Makes perfect sense for why Stan pumps water through the tubes as well.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2010, 04:19:59 am »
There are two basic topologies that can be utilized for gas ionization purposes. The first, such as Tesla's patent shows is the typical transformer and the motor is a dual function of driving the fan and rectification of the secondary. In our case we can use a diode or bridge in it's place if practical. The second is the "Voltage Multiplier" or originally known as a "Cockcroft–Walton generator". The latter circuitry is what you will find in almost all air ionizers sold today. The circuit is rather simple to understand and build, plus, they sell inexpensive kits online on a variety of websites. $15.00 and some assembly required. The cheapest assembled kit I know of can be found @ amazing1.com if you care to look. I have the exact same version as the one sold @ amazing1 although it came pre-built which leaves out the option of reversing the circuitry's polarity. I will have to purchase another and all I have to do is install the diodes in backwards. That's it! For measuring of the ions being emitted by the two devices, I will have to build an ion detector which is also a kit available @ amazing1. I also think it is possible the ion detector will be able to detect ions from the gasses produced from my demo cell, if there is any at all.

A good air ionizer does not need a fan. There is a magnetohydrodynamic effect that is produced by these devices. It is best known as an "Ionic Wind". The same is true with water. This technology has been shown by Stan in a drawing(which I can't find right now) of how he could move water through a looping pipe and a single cell fixed inside the loop. Think MHD drive like the ones used in the movie "Red October". And of course, the EPG units are based on the underlying technology also. Exit port tapering is another fine detail Stan utilized.

Another invention I found to be the reciprocal of ionizing gasses to the point of combustion, are the devices invented to extinguish or limit the oxidation reaction of fire/plasma. This Biefeld-Brown Effect cools by absorbing ions produced by plasma such as a simple gas torch flame. This technology is used for welding when a certain temperature has to be maintained during the welding of certain materials.

So, all in all, what do all these relative devices have in common? They all are design to either capture or accelerate particles! "No one ever thought of using a particle accelerator" Stan Meyer quoted from the New Zealand videos.

Nitrogen. what little I know about nitrogen is the by-product nitrogen oxide being produced in ICE's without the aid of an EGR(exhaust gas recirculation) system. Sound familiar? Another Wiki quote...

In internal combustion engines, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is a nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions reduction technique used in most petrol/gasoline  and diesel engines.

EGR works by recirculating a portion of an engine's exhaust gas back to the engine cylinders. In a gasoline engine, this inert exhaust displaces the amount of combustible matter in the cylinder. This means the heat of combustion is less, and the combustion generates the same pressure against the piston at a lower temperature. In a diesel engine, the exhaust gas replaces some of the excess oxygen in the pre-combustion mixture.

Because NOx formation progresses much faster at high temperatures, EGR reduces the amount of NOx the combustion generates. NOx forms primarily when a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen is subjected to high temperature.


I admit, I have never pondered the idea of ionized nitrogen until recently when it was brought up in another thread. I am certain nitrogen plays a part in the over all process, though, I don't know enough of it yet to make any suitable comment or opinion.

Thanks again for your time and ideals!

Bubz
« Last Edit: February 25, 2010, 08:15:24 am by Bubz »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2010, 05:31:37 am »
Electrohydrodynamics may be the better word? A video for you...


lol, ok two videos...
feature=related

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2010, 06:23:01 am »
An even bigger bang for your buck!

I got a second wind and would like to add a bit about the combustion and how Stan found the bigger bang for less. In short, the nucleus. Those eight protons in the middle of the oxygen atom. It is possible to pull these particles apart. Even just a little tug will provide an extreme amount of energy. Stan describes it in the document "The Atomic Energy Balance of Water". I noticed in this document he chose to use the word "Universal Energy" where others would say "Aether" or "Scalar Energy". I can't say I have any supporting evidence of this nor do I have any reference to compare to. I do know of the advances in Superdeformation of Nuclei. A quote from this page... hxxp://www.halexandria.org/dward164.htm  Although, it may not be relevant. You be the judge.

Nuclei are considered to be superdeformed when the nucleus acquires an elongated shape that can be represented as an approximate ellipsoid where the ratio of the long to short axis is considerably larger than 1.3 to 1. [1]  Greiner and Sandulescu [2] have discussed in some detail how superasymmetric, superdeformed nuclei can spontaneously fission.  In these cases, the deformation is sufficiently extreme that the once spherical nucleus more closely resembles a bowling pin (but without the flat bottom).  While fission reactions are rare, their occurrence does emphasize the degree to which nuclear deformation can reach.   

Nuclear deformation is of interest for many reasons, but in the case of the precious metals, it is particularly important when these metals reach a condition of being a microcluster [3], or more significantly become monoatomic (not connected to like atoms).  In the case of microclusters being deposited in thin films, they can function as superconductors.  If one adds high spin to these monoatomic elements, the orbits of nucleons and electrons are reconfigured -- i.e. Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements (ORME). 

The Collective Model of the nucleus maintains that “the outer part of the nucleus can deform when the outer nucleons move with respect to the nucleons of the inner nucleus.” This model is similar to a liquid drop model.  These deformations, however, require that “the nucleus gain or lose energy.” [2]  The degree to which the shape of the nucleus reacts to the change in energy is strongly dependent upon the element in question.  Some nuclei are considered to be playing hard ball, while others are referred to as soft nuclei. 

As the electrons and their orbits are warped into toward the nucleus, the protons in the nucleus are more attracted to the closer electrons, and the result is nuclear deformation (but one which warps the nuclei into an alignment in the same direction as the force -- instead of the perpendicularly oriented electronic orbits).  Such nuclear superdeformations and similar phenomena in electrons may be conducive to the formation of Cooper pairs. And with Cooper pairs comes Superconductivity. 

The essence of the ORME theory is that one is dealing with high-spin, superdeformed nuclei, whose electrons form Cooper pairs, and thus the monoatomic elements become a beam of light, a superconducting medium.  Experiments with Fullerenes (clusters of 60 Copper atoms) have, when doped with Potassium, yielded superconductors (especially when imperfections are smoothed away by repeated heating and cooling.  This variable sequence of annealing allows the material to reach its ideal state. 

In strongly rotating, superdeformed nuclei, Shimizu and Broglia [4] have suggested that “superconductivity should disappear for particles in the quantal size effects (QSE’s) regime, when the energy difference between two discrete one-electron states is comparable to the energy gap of the superconducting state.  This means that small superconductors with fewer than 104 to 105 electrons as, e.g., atomic nuclei should be strongly affected by quantal size effects.”  Conversely, with fewer and fewer electrons, as one approaches the microcluster, and ultimately the monoatomic state, the superdeformed rotational bands contribute to the pairing correlations in nuclei. 

In a separate paper, Shimizu, et al, [5] have noted that, “The most collective phenomenon displayed by the many-body nuclear system is independent particle motion, where all nucleons adjust their motions so that each proton and neutron move independently in an average field.  Striking regularities are associated with this phenomenon: for example, the appearance of large gaps in the single-particle system and of ‘magic’ numbers for both protons and neutrons leading to especially stable systems, known as closed shell nuclei.” 

The distinction between so-called closed shell nuclei and those of the Precious Metals is noteworthy. On the one hand, the precious elements, the Transition Elements of Group VIII in the Periodic Table of the Elements, have numbers of nucleons radically distinct from those elements having the closed shells predicted by Nuclear Shell Structure theory.  The latter shows closures when the number of nucleons are 2, 8, 20, 28, 40, 50, 82, 126, and 184.  On the other hand, the number of protons for Ruthenium through Silver are 44 through 47 (i.e. midway between 40 and 50); while Osmium through Gold has 76 through 79.  The numbers for neutrons of say, Rhodium 103 is 58; while Iridium 191 or 193, has 114 or 116 neutrons.  These are clearly distinct from the closed shells. 

On the other hand, Argon 38, which has a chemically closed shell for electrons (and is thus considered one of the inert gases -- i.e. little if any tendency toward chemical reactions -- also exhibits a closed shell of 20 neutrons, but does not have a closed shell of protons (18).  While this does not lead to superdeformation or superconductivity, it does, for reasons not readily explainable, cause Argon to be apparently critical as an impurity in air in the case of Sonoluminiscence.  Also, Calcium 40 has closed nuclear shells of protons and neutrons and is thus extremely stable from a nuclear viewpoint -- even though with two electrons to share, it is chemically quite active. 

“The discovery of superdeformed rotational bands during the past years opens a new chapter in the study of nuclei under conditions of extreme deformations and angular momenta.” “The spectra of rapidly rotating nuclei reveal two distinct components in the buildup of the total angular momentum, corresponding to alignment of orbital angular momentum of individual particles and to collective rotation.” [5]   

I.e. Spin is important!  Furthermore, this is the same angular momentum which is critical to Hyperdimensional Physics -- and if you really want to get right down to it, probably all aspects of Connective Physics.  By the simple expedient of rotating a nucleus (where the total number of nucleons is more than 150) to the point of superdeformation, it is thus possible to encounter spontaneous fission.  But if the latter is possible, then a meshing of these superdeformed nuclei may result in the nuclei themselves become superconducting. Part of the reason for the latter is due to superextreme accelerations and deaccelerations, which are in turn the key elements of The Fifth Element, Sonoluminescence, and potentially Hyperdimensional Physics as well. 

Surprise!  All of the physics is interrelated, and everything is connected.  But you’ve figured that out by now, right?  So, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you outside playing? 

Additional information on this subject -- in the event of really lousy weather outside -- is included in the Scientific Literature, and annotated description of the peer-reviewed, highly relevant journal articles on the fascinating subject of ORME and all of it s related and supporting physics and biology.   


Goodnight!

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2010, 07:42:53 am »
Stan's Atom
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture24-4.png)

Keely's Atom
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/klyatom.gif)

Nassim's Atom
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture25-3.png)
(and everything)

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: Air Ionizers Analogy - Strikingly Similar!
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2010, 08:30:26 am »
Thx for bringing this up Bubz .

This is important .