DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE

[stevie1001]

Hi folks,

Must say that i also still enjoy the discussion on how to run an engine on water.
My 2 not important cents are that everybody must realize what Stan Meyer said in certain video's.
He said himself that he dropped, with help, a couple of patents. He had to work around the truth, because he knew that he wouldn't get a patent on his technology.
The person who helped him, had worked for a patent office or had a lot of experience with patents. Cannot remember that fact in detail anymore.
So what does this mean? Anybody here with patent experience?
Its not that complex. You write your idea on paper and show a POSSIBLE way on how to achieve this.
I know what you are thinking right now. You seen the pictures made by Don. I have those as well. You see the VIC.
Its because of me that the video of Meyer, interviewed by my friend, became public. Stan clearly shows his Bug.
As far as I know, Stan really tried to hide the real technology.
May i suggest you all focus on the idea,s. Yes, get hydrogen. Yes, ionize ambient air. Yes, get an update ignitionsystem.
Maybe inject waterdrops.  The idea's are right. Now just understand how to make those real.
Example: ionizing ambient air. How is that done in Stans patent? Two tubes and some leds....
You all know better. You do not ionize air with two tubes. Not even in Stans days...

Again, these are my 2 cents. Do with it what you want.

Steve

[Farrah Day]

Nice 2 cents, Stevie.

As far as patents go, there are cart loads out there that are just ideas, some more fantastical than others, so the patent thing is all a bit mysterious to me. However, it seems pretty pointless (if you do have something that really works) not to patent the actual working device. I mean, if you provide false details, this surely gives you little or no protection over the real world working device. So why bother patenting in the first place? I do find it all a little suspicious, to say the least.

I know I always harp on about Meyer's technical brief being so much gobbledegook, but I also always say that I'm not averse to the idea of a WFC in principle. I think it is better to look at ways of achieving what you think needs to be done rather than trying to replicate anything specific from Meyer's patents.

And if people wonder why I'm always slagging off Meyer's technical brief, then they really should get a copy. In fact we do need to see if we can find a copy somewhere in pdf format so everyone can make their own judgements. I have a hard copy (over 200 A4 pages), but nothing on disk.

[Farrah Day]

Yeah, I have watched all the videos and I do find them extremely hard work, and I also find what he says quite hard to swallow.

All this said, it was Meyer that first spiked my interest in this field so I guess I owe him that much.  Sadly though, given the incorrect terminology, unscientific terms and indeed the odd piece of blatant pseudoscience, it is quite understandable why scientists viewing his lectures or reading his technical brief would view him as nut-job or a fraud and give him a wide berth.

And for anyone who is interested, for anyone who wants to be able to make their own judgement, here's a link to Meyer's HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS, the technical brief: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.free-energy-info.co.uk%2FMeyerData.pdf&ei=S8ZAUYrNBcev0QWlq4GABA&usg=AFQjCNHNmxgK01UIpwfmjBpCsf5ItO_B_w&sig2=qJXO0MtzCpkctUU06DSn3g

Download it now in case it disappears.

[stevie1001]

Nice 2 cents, Stevie.

As far as patents go, there are cart loads out there that are just ideas, some more fantastical than others, so the patent thing is all a bit mysterious to me. However, it seems pretty pointless (if you do have something that really works) not to patent the actual working device. I mean, if you provide false details, this surely gives you little or no protection over the real world working device. So why bother patenting in the first place? I do find it all a little suspicious, to say the least.

I know I always harp on about Meyer's technical brief being so much gobbledegook, but I also always say that I'm not averse to the idea of a WFC in principle. I think it is better to look at ways of achieving what you think needs to be done rather than trying to replicate anything specific from Meyer's patents.

And if people wonder why I'm always slagging off Meyer's technical brief, then they really should get a copy. In fact we do need to see if we can find a copy somewhere in pdf format so everyone can make their own judgements. I have a hard copy (over 200 A4 pages), but nothing on disk.

Patents have commercial values. You never reveal all details in a patent to protect your findings. I agree with you that that system is a bit weird..

About Meyers tech brief, i have two originals on the shelf here. Different ages. Some differences between them. One with more mambo jambo (religious statements and such) then the other. Stan was adjusting the paper thru the years, which is what i also would do. I scanned both of them. They are available for the ones who want them.

If you look for Horvarth, Andersen and Meyer, then you see what the tricks are to run an IC on water. You also notice that they all did the same. The first had the most practical patents from my point of view.

What most people are doing and what i did previous years where two things.
1. trying to improve electrolysis with modern technology.
2. trying to use HV with low amps, aka the Meyer system.

Now think for a moment.
HV and water don't go well, so improving electrolysis stops somewhere around 150% faraday. (my own experience)
So where do the stories of HV coming from? How did these dudes drove their cars on water in an overunity situation?
Does voltage really perform work?
Voltage works in the known technology of ionization. So, ionize the hydrogen. That process does not consume much power, but doubles at least your hydrogen power, when you use it to go from H2 to H1. Do the math. H2 para hydrogen, H2 ortho hydrogen, H1. Three stages with increasing state of energy. A state that doesn't stay long in that form, btw. Just a 0.3 second.
Quality, not quantities of hydrogen isotopes.

To be very clear for the newbies: i talk about HYDROGEN. Not HHO. Do NOT ionize HHO. Is dangerous. It kills you.

I am not going to tell you that i know it all.  I am just busy to translate all bs into normal science, like you, Fara day. Thats what i appreciate in you and thats what makes your posts worth reading.

Steve

[stevie1001]

ps...

A very important thing in the Aaron Murikami behavior discussion is the fun part of doing science tests.......

I hope that Aaron finds that part back.
Not really energetic in balance, from my point of view....

[TinMan]

The reason i have been asking questions in relation to hydroxy system's,is because i have built a test bed for hydroxy experimenting.
Now im not trying to achieve running an ICE on hydroxy alone,but rather see how far i can bring up the fuel economy.
The first couple of timed run's indicate a 23% increase in run time with the hydroxy system activated.So now i would like to try and stretch that a bit further.
I also need a good flashback arrestor-home made ofcourse.

My other question would be-dose ionizing the air realy do anything to decrease the burn rate of HHO ?/
If so,then dose anybody have a good design for an ionization system?.Im more than happy to try all idea's. I was thinking of trying some sort of tank circuit,where as the cell is the capacitor-just a thought.But anyway,here is a short run of the system.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhJzOHtMcCY

[Farrah Day]

I'm not convinced by the air ionisation argument or that Meyer's patents regarding this would even work.

When we ignite H2 in O2, the energy is released when the elements reform as the water molecule. People like Murakami argue that by ionising the gases and then igniting these ionised gases that the natural formation of the water molecule will be prevented and that other reactions will somehow create more 'thermal explosive energy' rather than the 'pop' you get when H2 ignites in O2.  Of course this is all just conjecture and I'm yet to see any science to support anything like this.

But there are also quite obvious problems with such ideas: firstly it takes energy to ionise gases in the first place, and secondly once you ionise the air/gases, you will get current flow. Think about this. You build up enough voltage between two conductive plates to ionise the air in between and you will create an electrical arc - a plasma spark.  And this spark will certainly ignite the H2, so you would simply blow up the gas chamber.  Most (if not all) of Meyer's diagrams and indeed peoples interpretations of the gas ionisation process are over-simplistic, and as such, in reality neither practical or workable.

[evolvingape]

To be very clear for the newbies: i talk about HYDROGEN. Not HHO. Do NOT ionize HHO. Is dangerous. It kills you.

Steve

Very good advice Steve, an acrylic HHO cell makes quite a frag grenade, even at low power.

The key to power in my opinion, in order to do work, when utilising hydrogen is in the deflagration to detonation transition process. It is preferable to cut out the middleman and go straight to detonation utilising the concept of Time = 0. Shaping the resultant pressure wave is fundamental in fluid dynamics to avoid turbulent flow of the fluid and a loss of efficiency, also the potential propagation of a shockwave. I see no reason to build specific apparatus to test for these factors when the reactions themselves are capable of doing work when properly incorporated into an engine. As a garage inventor the resources to accurately collect the data are often beyond your capabilities, however a change in a single variable will show as a change in overall system efficiency at the power output stage and is therefore registered even if not understood in detail. I find it puzzling that the above has been ignored, considering I have posted the information and the designs for this technology in this thread already.

RIM.

[Chet K]

Oh
how I love the possibilities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTKV26KyLk

The pieces that can creep into a puzzle ........

Thx
Chet

[giantkiller]

Make this into a helmet and the ego dissipates!

[exnihiloest]

...
Make this into a helmet and the ego dissipates!

And there is a way for free energy:
- let live these people at the highest floor of a building
- when they are very fat, use their potential energy by moving them down to the ground floor
- apply the ultra sound treatment
- move them upstairs again to repeat the cycle. As they are lighter during ascent than descent, there is a positive gain!

[TinMan]

Tinman, I honestly wouldn't waste my time with him, you will just get the run around, and never be provided with any details that matter (or would matter if there is any truth behind his claims) - you will just be led on another classic wild goose chase! You will just become frustrated.

You will note that Murakami bases all of what he claims on one thing, this being that Meyer actually knew what he was talking about in the first place. This - in my opinion - is a major mistake as it is quite clear that Meyer had little grasp on the science involved. And this is there for everyone to see throughout his technical brief.

Meyer's idea of recirculating exhaust gases (non-combustible gases) and adding these, along with ambient air into the hydroxy mixture was purely in an attempt to reduce the burn rate of hydrogen to that of gasoline in order that it would run an ICE.  So clearly we are limited by the amount of hydrogen produced at the very first stage. LATER Meyer talks of increasing the energy output by ionising all these gases, in the gas processor, but of course this then negates the idea of slowing the burn rate down for use in an ICE.    If Murakami wants to treat Meyer's technical guide as a bible, then that's up to him, but it's a big problem as it's full of holes. If you have a copy of Meyer's technical brief, let me bring to your attention pages, 9-8 (Spaceship Earth) and 5-12 (Energy Aperture of the Atom) where he has a diagram of an atom being a 'universal energy pathway' to 'other dimensional universes' - what this has to do with anything is anyone's guess! Meyer also relies on the dielectric constant of water throughout his technical brief, repeatedly quoting a figure of 78.54 (sometimes in ohms). But we all know that this figure is absolutely meaningless in regards to any water other than pure water produced in strictest laboratory conditions.  So care must be taken with Meyer, and judgement calls need to be made on what is real and what is not. As far as Murakami goes though, he is a total waste of time and not worth the effort of even conversing with.

From Murakami:
Yet more absolute twaddle. 'Hydrogen is loaded on the plate and released later'... what?  Make up what loss? And this beats Faraday by several hundred percent... how?! 'You could consider it cheating'...  

Is this seriously, really the extent of his understanding... and he writes books on this stuff.    The mind boggles! His book, 'Water Fuel Secrets' must be a real eye-opener.  

It's when I see this kind of childish garbage posted by a self-proclaimed Spiritual Leader, Free Energy Guru and self-important know-it-all that I get a tad annoyed. It also upsets me that so many people buy into his nonsense and let themselves willingly be led by him to the Land of Make Believe.

Well your mate Aaron moved all non related post to another thread,and then locked that thread-after he had the last say ofcourse.
I have to say Farrah Day-you were right. Once again he avoided showing any proof what so ever of his claim's.This guy is a true nut case,and he is incharge of a forum???

He has now started some new forum on how stan meyer's system worked-oh and you may only post if you agree with aaron's thoughts on how stans system worked.
This guy sounds more like hitler every day.But like you said Farrah Day-enough waisted time on him.

[Farrah Day]

Yeah, Murakami is a strange creature. Obviously he has his own agenda and clearly the sole purpose of his forum is to promote his books and make money from the naïve and gullible, but his education is so lacking and his science so poor that I do wonder why more people can not see him for what he truly is.

Take this statement from the locked thread you referred to:

Anyone in this field knows that plain common ducted electrolyzed water gas will NOT sustain a flame. It gives you a loud quick pop and NOT a slow burning flame where you get any kind of combustion. Instead, you get a quick, fast, useless detonation which is unsuitable as the sole fuel for an ICE or burner.

To say this is absolute madness.  You CAN run an ICE on Hydrogen, this is a fact and has never been disputed - they did it in world war 2 when there was a petrol shortage for cripes sake!  Even the infamous Fast Freddy ran an ICE on hydroxy for around 30 seconds before the engine stalled due to his electrolyser being unable to meet the gas demands.  No, running an ICE on hydrogen is not the issue, the issue simply is (and always has been) producing enough of the stuff on-demand to meet the engines requirements.  Mind you, Murakami will also (still) tell you that hydroxy implodes when ignited - further promoting the implosion myth. There are a few of them over at EF that feed and add to each others bullshit. The main culprits that come to mind are: Murakami, Lindemann, MJN (Centraflow), Tutanka, then you get numerous devoted disciples that add support to these charlatans and defend their honour for all they are worth. Sad really 

[Chet K]

Coatings and BS..................



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghhgUmGBjX8

One must be careful with these statements....

[Centraflow]

I saw the movies over at RWGResearch.   Russ openly shows that you can inhibit (quench) the flame by using small holes in a ceramic disk.    Aaron doesn't know what he's talking about - again. 

Meyer's quenching tube was a Teflon tube with about 10 needle size holes going through it and all gas lines were of this type of tube, it is a flash back arrestor.

Mike

[giantkiller]

Vectors, frequencies, power factors and targeted molecules. It is not hard to do.
Except all my attempts are dangerous! 

[Farrah Day]

Just had to paste this. A post made by Qvision on the 'New Stanley Meyer replication' thread in response to Murakami's appalling behaviour over at EF:

This website is all about profit ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This website IS all about profit.

It is being run by insensitive people who take advantage of gullible people.

Lindemann's so-called 'electric motor secrets' was not worth buying at the time, there is nothing secret in there.

The mistitled 'quantum key' is hilarious, talk about misplaced self-aggrandisment.

And as for ESM and PATHS, two completely non-spiritual, profit-driven systems that are so far from their proclaimed value systems i KNOW they won't grow much beyond their current state.

Anyone who SELLS a supposed spritual self-help system is obviously a charlatan.

I am surprised David Wilcock (and his profit-driven ilk) isn't one of your financial partners.

Anyway, please delete my account as i cannot, in all conscience, be a part of something that is controlled by mild sociopaths.


Best to all,

QV.

Here, here! 

[exnihiloest]

Just had to paste this. A post made by Qvision on the 'New Stanley Meyer replication' thread in response to Murakami's appalling behaviour over at EF:

This website is all about profit ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This website IS all about profit.

It is being run by insensitive people who take advantage of gullible people.

Lindemann's so-called 'electric motor secrets' was not worth buying at the time, there is nothing secret in there.
...

Here, here! 

I'm not astonished that it's a scammers center.
When I said on Murakami's forum in a first post that nitinol efficiency was only 5% (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12086-perpetual-motion-reality-peter-lindemann-2.html), I was told by Lindemann "to not post" and "to stay away". Obviously my presence was a bad thing for their business. Only the naïve people with $$$ are welcome or those who swear allegiance to enter their court.

[Farrah Day]

Here, here!  


I'm not astonished that it's a scammers center.
When I said on Murakami's forum in a first post that nitinol efficiency was only 5% (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12086-perpetual-motion-reality-peter-lindemann-2.html), I was told by Lindemann "to not post" and "to stay away". Obviously my presence was a bad thing for their business. Only the naïve people with $$$ are welcome or those who swear allegiance to enter their court.

Yep, I remember that.

As you say, pledge allegiance and swear to honour and obey thy great spiritual leader and you will be welcomed at EF with open arms. But, dare to ask searching questions, bring to attention obvious flaws or issues, or highlight any inconsistencies, and the wrath of his holiness will be brought to bear upon thee... shortly followed by banishment.

[muDped]

Thanks to EF member Danny B for posting
the following link:

New developments in inexpensive electrolysis
catalysts.

[thx1138]

I think because current is not flowing through the water (or electrolyte) itself. What I think is happening is that the diode is rectifying the applied EM signal and in doing so is producing a voltage across itself, just like a crystal radio. Any H3O+ or OH- ions in the vicinity of the diode legs will act exactly the same as those near the plates of an electrolyser and give up or take on charges. But the key thing is that this set up is relying on the tiny proportion of self-ionisation occurring in the water, and the tiny current is just flowing through the diode/s.

Looking into some other things, I stumbled upon Titanium Dioxide (TiO2). It is used in water purification. When exposed to UV light while in water TiO2 releases an electron in a photocatalysis reaction. The interesting thing about it is that the TiO2 is not depleted. The same TiO2 will perform its function in the process indefinitely without needing to be replaced.

So placing a diode terminal in a solution of water and TiO2 and exposing it to UV light may yield some interesting results.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tio2+photocatalysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=tio2+photocatalysis&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM28OE6dvLAhUX2mMKHU1LA-wQsAQIMA&biw=1024&bih=642

Scroll down a bit on the following link
http://zixilai.en.alibaba.com/product/702826000-0/Nano_Tio2_Liquid_Coating_Photocatalyst_Liquid_Coating.html

Where to buy TiO2
http://www.advancedmaterials.us/22N-0803A.htm


Edit: The interesting thing about it is that the TiO2 is NOT depleted.