Author Topic: Stan used ammonia?  (Read 20529 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2010, 19:35:19 pm »
I dont understand Steve;  The whole point of producing amonia would be to get it into a compact form that can be stored in a 'fuel' tank.
Its a damn good idea if you use solar, wind or hydroelectric power to produce H and then NH3 which is easily handled in the same fashion as petrol.

I see no point in producing amonia on-board except for the fact that H takes up a lot of room in the combustion chamber which decreases power, relative to a petrol powered engine??

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2010, 01:27:56 am »
I see no point in producing amonia on-board except for the fact that H takes up a lot of room in the combustion chamber which decreases power, relative to a petrol powered engine??

Atomic hydrogen has 3 times the power of H2. You cannot contain atomic hydrogen that is introduced
into the engine, you will lose it past the rings, etc... You need a bigger molecule that will carry hydrogen
into the engine and THEN have atomic hydrogen freed AFTER compression and when the plasma
ignition hits.

If you try to produce atomic hydrogen from the WFC, which you will not succeed - it simply combines
back to HOH or HHO. So creating a lot of water gas in hopes of providing a lot of hydrogen in HOH,
HHO or even atomic hydrogen isn't even the point of the WFC. (0.3 liters per minute is the cell setup
that Stan recommends "small scale" according to the referenced page). Most others with WORKING
knowledge of water fuel are making 3-6 liters per minute so more than Stan recommends but
A LOT LESS than is really needed to run an entire engine on HHO because running the engine on
HHO is not what Stan Meyer was doing. Every cell he ever showed running in any video never showed
enough HHO production to run an entire car engine on just HHO.

Small 600cc engines can work with just HHO to run it but then hook it to
a generator and make enough electricity from that to make its own HHO. It won't work because
you're only getting a fraction of the power from hydrogen by burning it HHO form.

HHO (small amounts) is only a catalyst that
when the plasma hits, there is dissociation of diatomic hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. This small
amount of hydrogen that is sourced from HHO or HOH is burned and nh3 in presence of atomic
hydrogen and atomic oxygen is extremely combustible. The ammonia is your main source of hydrogen.
Remember there is heat and pressure at this point.

The exhaust is a tiny amount of h2o and a lot of nitrogen. There can be traces of nitrogen oxide type
compounds that can be recycled.

Between those that have success, they each have their own specific viewpoints on the sequence
of steps in the reactions. However, there is no debate about the fact about ammonia.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2010, 01:52:53 am »
Every paragraph you wrote either says something wrong or irrelevant. Which is fine, if you are trying to learn, but since you think you have it figured out, all I can do is wish you luck.


Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2010, 03:06:35 am »
again that's 0.3 litres of water converted per minute, not hho!!
Get your numbers right and try again!!!!

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2010, 05:04:19 am »
If you think you see 480 liters per minute of HHO being produced by Stans wfc, show it :) It
is irrelevant and unnecessary. Stan talked about THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY and that has nothing to
do with a lot of HHO and is apparent nobody here knows what thermal explosive energy means
or what it is in reference to! Those gas production claims are bogus as is most of his explanations
on what his process is.

What is wrong with everyone that they think Stan Meyer even told the truth about
his whole process? You go with those explanations and you get the corresponding results, which is
nothing like what he described.

Again, results speak for themselves and there are already people (that is plural)with results and
ALL of them are using small amounts of HHO  as a matter of FACT - learn your chemistry people,
I gave you references of what to search for.

I am not wrong in what I have said and in time you will see that you are only interested in
maintaining what you already think you know instead of learning something that actually works.

You all have the answers so you don't need anything from anyone else. Your results (lack of)
speak for themselves. Good luck on your big hho production!

I can see why you guys haven't succeeded.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2010, 05:58:58 am »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2010, 06:46:51 am »
I'm going to side with Mr Qiman he is spelling out the latest information.
Its not an easy process but if you did the research it will definately have plenty of chemistry there.

Qiman is not the process of water air and recirculated exhaust what creates the ammonia if all parts were broken down and reshuffled by an ionization process of these parts or molecules (nitrogen hydrogen) but what doesn't make sense is there is oxygen in there too.
78% nitro 20% oxy 2% trace from air itself that the GP processes and if ammonia is NH3 it may not be completely ammonia but some other form or unknown or unwritten as of yet, I say this because what happened to the O O2 O3 O5 in this process.
This whole activity is happening in the cylinder also, and is not what comes out the exhaust, since the exhaust is a byproduct of what happened in the motor after it fired, so thats maybe why no ammonia would be measured out the exhaust?.

Also you have been real hard at this for years on top of that.

What I think Donaldwfc and DynoDon are very concerned with or focused on at this time is refining the process of creating the HHO in huge quantities in a resonant condition with very low current to boot.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this as I also truly believe the process of electrolyzing HHO can be taken to an extreme and would not be called electrolysis anymore but another method and can create a beneficial fuel result for us all.

The chemical process and combo's of all those molecules and research of the many deep minded and routed peoples of the many forums in my book are hitting the nail on the head with the GP, injection processing, plasma sparks and manipulations of the neccessary molecular structure to other than fire the cylinder and have no leakage of blowby, create a great exhaust mixture to go back into the air.
Its just around the corner but will any of them release the information for us others or will they stand to fill their deep pockets with the gread that surrounds all man kind, power and money and all those NDA's that keep them bound up and silent. And then the information becomes buried again.
Who will lead us to Freedom maybe H20power?
There is a lot of information still missing for that project to be completed.

So whats the point of laying a low blow and anyone being hard headed its all good here!

I can see at this site we need more activity, more builds  would help a whole bunch, researchers actually building something and exposing it here would be real nice.
But have a feeling there is some hidden activity here a brewing and festering.
People with good ideas.

Maybe Dynodon could dig a little deeper in those real Meyer notes and get some good clues.
And what happened to Geotex and to J Bostick.
Have a feeling your holding back there Dyno!   

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4706
    • water structure and science
Re: Stan used ammonia?
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2010, 11:11:20 am »
Its good to read all those different point of views here.. ;) ;) ;)
Lets keep respect for eachother, ok?

I can understand both points of view, but i am going with the Ammonia or what kind of gas mix is going into the engine.

Komtek is having a good point. We will not know what the final mix is.
Its a mix of N, O, H. Lots of oxygen and nitrogen that will bond with hydrogen in some way or form.

Add nitrogen as fuel part and your totall volume of fuel will increase hughly....
Add the slower burnrate part and you will find yourself a system that is capable of creating enough energy to drive your car and to make his own fuel.. ;) :D