hydrogen fuel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casper

No I don't think that anyone would confuse H1 and H2 when labeling it in a scientific finding as that would certainly defeat the purpose of the finding as they are 2 related but different atomic structures from my understanding.

Ok, I think you've missed my point, so picture this, if you will.

Langmuir did what he did...with H1.

So, a layman then tries to report what he thinks he saw, to other laymen, remembering that the physics aspects were new discoveries and as such, would be unknown.

It has to also be remembered that the schooling of the day would have had nothing to compare it to, being so newly discovered.

So, the explanation loosely suggested by the layman goes something along the lines of: "hey, there's a bloke making awesome energy from water".

The listener then asks his science savvy teacher, or professor, or whatever, if this is possible, and is told that yes, hydrogen (H2) is a remarkable energy vessel, and that it can be acquired fairly easily by using the most basic of means.

So that person runs off and tells another..and another, and so on.

At no point will you find any evidence where people from about 1915 onwards discussing H1, rather, they only seem to talk about H2.

Ok, so again, given the above scenario, and keeping the lack of knowledge at the time in the fore, if nobody knew it was H1 that Langmuir was using, then can it be safely assumed that the masses have been "stooged" into pinning all their hopes on H2?

You know about H1, judging by your comment above, but I think if you ask around, you'll find that not many others actually know of its existence, and so to those people, hydrogen is just hydrogen and that's all there is to it, for them at least.

You may even note the way people are using different names for different alleged species, like Browns Gas etc, with the argument being put forward that seeing as that particular gas "behaves" a bit different to another, it should in turn be named as another species.

I think you may want to look at a bit more of the information which debunks these theories as well as those which supports them as with knowledge of both it soon becomes evident which is based on real science and which is not.

Ok, so if we look at H1 and its application within the atomic arc welding process as the example, we cannot say it doesn't work because it does.
While the "why" is still not fully explained, the lack of an explanation doesn't cancel out the fact that it's doing some pretty interesting stuff nonetheless.

There are some great science fiction stories from the past which have become reality such as aeroplanes carrying hundreds of people all around the world and harnessing electricity to light homes and also computers that sit in the palm of your hand but they were all proven to be possible, tested and developed and now in the main stream but the tech your talking about is based on dodgey science, there have been no real scientific testing by real scientific authorities and there are no real working prototypes to prove the so called theory.

The tech I'm talking about? What tech? I've not mentioned any tech.

I merely pointed out that document as having contained the most complete roundup of H1 info. Perhaps I never worded that part clearly enough, if so, I apologise.

I thought I added in another sentence that I don't support all of the contents of that document too.

Aside from that bit, I do agree with you on the rest.

There are plenty of people who say they can do it but I have not seen anyone personally or in any science book, show or otherwise who has been able to convince me it is feasible to do so.

While I've been at the coalface with some of this stuff, I'm also in the same position as you, for I have never a complete working "engine" either, but having said that, I have been involved at first hand, and have the scientifically certified documents in hand, which do prove that certain "aspects" of it are indeed "real". But again, no, no "complete" package.

Yes to running a car on H2, no to running a car on H1 as described above, no to making the H2 in the car your going to power it with, and no to perpetual motion.

Ok, I have to see it first, then I'll believe it, sorry.
I agree, H1 cannot be used in an internal combustion engine as the primary fuel.(it cannot be contained of compressed due to it being atom sized)
Again, while it's apparently being done, again, I have to physically see it before I can believe it.
I also have to agree with you on the last too.

Cheers Casper

---

....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

In what form does H1 exist. Wouldn't it be wanting to bond immediately with another atom? i.e. If you put a whole lot of H1's in a glass jar, wouldn't it immediately react to become half as many H2's (hydrogen gas)?
It's been so long since I did chemistry.

---

It's been a while since I was involved with it too, but I think you'll find that H1 can't exist for more than a few brief moments beyond inception in open air, and the reasons for that are pretty much explained in the latter part of your comment.

So Hydrogen in a landy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by navigation2000

It's been a while since I was involved with it too, but I think you'll find that H1 can't exist for more than a few brief moments beyond inception in open air, and the reasons for that are pretty much explained in the latter part of your comment.

---

I carefully read all of the PDF you linked to early in the piece and it certainly shows Dr Irving Langmuir's work on hydrogen welding was sound and doesn't violate the Law of conservation of energy. That is, the energy delivered to the metal is derived from the arc. However, the PDF author then veers off into cosmic speculation about zero point energy and dreaming up fancy machines to extract some of this free energy. I rate it as typical dope-fuelled dreams of free lunches forever. No reflection on you but I rate this article as typical bunk, or voodoo science.

PS wikipedia have an entry on the good doctor's hydrogen trick too.

Cheers and happy dreams of solving the earth's energy problems in one go.:):):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bee utey

I carefully read all of the PDF you linked to early in the piece and it certainly shows Dr Irving Langmuir's work on hydrogen welding was sound and doesn't violate the Law of conservation of energy.

Thank you, so you also agree that the math is "considered" sound. This is telling of your intellect actually and kind of sets you apart from the sheep. If you did have cause to delve deeper, as I said in the earlier post, you will only find more supporting evidence as per the math being correct.

That is, the energy delivered to the metal is derived from the arc.

While I'm glad you can see it, I'm not sure how you would go explaining it, for it seems to baffle pretty much everyone else, including me.

However, the PDF author then veers off into cosmic speculation about zero point energy and dreaming up fancy machines to extract some of this free energy. I rate it as typical dope-fuelled dreams of free lunches forever. No reflection on you but I rate this article as typical bunk, or voodoo science.

Thanks, and if you review what I wrote at the outset, you'll note that I said I never agreed with the "thrust" of the article, but was merely using it because the math was "considered" correct.

PS wikipedia have an entry on the good doctor's hydrogen trick too.

Probably, as do a lot of other places, if care is taken to look.

Cheers and happy dreams of solving the earth's energy problems in one go.:):):)

---

I beg your pardon?
Are you suggesting that you're dreaming of solving the "energy" dilemma?
It seems you've fallen off your pony mate....:p

Ok cool, so there's at least one other person here with the intelligence to recognise that the math contained in the link is "considered" correct, and that is the very reason I posted the link.

Of course it's possible to link to a plethora of scientific journals which add weight to the topic (H2 Vs H1), but that would be exhaustive. To simplify the exercise, I figured it was far easier to just add that one link, though in hindsight, I'm sorry I bothered.

Not sure why everybody keeps skipping off down the rampantly hysterical skeptic road, but I suppose if that's their bent, then so be it.

I've never said anything about solving anything, nor have I mentioned applying any of these principals, so for people to automatically jump to those conclusions, well, rather than it reflect on me, it reflects on them I'm afraid.

If you look at what I wrote at the outset, you'll see where I stated that I do not agree with the "thrust" of the link, but that I did support the math contained therein. Now you've hopped onto the band wagon and also seem to support the math, so does this mean you will now become targeted here?

"Get him Marshall, he's also saying the world ain't flat, therefore he's a heretic too!" :D

Now, having said all that, I note that the general "tone" of all the responses have been slanted heavily toward the skeptical side, and it's also apparent that there's no possibility of anyone being able to "discuss" anything related to this topic on this forum, lest they be targeted and duly kangaroo courted, as was the case earlier.

Therefore, no further discussion about the topic (H2 Vs H1) can be undertaken here and I'm forced by the kangaroo court rules to refrain from participating further.

The only reason I bothered to get involved in this thread at all, was because I saw a few punters trying to fathom the hydrogen (H2) myth, and I thought I'd throw up a reason as to why people may be continually drawn into wrongly believing in H2.

Ok, so while I'm forced to part company, I shall leave just a couple more bits of information, just in case those with a few smarts are still interested with the pursuing the more "valid" scientific avenues in their quest to "understand" the physics and methodologies of hydrogen application.

1. H2 is a dud, always was and always will be.

2. H1 is far better, but again it cannot be used (alone) within the confines of an internal combustion engine. Bore hatch and piston rings are not suited to this type of "fuel". Besides, as Mick Marsh alluded, the recombination of the atoms soon after release, cause the formation of H2O. Picture if you can, what will happen within the engine crank case when H2O forms en mass, from all the reassembled hydrogen that slipped past the rings.

3. If you can get H1 to bond with another atom to create "something else" of value, you may just be able to make something worthwhile out of the exercise. The problem here is, not many other atoms "like" to bond with atomic hydrogen, it's just a simple case of polarities etc. They need to be opposites to attract per se. Also, which molecules can be worthwhile anyway?

Now, let's say you do your homework and arrive at the conclusion that there's really only 1x other molecule of appeal, that being the nitrogen. Problem is, the nitrogen is an opposite(polarity) to the atomic hydrogen, so it cannot bond unless it too is made to be atomic. So there again, you have another problem to contend with.

Let's say you beat that one too, and now you have atomic hydrogen and atomic nitrogen in the same "area", and they've bonded.

What does that "electrochemical reaction" present you with?
Hint, I've been told there are a bunch of buses running around Brisbane using "tanked" fuel of this kind.

Now, while you may have just succeeded in forming a usable "fuel", the burn rate of the said "fuel", will certainly not be up where the it was when you were looking at the atomic hydrogen, but will be reduced downward to being similar in flash/flame speed to that of diesel or petrol/LPG.

Ok, still do-able you may say, but what happens when you "ignite" that stuff by way of a regular ignition process? Which nasty is now apparent in that NOx?

Oh dear, so are those buses pumping out that particular NOx?

Can you eliminate that NOx?

Ok, so what if rather than "ignite" that fuel, you "vaporised" it instead?

Bit of a side step, and for example only:
In 2010, a newly built (standard specification) Holden engine was trialled at NSW RTA/EPA testing facility in Botany NSW.

Fuel was regular petrol, along with a parallel series of tests using LPG.

Ignition was a standard Bosch electronic distributor, which in turn acted as the trigger for a 4.7uF(microfarad) and then a 1x Joule plasma ignition burst.

When appraising the officials at Botany as per the reasoning behind the tests, they immediately dismissed the tests as pointless, and explained that the NOx always reacts in a "see-saw" fashion, thus if you remove from 1x NOx column, you always increase it on another.

This is of course quite correct if you're "igniting" the fuel, but this is not the case when you "vaporise" the said fuel. Straight up fact. To attempt to argue against this, is to question the practice of plasma gasification, and if you have a quick look at that process, you'll see "why" it does what regular ignition can't. Anyway, the tests went ahead and the results were duly certified as "Valid".

Plasma doesn't "burn" the fuel, it vaporises it, and thus once vaporised, it really does cease to exist as matter, and so if you're really keen and wish to look down that rabbit hole, you'll see that it's been long proven to work in getting rid of toxic waste and even nuclear waste.

So, will somebody ever pull off the big one and "solve" the big puzzle?

Buggered if I know, but it'd be a bit hard to solve it if you hadn't a clue as per the physics and chemical tables from the outset.

Anyway, enough from me. I can be BANNED now Mr moderator.

People can go on believing in H2 if they choose, and I do sincerely wish them uber good luck with that.

Hooroo and happy trails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by navigation2000

and I'm forced by the kangaroo court rules to refrain from participating further.

---

shakes head,

were you not able to post this?

you wanted to take your bat and ball and not continue, no one told you to go,
they told you to treat others with a minimal degree of respect,

it boils down to, not what you said, but how you said it.

so either stay or go but if you stay feel free to lose the attitude...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by incisor

shakes head,

Yep, shaking my head too...

were you not able to post this?

Well, if this message appears, it will be post #2, and will mean that there's something amiss with your demerit notification process then, for it gave me a pop up message telling me I was allowed only 1x more post, hence my acknowledgement of the rules and my subsequent oorroo...

you wanted to take your bat and ball and not continue, no one told you to go,

See my above comment. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding as per the processes here, but the lines are certainly not drawn clearly, re: the demerit process and attendant pop up windows.

they told you to treat others with a minimal degree of respect,

Not exactly how it was put, but yes, I can see that it's clearly a non reciprocal requirement, (one way street) I get that now.

it boils down to, not what you said, but how you said it.

Again, see my above post re: the one way street. Perhaps you should review the archive to see what was said and by whom, and when. Not meaning to tell you your business, but perhaps you might want to look at the edited post which carries no "edit" notification, and then see who edited that one. I was only aware of it as I had 2x windows opened up side by side at the same time and was therefore puzzled to see the original as well as the edited post(after I refreshed that page), though no mention of an edit. I then looked about and discovered that only a mod can do that.

so either stay or go but if you stay feel free to lose the attitude...

---

I did what I felt I had to do in post #1 thanks, and there's little chance I'll be changing my ways to allow people to speak to me in that tone, so rather than my continuing to comment on this thread or on others, my mouth will remain closed. I'll therefore bid you adieu, but I do thank you for the advice though.

So, anyone got there Land Rover running on Nitrogen Hydroxide yet.

How to Make Nitrogen Hydroxide Water Fuel.pdf

This document has all the right buzz words, atomic hydrogen, atomic nitrogen, atomic oxygen, plasma ignition even makes use of magnetic fields and blue LEDs. Unfortunately it does mention "THIS DOCUMENT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION – IT IS INCOMPLETE. A FEW MISSING ITEMS ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED FOR A FULL WORKING MOTOR." Must be still working on the flux capacitor design I suppose.

The author links to some websites noting "You will see one of the sites goes back 10 years and the common understanding seems to be that none of them understand why it works, they say they just know that it does."

I wonder why no one understands why it works. Can some explain to me the difference between H2O, HHO and HOH. It seems to be a key to understanding all this stuff.

H1 HHo H1 HHo its off to work I go...

I believe THIS is a H1:

http://www.kbluxurycars.com/pictures/Hummer-H1-1.jpg

And I'm sure it takes energy to run it.

Quote:

---

I wonder why no one understands why it works. Can some explain to me the difference between H2O, HHO and HOH. It seems to be a key to understanding all this stuff.

---

I get this feeling that a lot of disinformation arrises because it is so difficult to
type H2O. Therefore all this other rubbish gets written.

H2O(H2O), HHO and HOH are all the same molecule, why? Because there is only one way they can be combined.

O
/ \ this is it
H H

H - O - H nope, the molecule must have an angle

H - H - O nope, H will not join to another H which is attached to an O.

Browns gas is supposed to be 2H2 O2 but gets written HHO because the people writting all this BS have no idea what they are talking about, and unfortunately the readers even less.

Anyway, thats all I have time for right now, I have some actual calculations I did in another forum which I will try and find, which further debunks all this BS.