Patents related to efficient production of HHO

While Meyer has several patents, many of them are not about HHO.

At least one patent describes breaking atomized water down using positively ionized air, with the unstated end result being a mixture of Nitrous-Oxide and Ammonia. (Ammonia is caustic, and will eat up metal, thus the reason for Meyer's spark-plug injectors injecting the combustible mixture into a cylinder full of freshly compressed air, resulting in an isolated pocket of combustible gasses.)

While having touched on the subject of positively ionized air, if both the air and HHO are both positively ionized, the valence electrons needed for covalent bonding are not available for the combustion process to complete, so until enough electrons migrate into the ignited mixture, combustion repeats and continues to give off more heat.

At least one patent exists for positively ionizing intake air for gasoline engines to gain power and mileage.

I have a document I'd like to post, but it's just over 500k, and it doesn't appear a file that large is allowed.

Being new here, I'm not well versed on what all has been posted, or how to find posts containing specific information.

That being said, it might be advantageous for everyone if there was a topic specifically for patents, with descriptions on what areas the patents cover, and possibly with links to documentation about the patented technology which might go more in depth and clear up any gray areas and associated confusion.

I remember another patent similar to this:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/espac...&pageNumber=1&

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro

While having touched on the subject of positively ionized air, if both the air and HHO are both positively ionized, the valence electrons needed for covalent bonding are not available for the combustion process to complete, so until enough electrons migrate into the ignited mixture, combustion repeats and continues to give off more heat.

---

. . . this statement. You have contradicting logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

. . . this statement. You have contradicting logic.

---

Hey Rusty!

I really like your username. Now that's got character built into it!

Hmmm...Could I get you to point out the statements where you find my logic lacking? Not trying to put you on the spot, just asking for help. I know you quoted what you found a problem in, and I have read back through it several times, but maybe my viewpoint is blinding me.

Maybe I'm assuming something? Or maybe I'm leading you and others into assumptions that don't match what I'm attempting to explain? I'd like to get this corrected.

Anyone else who finds problems, please speak up!

I usually think in pictures, and sometimes things get lost in translation.

" the valence electrons needed for covalent bonding are not available for the combustion process to complete, so . . . combustion repeats and continues to give off more heat."

A continuously repeating combustion event would imply an exothermic drop into lower enthalpy products. However, if as you say, there is insufficient electrons for covalent bonding and combustion completion the endothermic production of precursors would be held in stasis and no heat will be given off to continue the repeating combustion (flame front).

Thanks for explaining Rusty!

As I understand it, it's the attempt to bond which causes heat to be given off.
I expect there might be a flame front which might cycle around several times until bonding is successful.
I had wondered if it might look similar to ball lightning.

Does that help? Or should I try and rework that entire section?

Well, this afternoon, "White Dragon Press" and "Energy Times Newsletter" sent out emails letting folks know they have published a book and a video on this very subject.

I don't corner the market on this information.

I know how this works, but I'm curious about how they might have implemented it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro

Thanks for explaining Rusty!

As I understand it, it's the attempt to bond which causes heat to be given off.
I expect there might be a flame front which might cycle around several times until bonding is successful.
I had wondered if it might look similar to ball lightning.

Does that help? Or should I try and rework that entire section?

Well, this afternoon, "White Dragon Press" and "Energy Times Newsletter" sent out emails letting folks know they have published a book and a video on this very subject.

I don't corner the market on this information.

I know how this works, but I'm curious about how they might have implemented it.

---

Successful bonding either absorbs or releases energy. Unsuccessful bonding collisions result in no loss or gain in entropy - "stasis" if you will. Though not accurate a description as there is constant motion.

Neither of those sources seem like legitimate science journals. But, I will look them up.

And again, please explain your combustion theory more completely. You have a contradiction and you have not examined it clearly.

Thanks Rusty!

I'll go over things again. May take a little while to mull it over.

I'll also see if I can dig up some sources as well.

-Retro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro

Thanks Rusty!

I'll go over things again. May take a little while to mull it over.

I'll also see if I can dig up some sources as well.

-Retro

---

Make sure your sources are not of the pseudo-science variety. You know the type, a few scientific words mixed in with a lot of unexplainable hocus pocus. We do not live in a Harry Potter world. A wand wave and some gibberish does not make something so. Science with experimental correlation is where we must exist.

Rusty,

I'd like to complement you, but I fear I'd fall far short of the mark.

-Retro
__________________________________________________ _____________________
If one believes he knows the answers, he will never think to ask the right questions.
If one refuses to accept the false dogmas as truth, he will not receive a diploma and
will be excluded from prestigious and lucrative positions.