HHO explosion slowing down the burn speed of HHO to get compatible with gasoline

[d3adp00l]

Easy to prove my statement in regard to Les's reply to my statement, There is not proof of his claim, lack of proof and yet a claim makes my statement stand, until such time that he can counter my claim with proof of his.

You speak of ad hominem, well then first speak to Les which opened such discussion towards me. Which I did not respond to in such methods, I responded with the fact that I can prove what I know and have discovered.

I spoke to the effect of his rhetoric and not to his character, I did speak of the character or qualities of the individual he was quoting claims of.

I wish you would understand the amount of time and money people waste here following bogus claims, and not building on eachothers work.

If Les has talked about this "story" before, thats fine, but it is truely off topic, it is clear that in this case it is only an ad hominem display to counter my statement about a conventional gasoline engines being able to run on hho in a self running manner.

Because if I am in fact correct in my statement it makes his story untrue, and he takes that offensively.

Again you claim a negativity which is unfounded, the claim in and of itself is ad hominem for the simple fact that I was discussing a matter of fact and proof. The individual is one of those three, unless my claim can be legitamately refuted, which is a statement of fact, not an attack, as it was stated.

As far as free energy suppressions go, again you can only prove it has been suppressed by proving that a person invented, which would mean it would be repeatable, and could be re-invented now. There are many suppressions going on that can be proven, but those who do the suppressing can not stop something from being rediscovered, they are not able to stop physics from happening for you.

Les on the contrary gave his opinion to my statement, and then gave an unsupported claim of his oppinion on an invention which he has no understanding of. If he had an understanding of it he would be able to replicate it, since he has no understanding of it, he can not make any claims of its function which out it being opinion.

If he wants to tell us about this car, then please tell us how it works, or convey what he was told (and why he thinks its true) so that it might be replicated. And if replicated the originator of the concept may be given full credit for his work.

Short of that, its fanatasy, and that is not going to help anyone move forward.

Jib I ask you what direct knowledge of this subject do you have? What tests have you done? What can you claim and then prove?

What I have found is open for people to see on youtube, well at least some of it is, what I am currently working on is not yet, WHY? Because until I can prove it, demonstrate it, and have others be able to replicate it, it is a theory, which is not fact.

And there is your proof. Now would you like to talk about reality of hho, or would you like to hear a nice bed time story?

[jibbguy]

Les in one way I say your right, but in another I say your full of it.

First I don't care about fanatsy stories, of mythical people and ideas. So if there is something to what you said, guess what it doesn't matter a bit, why? Simple if it isn't being implimented it doesn't exist. So your buddy Peter is either a liar, a coward, or just imagining things.

You can say whatever you want about me, but guess what, I can PROVE myself can you?

@d3adp00l

"Liar" and "Coward" are certainly "ad hominem" words , used for character assassination.

Reading over Les' previous statements, he was referring to people here generally, not to you specifically and personally: Therein lies the difference between his comments and yours.

It was up to you to take them personally, as you appeared to do  (prompting the over-the-top reply). As you appear to have taken mine personally as well. 

Please quote the words that i said to you that were "ad hominem" in nature... Since you can "prove yourself", i am sure this would be no problem for you to do.

... Yet your last set of comments did not give any proofs why you made the above "Liar" and "Coward" statements.  Because, as we all knew, you have no personal knowledge at all of the person you slandered. This is a "fact", not "opinion"... "Opinion is what you obviously based your derogatory and personal comments on.

The comments regarding hydroxy are meaningless here... It is not about that or even your disagreement with Mr. Banki... It is about you attacking someone with rude and uncalled for language and getting called on it.

If this was not your intent, as you seem to imply, then perhaps you should apologize to the recipient.

So what shall i prove to you then? That your comments were ill-advised? I will let the others here read it for themselves and judge

[hartiberlin]

@d3adp00l

in your tests with your generator here:

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

how many watts of input power did you use to run this blue generator
in this idle mode ?

Did you try a load test with a light on the output of the generator
or simular 300 to 500 Watts load ?

Did you try to close the loop ?
What kind of generator is this ?

Many thanks.

[Les Banki]

Hi Stefan,

It is not clear from your post if the 2.4V is across 2 series OR 2 parallel cells.
I assume you intend to run a series cell eletrolyzer directly from the mains, (220VAC in Germany), full wave rectified but DO NOT filter it!

For 220V you should have 110 cells for maximum efficiency.
(you should NOT exceed 2V per cell!)
And yes, the SERIES cells arrangement is the only way to go! 

Cells operating at voltages higher than, say, 2.5V, is a waste of time and effort.
Further, current density should be no higher than 30 - 40mA per square cm
Calculate plate sizes accordingly.

Also, distance between plates should be no more than 3mm and as EVEN as possible. 
SS 316L is the best material for the plates.

DO NOT  use chemicals to clean them and cross hatch them (by hand) with emery paper.
DO NOT touch by hand!  Use gloves.
(Same instructions as Bob Boyce has published repeatedly over the years.)

If all these points are observed, you WILL produce high quality hydroxy and you will only need 1 to 4% of hydroxy and 99 - 96% air.
You will have MORE THAN ENOUGH to run the engine AND have power left over!

Have fun!  You will enjoy the result!

Best regards,
Les Banki

Ps.  I wrote the above last night but could not post it since the server was down.

Today I am adding the following:

‘jibbguy’ â€" thank you for your support and understanding the psychological aspects.
However, in future, PLEASE IGNORE  all attacks.  DO NOT RESPOND!
Not only am I not offended, I find it amusing and entertaining and often these kind of posts give me a good laugh.  (I suppose I got a “weird” sense of humor!)

BTW, I phoned and old friend today.  He is Peter’ next door neighbor since Peter moved  a few years ago. (from Moorabbin, a suburb about 10 minutes drive from where I am).
He was telling me that Peter is still ‘at it’, at 77 years of age and of the many inventions since the water cars, etc.
Some of these inventions/discoveries are almost “out of this world”!
Further, he told me (for the first time), that he has not only read but physically holding it in his hand, a letter from the Queen, telling Peter that if he ever released his water car technology, there would be “dire consequences”!!

There is more to come…..
Stand by for a hell of a story….!

[d3adp00l]

You missed the word either, and in fact you missed the direct quote from me by Les, so again your point fails. Further more if this man is holding world changing information out of fear, THAT IS COWARDICE in my book, that is not ad hominem that is an observation. Or he is a liar, which is a statement of fact or fiction.

You really need to learn what context and comprehension means.

Again I point you to the direct quote of me by Les, that is directed, not a general statement. It was masked along with a general state to enable pluasable deniability, thinnly veiled.

The proof is in the claim of having the information and not getting it out to the public, or not having the ability to get it out due to its lack of existance.

Furthermore again you need to learn context, my reference of proof, was to what I know in the area of  hho and how it contradicts the claims made, the difference is that I can prove what i know, and he can not, or will not.

You called out something you didnt read and understand.

I will not apologize since there is nothing to les to apologize for, I didnt call him anything, but a distraction.

As far as people reading the comments if they can not understand english in context then there is nothing I can do for them.

You stand corrected sir. End of story.


Back to hho,

Les it has been my observations that closer to 25 ma per sq cm is more eff, but a high threshold of 40 ma is acceptable, although the cell will heat up.
Also you need to specific the method of 4%, which method are you using.

As far as his threatening letter, that is all the more reason to do something about it.


Stephan

idle can be achieved with as little as 4.5 LPM around 800 watts.

output of 400watts has been achieved with 2300watts input, 12.5LPM, since that was the max output of the cell at the time that was the upper limit.

More importantly it has been found, and replicated that a 20%hho to 80%normal air ratio is needed to  run the engine, any less than that and it is too lean to operate. This is by volume.