OK. Am I the only one seeing the real issue here?

We all know that hydrogen is a fuel and that it can run an ICE if we can provide enough of the stuff to do so.

Powered from a mains supply I'm not at all surprised that Meyer got his buggy engine to idle on the gas - no big deal. And exactly how much gas he was producing to do this is largely irrelevant, as long as there was enough to maintain idle.

So, my problem is this: If you have a VW buggy that can drive down the road on water, why, oh why, would you demonstrate it running from a mains powered WFC sitting by the side of the vehicle.

Producing enough gas on board, on-demand is the hard part, and this demonstration does nothing to support that, does it? In fact, the reality is that this demonstration only serves to raise more questions, create more doubts and provides yet more ammunition for the sceptics.    

Remember, what we individually choose to believe is ultimately irrelevant, either Meyer had a buggy that would drive via an on-board WFC... or he didn't. All I'm saying is this demo does absolutely nothing to alleviate any doubts.

geenee, maybe this is useful:
watts per tube: 12,5 x 4,4A = 55W

Quote from Farrah Day on October 8th, 2013, 06:01 AM

OK. Am I the only one seeing the real issue here?

We all know that hydrogen is a fuel and that it can run an ICE if we can provide enough of the stuff to do so.

Powered from a mains supply I'm not at all surprised that Meyer got his buggy engine to idle on the gas - no big deal. And exactly how much gas he was producing to do this is largely irrelevant, as long as there was enough to maintain idle.

So, my problem is this: If you have a VW buggy that can drive down the road on water, why, oh why, would you demonstrate it running from a mains powered WFC sitting by the side of the vehicle.

Producing enough gas on board, on-demand is the hard part, and this demonstration does nothing to support that, does it? In fact, the reality is that this demonstration only serves to raise more questions, create more doubts and provides yet more ammunition for the sceptics.    

Remember, what we individually choose to believe is ultimately irrelevant, either Meyer had a buggy that would drive via an on-board WFC... or he didn't. All I'm saying is this demo does absolutely nothing to alleviate any doubts.

totally agree!
I think it was for patentoffice. Just show that it is possible to drive the engine on demand with H2 with help of the EPP. Nothing more.

Quote from Farrah Day on October 8th, 2013, 06:01 AM

OK. Am I the only one seeing the real issue here?

We all know that hydrogen is a fuel and that it can run an ICE if we can provide enough of the stuff to do so.

Powered from a mains supply I'm not at all surprised that Meyer got his buggy engine to idle on the gas - no big deal. And exactly how much gas he was producing to do this is largely irrelevant, as long as there was enough to maintain idle.

So, my problem is this: If you have a VW buggy that can drive down the road on water, why, oh why, would you demonstrate it running from a mains powered WFC sitting by the side of the vehicle.

Producing enough gas on board, on-demand is the hard part, and this demonstration does nothing to support that, does it? In fact, the reality is that this demonstration only serves to raise more questions, create more doubts and provides yet more ammunition for the sceptics.    

Remember, what we individually choose to believe is ultimately irrelevant, either Meyer had a buggy that would drive via an on-board WFC... or he didn't. All I'm saying is this demo does absolutely nothing to alleviate any doubts.

There was obviously many different stages of the dune buggy.  From the looks of the video with the demo cell, this is the first time they tried to run the engine on HHO.  The state of the buggy at that time had an EPG and a crescent shaped tank next to it.  We have no evidence of the buggy driving on HHO with out being plugged into the wall with that set up.  But with a later set up, that was video taped by television news, we see evidence of it running on HHO with out being plugged in the wall and having a different cell.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E

Notice the alternator and electric motor are mounted on the driver side of the buggy.  There are only 2 options for this being there in my opinion.  Either it is simply being stored there, or it is being powered by an EPG underneath the cell.  

I think everyone should get familiar with the changes on the dune buggy based on a time line.

demo cell look shorter.how long is demo wfc?but if Don confirmed,i believe that.[/quote]Farah,no big deal idling a 1.6L engine on hho?hho production irelevant?'' If you have a VW buggy that can drive down the road on water, why, oh why, would you demonstrate it running from a mains powered WFC sitting by the side of the vehicle''????(because it was first tests before the demo run on channel 6 news,it was just a bench test,on boy)..are you drunk,you talk with such ease....idle a scooter on hho with just voltage and then we talk.
He later produced AC on board for the drive motor with a 110v  rotary inverter....etc...

Quote from Amsy on October 8th, 2013, 06:02 AM

geenee, maybe this is useful:
watts per tube: 12,5 x 4,4A = 55W

Quote from Farrah Day on October 8th, 2013, 06:01 AM

OK. Am I the only one seeing the real issue here?

We all know that hydrogen is a fuel and that it can run an ICE if we can provide enough of the stuff to do so.

Powered from a mains supply I'm not at all surprised that Meyer got his buggy engine to idle on the gas - no big deal. And exactly how much gas he was producing to do this is largely irrelevant, as long as there was enough to maintain idle.

So, my problem is this: If you have a VW buggy that can drive down the road on water, why, oh why, would you demonstrate it running from a mains powered WFC sitting by the side of the vehicle.

Producing enough gas on board, on-demand is the hard part, and this demonstration does nothing to support that, does it? In fact, the reality is that this demonstration only serves to raise more questions, create more doubts and provides yet more ammunition for the sceptics.    

Remember, what we individually choose to believe is ultimately irrelevant, either Meyer had a buggy that would drive via an on-board WFC... or he didn't. All I'm saying is this demo does absolutely nothing to alleviate any doubts.

totally agree!
I think it was for patentoffice. Just show that it is possible to drive the engine on demand with H2 with help of the EPP. Nothing more.

You agree? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. How is that convincing a patent office that you can drive on H2 'on-demand' when its plugged into a bloody mains supply?

Quote from adys15 on October 8th, 2013, 01:06 PM

demo cell look shorter.how long is demo wfc?but if Don confirmed,i believe that.

Quote

Farah,no big deal idling a 1.6L engine on hho?hho production irelevant?'' If you have a VW buggy that can drive down the road on water, why, oh why, would you demonstrate it running from a mains powered WFC sitting by the side of the vehicle''????(because it was first tests before the demo run on channel 6 news,it was just a bench test,on boy)..are you drunk,you talk with such ease....idle a scooter on hho with just voltage and then we talk.
He later produced AC on board for the drive motor with a 110v  rotary inverter....etc...

'Am I drunk'? What!?

Surely a better question from me to you is 'Are you mad?'

Just why are you people so gullible? No evidence, no proof... yet it is the truth? What!? How ridiculously childish is that?

All you state is just pure conjecture, even his brother did not confirm Stan's claims in the radio interview did he... ever wondered why?

C'mon. get a grip. Wake up and smell the roses!

thanks all information.

i think idle test is importance.Stan said 5V- 2A- 10 watts(all 9tubes 10watts or 1tube??) clearly,did you hear that?if he measures from 1 tube then 9 tubes consume 90 watts.

from Amsy picture,1 lb gas pressure 1000cc cavity in minute =1 lpm.

then 13 3/4 lbs 1000cc cavity in minute = 13 3/4 lpm.afterthat he maintains this pressure, mean flow rate is 13 3/4 lpm too.with 10watts or 90 watts this is huge gas production right?

first start always importance,skip step maybe has bad problems.

about EPG was invented by Stan before WFC right?if that's true.this overunity device can make huge hho as he want.but this test no cable from motor to EPG then motor was powered from wall socket.  

Farah,Stan was very carefull in showing the setup.what do you want to open the alt and show you how its wound?
In that interv ,Steve says about the 80's buggy runing on water,but not the latest setup.I too was anoyed listening for 4hours of boloney and no info about Stan,but if you brother was killed for somthing like that do you gave any info?
About poof...from what i'v seen in the patents and what Don found there is 99% the exact setup,Max has showed multiple setups where Stan was right,even the alternator diagram is spot on.
If you want to proove yourself that this can be posible to the folowing test:
take a 30cm long tube set,put it in rain water,then take mains ac rectify it,and then do a lpm test.
Then do some calculation on how many tubes/voltage do you need to produce 50lpm,then you will see its posible...Genee 10w are read on the rotor field,i think we all know that.

Quote from Farrah Day on October 8th, 2013, 02:36 PM

Quote from Amsy on October 8th, 2013, 06:02 AM

totally agree!
I think it was for patentoffice. Just show that it is possible to drive the engine on demand with H2 with help of the EPP. Nothing more.

You agree? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. How is that convincing a patent office that you can drive on H2 'on-demand' when its plugged into a bloody mains supply?

I see I forgot the "But" at the beginning of the sentence :)
Yes I agree to your point of view, that it makes no sense to run the buggy on such setup (mains supply).
But in a early video of stan, he mentioned that a lot of work is to do to patent all that stuff. Also for the EPP Process, the gas mixing device (burn rate) etc...
Patents also want to see a running device of him. So maybe this video should point out of some of his devices. In the video he is explain the devices.
Other explaination makes no sense for me.


 

Quote from geenee on October 9th, 2013, 12:38 AM

thanks all information.

i think idle test is importance.Stan said 5V- 2A- 10 watts(all 9tubes 10watts or 1tube??) clearly,did you hear that?if he measures from 1 tube then 9 tubes consume 90 watts.

from Amsy picture,1 lb gas pressure 1000cc cavity in minute =1 lpm.

then 13 3/4 lbs 1000cc cavity in minute = 13 3/4 lpm.afterthat he maintains this pressure, mean flow rate is 13 3/4 lpm too.with 10watts or 90 watts this is huge gas production right?

first start always importance,skip step maybe has bad problems.

about EPG was invented by Stan before WFC right?if that's true.this overunity device can make huge hho as he want.but this test no cable from motor to EPG then motor was powered from wall socket.

Carefull, the armature windings power of the alternator was 10Watts. The consumption of power of one tube was 55 watts at the independend test evaluation PDF.
In the video he reads the voltage and amperage form the black box (Rotary Puls Frequency Generator) which controlled the armature winding of the alternator.

Also I think the calculation in the independend test look confusing to me...
1psi = 1lbs / 1000cc=1lpm non ideal gas?
Can someone evaluate this? :)

1psi = 0,068bar
13,75psi/min=0,935bar/min

is this a blackbox? he read from a blackbox with 150VDC and 100 AMPS??? i don't know about controlled the armature winding of the alternator or on the rotor field.please explain about that.

thanks all
geenee

Quote from geenee on October 9th, 2013, 01:48 PM

is this a blackbox? he read from a blackbox with 150VDC and 100 AMPS??? i don't know about controlled the armature winding of the alternator or on the rotor field.please explain about that.

thanks all
geenee

Hi. See in attachment, that the "Black Box" is controlling the alternators power by gaining or lowering the current in the field coil (armature winding). As higher the current through that coil, as higher the output voltage will be.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_coil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_%28magnetic%29

You see that the ampmeter and the voltmeter are to check out the current in the field coil. This readings (5V, 2A) have nothing to do with the power which is drawn out of mains supply or drawn by the WFC.

Indeed 100A ampmeter is ridiculous. :D

thanks,Amsy.

that why i don't understand about alternator version.

Stan need restrict current(secondary coils amps)then he reduce armature field voltage and current to lowest as possible=5V2A.and increase frequency by increasing speed of motor.high frequency cause high reactance(resistance).this alternator create high voltage by BEMF from resonant charging choke.secondary coils don't create high voltage because armature field is low.

all concepts of Stan is here!!!

motor consume constant watts(not above 400watts).use only 10watts to make a armature field.high voltage and restrict current high frequency(not much high 150hz+) like he said.

Amsy, geenee,

In the international test evaluation report (page 60) Stan states he put 12V @ 4.4 amps into each tube.

i need to know a spec of Stan's motor.that's pictures,1/2 hp(373watts)or 1 hp motor(746watts)???

HMS-776,from test report maybe measure output,not input.IMHO.

thanks
geenee

Quote from HMS-776 on October 10th, 2013, 12:54 PM

Amsy, geenee,

In the international test evaluation report (page 60) Stan states he put 12V @ 4.4 amps into each tube.

Hi HMS,

Good to see, that others see this information too ;)
I allready mentioned that.  12,5V@4,4A = 55W / tube.
9 tubes = 495W
10tubes = 550W
etc...

Quote from geenee on October 10th, 2013, 05:44 PM

i need to know a spec of Stan's motor.that's pictures,1/2 hp(373watts)or 1 hp motor(746watts)???

HMS-776,from test report maybe measure output,not input.IMHO.

thanks
geenee

They measure voltage and amperage to one tube.
So you see, that on this process, there is nothing special. It was a demonstration cell, nothing more.

IMHO the calculation of the COP in the "Independend" test evaluation is wrong.

if Stan's motor is 1/2hp(373watts) and armature field consume 10 watts.

373+10=383 watts

output 9 tubes is 500 watts.

this's not interesting.output>input???

if 7 lpm 500 watts then = 14 MMW.
if 14 lpm 500 watts then = 28 MMW.
normal dry cell is max 7 MMW.

http://www.hho-generator.de/en/hho-mmw-calculator.htm

Stan's motor was 1hp(746watts) at 1725 rpm with a pulley ratio of 2x1,dont know the name but i think its an A.O Smith motor

thanks,adys15.

new calculate;
if 7 lpm 800 watts then = 8.75 MMW
if 14 lpm 800 watts then = 17.5 MMW.
normal dry cell is max 7 MMW.

if 3 lpm 800 watts then = 3.75 MMW but if 3 lpm can idle engine,that's not interesting???:P

But i watched Moray B King at Global BEM.maybe he is right about high energy water cluster,another thought. :D:cool::rolleyes:

Quote from geenee on October 11th, 2013, 02:41 AM

thanks,adys15.

new calculate;
if 7 lpm 800 watts then = 8.75 MMV.
if 14 lpm 800 watts then = 17.5 MMV.
normal dry cell is max 7 MMV.

if 3 lpm 800 watts then = 3.75 MMV but if 3 lpm can idle engine,that's not interesting???:P

But i watched Moray B King at Global BEM.maybe he is right about high energy water custer,another thought. :D:cool::rolleyes:

The 7lpm are very confusing to me.

In the evaluation test is written:
7lbs/min  (=7psi/min=0,069bar/min) I think this value is ok. But is very small.

1l=1000cc=1lb Gas pressure...... I don´t no how they convert a volume to weight (lb)??
7lbs/min x 1l = 7l gas /min (???) -> this looks wrong to me, how did they argue that 1l HHO in a 1liter cavity creates 1psi?

Quote from geenee on October 11th, 2013, 02:41 AM

thanks,adys15.

new calculate;
if 7 lpm 800 watts then = 8.75 MMV.
if 14 lpm 800 watts then = 17.5 MMV.
normal dry cell is max 7 MMV.

if 3 lpm 800 watts then = 3.75 MMV but if 3 lpm can idle engine,that's not interesting???:P

I'm baffled. Whatever is MMV? What is this a measurement of, and just how are you coming by these figures? :huh:

Sorry MMW.i fixed.

Amsy,i don't know lpm from Stan's report is right or wrong.i will try to find information about that.

Modified,

At sea level = 14.7 psi or about 1 ATM(1bar=14.5psi).gas pressure(in WFC)has low pressure than ATM.

Stan maintains 13.75 psi,that's lower than 1 atm.ideal gas measure at 1 ATM but hho gas is not ideal gas then low pressure mean high volume(higher litres).

maybe he maintain 13.75 psi for calculating volume of ideal gas than measure litres or volume with unknown pressure.

example,if you create gas hydrogen(h2 only) from 0-14.7psi at 1 minute 1000cc capacity.you will know moles of hydrogen gas.this can confirm real volume of hydrogen gas.LPM is not correct!!!LPM will be correct at 1atm.

in "it run from water" video,Stan start WFC from 0 psi to about 15 psi(maybe he want 14.7psi) then he stop.maybe this is for calculate real LPM or calculate moles of gas at 1 ATM.if his WFC reaches 14.5-14.7psi in 60 seconds then can calculate LPM at 1 ATM or 1 bar = 1 LPM.

Hello!! I´m MrMuxar and i put the pdf that contains the text of the video in english so you all can understand.
The transcription is done by Jim Miller from ionizationx by the way....he transcripted many of Stans videos .
In the image i put you can crearly see that he is using non combustible gases from the exhaust to lower the power of hydrogen. And he always says how to ionize oxigen to increase power a lot and after that lower that power with non combustible gases.
Is not need to lower the power of hydrogen if is not a HGG attached to it, it´s a no sense.
In fact, you need great ammount of hydrogen to runn a car  just on hydrogen. The volume that takes the hydrogen in the cylinder is hudge,(watch image)that´s why the hydrogen powered cars (ICE) needs more air(with a turbo) or otherwaise they have less power than gasoline.
The way Stan was doing was different.
In that picture we can see that the pipe that comes from the cell is conected with the one coming from the exhaust pipe (with a regulator on it) and i think that this mixture goes to the electron extraction circuit or HGG or maybe he was using that weird EPG to extract the electrons before the intake....otherwise i don´t see the point of using that power generating system on the buggy if is not been used for the cell (i dont see any wire attached to it anyway).
See you ;)

Quote from Muxar on October 13th, 2013, 08:35 AM

Hello!! I´m MrMuxar and i put the pdf that contains the text of the video in english so you all can understand.
The transcription is done by Jim Miller from ionizationx by the way....he transcripted many of Stans videos .
In the image i put you can crearly see that he is using non combustible gases from the exhaust to lower the power of hydrogen. And he always says how to ionize oxigen to increase power a lot and after that lower that power with non combustible gases.
Is not need to lower the power of hydrogen if is not a HGG attached to it, it´s a no sense.
In fact, you need great ammount of hydrogen to runn a car  just on hydrogen. The volume that takes the hydrogen in the cylinder is hudge,(watch image)that´s why the hydrogen powered cars (ICE) needs more air(with a turbo) or otherwaise they have less power than gasoline.
The way Stan was doing was different.
In that picture we can see that the pipe that comes from the cell is conected with the one coming from the exhaust pipe (with a regulator on it) and i think that this mixture goes to the electron extraction circuit or HGG or maybe he was using that weird EPG to extract the electrons before the intake....otherwise i don´t see the point of using that power generating system on the buggy if is not been used for the cell (i dont see any wire attached to it anyway).
See you ;)

Hi to all again, by the way i forgot to say that i think he runs the car in gasoline first to have non combustible gases to run in his hydrogen mixture.
CU

I appreciate Muxar.

Quote

Hi to all again, by the way i forgot to say that i think he runs the car in gasoline first to have non combustible gases to run in his hydrogen mixture.
CU

How would that work then? :huh:

In that scenario the moment you stopped using gasoline, you would no longer have your non-combustible exhaust gases... would you?

However, the good news is that recirculating exhaust gases is totally pointless. This 'exhaust gas recycling' is another common misconception. Common sense should tell you that you wouldn't need to recirculate exhaust gases as, rather strangely, the air around us - the very air that we breath is... get this, non-combustible.

Quote from Farrah Day on October 13th, 2013, 10:47 AM

Quote

Hi to all again, by the way i forgot to say that i think he runs the car in gasoline first to have non combustible gases to run in his hydrogen mixture.
CU

How would that work then? :huh:

In that scenario the moment you stopped using gasoline, you would no longer have your non-combustible exhaust gases... would you?

However, the good news is that recirculating exhaust gases is totally pointless. This 'exhaust gas recycling' is another common misconception. Common sense should tell you that you wouldn't need to recirculate exhaust gases as, rather strangely, the air around us - the very air that we breath is... get this, non-combustible.

One reason I can come to think of regarding recirculating parts of the exhaust gases is that it's virtually only (?) water vapour and if I understand it correctly you would want to mix the hydrogen/oxygen gas with a water mist in order to cool things down a bit in the cylinders as the gas explodes in there, just to prevent the risk of having the cylinder, piston etc getting overheated.

Quote from Lynx on October 13th, 2013, 11:04 AM

Quote from Farrah Day on October 13th, 2013, 10:47 AM

Quote

Hi to all again, by the way i forgot to say that i think he runs the car in gasoline first to have non combustible gases to run in his hydrogen mixture.
CU

How would that work then? :huh:

In that scenario the moment you stopped using gasoline, you would no longer have your non-combustible exhaust gases... would you?

However, the good news is that recirculating exhaust gases is totally pointless. This 'exhaust gas recycling' is another common misconception. Common sense should tell you that you wouldn't need to recirculate exhaust gases as, rather strangely, the air around us - the very air that we breath is... get this, non-combustible.

One reason I can come to think of regarding recirculating parts of the exhaust gases is that it's virtually only (?) water vapour and if I understand it correctly you would want to mix the hydrogen/oxygen gas with a water mist in order to cool things down a bit in the cylinders as the gas explodes in there, just to prevent the risk of having the cylinder, piston etc getting overheated.

Hi all!!
Stan always sayd that non combustible gases were added to the mixture to lower the power of the mixture of hydrogen and ionized gas(oxigen)
Non combustible gases: gases that do not suport the combustion process.
oxigen it does.
In the picture i added you can clearly see that the exhaust pipe has an aditional pipe(blue circle) that goes to the radiator(red) to cool down those gases.
Then the device in black circle mixes the gas(ionized ambient air coming from the Hydrogen Gas Gun,non combustible gases and hydrogen) in "X" percentage and the solenoids in green circles feeds the inyectors.
As Stan Says those gases coming from the exhaust lowers the process.