Explosive Vs Implosive
Over the Years some of the most exotic cutting edge inventors and builders impart tips, offen in conversation and or presentations.
Hardly ever written down, Why ?
Mostly they are the secrets. Skills of the Art Word of mouth only.
Some of which is learnt by doing the pain of the game.
The Most important point to make a useable gas or waterfuel is the state of charge.
Warning and disclamier we accept no responsibility for people choosing to experiment with these notes or diagrams or video or hobbyist instructions.
The Details will and do make very explosive explosive force fuels. and thus are deadly and dangerous if accidents or misuse occurs.
The saftest place for these fuels to be made and uses is in the cylinder inside the engine.
If your water is positive charged it will act as a electron sink, if you engine is positive charged it will act as a electron sink, if your intake manifold and fuel lines and basically every thing touching the gas water fuel is positive charged it will act as a electron sink. We is good to distabilize the fuels ready for ignition.
Also Ambient air needs to be heavily restricted to zero and if any air goes in to the fuel mix it has to be treated in such a way to make it positive charged and stay positve charged until combustion. This also means Egr Recyled gas also has to be positive and or treated, so not to ground your fuels.
Becuase is given back negative electrons they become grounded and implosive.
Some builders have found that having positive surfaces is enough to build alot of charge and do this auto matically with out extra treatment of egr.
Here in the following videos we see joe struggling to explain his findings of
implosive vs exsplosive with gas types and ballons.
We also See Russ built a Amazing Burn o meter or flame speed burn rate meter,
The only issue is he made it of plastic and has no way to control surface charge of tube to be positive nor control gas charges
The mixed gases he is putting are neutral stated or balanced not reactive as a explsive fuel. Thus are imploding to water
Remember we do not use heat we use force of exspansion to drive pistons .
if Russ had made the burn o meter tube of metal and positive and also had ionization and eec electron extraction treating gases it would blow that tube much differently.
also he would need to control ambient air access to the fuel gases so not to ground them with the negatives ions in the ambient air.
Read Stanley A Meyers Patents on GNTN
HHO is not what we want
Normally HHO will be implosive and a - + charge and imploded 1800 times in size to water easily. even with out spark. or flame
1kg of hho is equal 1 kg of tnt implosive
people try to measure and state heat of implosion to run a piston this is totally wrong way way to make a fuel and also to compare it
Hoo would win the most implosive fuel but people try to compare it to explosive fuels.
Very Silly engineers wake up !!!
GTNT is what we want
Gtnt is a imbalanced charges and fuel gas mixtures
as we have removed electrons
gas mix + + meaning it can not readily reform to water as we have removed electrons via + charged surfaces or sink areas or treatment devices
Normally GTNT will be explosive and a + + charge and exploded 3200 times in size.
before it than is imploded to water again pulling in electrons to cause the re balancing to water easily. even with out spark. or flame
1kg of hho is equal 2 kg of tnt explosive force
low heat ( more force than heat than all other fuels)
To Run a Piston we use the 3200 explosion force which is cold limited heat to push the piston this is the correct way it is not calculated or based on heat.
People have made the statement many times,
Trying to compare explosive liquid fuels to implosive gas fuels
Thats There is no way Stan could be producing enough gas to run an engine.
NOW YOU CAN SEE THEIR MISTAKE THEY ARE TRAINED TO LOOK AT IT WRONG>
The Fact is Stan doesn't have to produce a lot of gas to run a car or air plane, or rocket engine.
It's not done by producing a lot of gas.
It is done by exciting the gas to be unstable missing electrons to become explosive with force not heats
to make what gas he does make more powerful. AND VERY POWERFUL IT IS
This is Done via a positive earth electron sink methos on eec
and all surfaces no bubbler and all fuel lines positive +.
This is what makes GTNT and stop it from reforming to water in the fuel lines.,
That's why it has to be diluted to equal the burn rate of gasoline
or any other fuel source that is being used. AT IS 2,5 times the power of gasoline
Welcome to Water Fuel
1)Do not use a negative charged bubbled it neutralizes your gtnt fuel back to hho
2) Use positive ground and or earth where ever possible on engine and engine blovk manifold and air space intakes and egr and fuel lines and injectors.
3) do not use any electrolyte only use distilled water.
to avoid neutralize gtnt
4) use inline positive charged flash arresestors
6) make fuel as close as possible to the cylinder.
Imagine you building a oil refinery in your engine abay be careful treat it as very explosive fuels use small lines and small distances to the combustion chamber.
7) Teach others
In the video you're adding ambient air using a pump of some sort. Now I know you said it's not pressurized, but if it's being pumped into a closed system when the solenoid opens it would pressurize the chamber, even if it's just a little.
Now my question, and I'm sorry if I've just overlooked this, but if there's a positive pressure change in the chamber when filling, could this be pushing the cylinder out a bit BEFORE the spark fires?
I guess the way to see if this is happening would be to make sure the cylinder is pushed in all the way after filling but before ignition. OR using a clear tube ;
See pat# 1,096,991 Page 8 sec 36 "Ozone differs chemically from atmosferic oxygen in that the molecule of the latter is composed of 2 atoms while the ozone molecule consist of 3 atoms of oxygen. Ozone is an endothermic compound 36.2 calories of heat being absorbed in its formation from oxygen. For this reason ozone is very unstable and reverts readily into ordinary oxygen, during which change, 1 atom of the oxygen is set free, together with 36.2 calories" Section 50 further states "As the electric action changes the oxygen into ozone, a decrease in the VOLUME of the gas becomes evident, due to the fact that the ozone molecule occupies the same space as the oxygen molecule."
So it seems that if the cell is producing any oxygen in a decreased volume state and is unstable would it not increase volume as it becomes stable??
The reason your pure HHO dosnt push the pistion out as far is this-As you know HHO is unburnt water and a small amount of watter make's a large amount of HHO.When you ignight the HHO there is a rapid expansion follow'd by a major contraction as the Small amount of HHO turns back to an even smaller amount of watter.1 ltr of HHO will return to 5ml's of H2o-this is why you get a big vacum
PT2-when you add atomspheric air you increase the burn time causing more heat.This eliminates most of the vacume when the HHO returns to it water state as the now mixed gases remain hotter for longer.A guy by the name of Kultus on our forum has been to a seminar were they show'd this happening in a sealed ram.When they filled it with HHO fully extended and ignighted the HHO-the ram actualy went back inside the cylinder.
Looking in terms of a combustion engine the vaccume could be a desired effect if you can retard the opening of the exhaust port. Combustion engines lose a lot of efficientcy due to the fact that they fire as the crank is in its nearest position.
If you were to retard the spark and fire and expand before the 90 degree position of the crank (for better efficiency) and the vaccum would begin as the piston hits its lowpoint. So an ideal gas may be total piston travel in both directions.
HH and O ignited in its ratio (2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen) causes an explosion and then an implosion. The implosion is limiting the movement because it is inhabiting some of the explosive power.
also the time it takes to burn has more push when all the nitrogen is introduced. this also will slow the burn rate, and also have more " time" to push the piston.
i cant wait to get my clear tube in and then we will be able to see what is really going on!
and sense i can make the explosion in that small chamber and not the full tube... we should really be able to see this reaction.
i really like the Burn O Meter as a home built way to do some of these interesting tests...
the dilution effect you are seeing where the gas with ambient air causes the piston to move further.
Ambient air is 79% is inert gases. So the mixture will slow the burn rate down on the H2 burn. The military teaches a few things about burn rates in explosive compounds. The slower burners are classified as movers while the fast burners are classified as crackers. This is a very simplistic look at explosive compounds but may be useful in determining your burn rate and movement issue.
I am guessing that because you diluted the gas down with inert it slowed the burn rate of the hydrogen down which caused it to expand in the pressure chamber over a longer period of time. While that is taking place the piston is moving forward and the pressure behind it starts to drop, but the gas is still expanding and exerting a force on the backside of the piston which will produce more workforce.
additionally, in one of Stan Meyer's videos he states that he recycles exhaust gases to control the rate of burn in the cylinder of the engine so its burn rate closely matches gasoline. This causes me to consider also some other guy on youtube that showed a civic running on HHO or browns gas. In that guys process he had to retard the ignition to TDC or just before TDC because the HHO burned so quick, under normal timing it would fire before the piston reached TDC. Need I say that is a very bad idea in an ICE?
Anyway I think you have found why the military is constantly looking at new complex chemical compounds with various burn rates. They design explosives for different purposes. I will give you an example they showed me in school. C4 placed under a tree trunk did nothing to move the trunk away from the ground. However, when they used TNT of the same size it moved the tree a very long way from its starting position. They were using this scenario to teach us the difference between a cracker and a mover explosive. C4 burns very fast when ignited and TNT burns much slower, so it builds up pressure over a longer period of time from the point of ignition.
hat's it, and that's the same conclusion i had, i also like the other info and references! good stuff!
also, yes, Stan did indeed use recycled exhaust gasses or "non combustible" gasses... so all this makes sense and is also the stuff i'm trying to verify. all the tests are looking good so far.
It is very interesting, Stephen Meyer said in his interview posted on tony site that engines are 1 % effiecient when looked at as a complete unit so every smart correction mkes huge gains.
I found a patent from some NASA guys. They filed their patent at the same time frame Stan had started to file his patents. Their pat. is basicly a recycled exhaust system with ARGON added to the closed loop exhaust recovery. Patent# 4,112,875 Titled: HYDROGEN_FUELED ENGINE Sept. 12 1978
Are you thinking the EPG was fitted between the engine and clutch assy and maybe had some magnets on the flywheel?
Then the exhaust is run through the EPG and the spark plugs the laser, the magnets the pulse, and the compression the mixing
Are you thinking the EPG was fitted between the engine and clutch assy and maybe had some magnets on the flywheel? Then the exhaust is run through the EPG and the spark plugs the laser, the magnets the pulse, and the compression the mixing?
IF the gas is magnetic and spinning it could be pulling the flywheel to increase horsepower and slow the gas down. Also think about a magnetic field being applied the the cell. Did you see the vid of them positioning the coil into the underside of the orange tank? Also check out Stans pat 4,613,779 he calls the pulley "drive means" is that an input or output drive? One way to verify would be to get a side view of the buggy and measure from the center of the rear wheels to a given point on the engine then compare that to another buggy?