It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poly Atomic Oxygen

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Poly Atomic Oxygen something new something old.
We all know about O2 oxygen and O3 Ozone but then we get O4+ that is where
The Technology is the application of allotropes of oxygen in polyatomic molecule creation. WE hear alot about ozone and the dangers of breathing it yet many people buy air purifiers that produce ozone to clean the air. Problems ocur when the elements used to create ozone get hot at or above 146 degrees. This heat causes the nitogen molecule to split and by products are created such as nitrix acid
and this becomes a danger.
Poly atomic oxygen in its creation by coronna plasma does not produce by products
and is safe to breath at extreme high levels.
The US Air Force use O8 molecules in its fuel cells on the space shuttle and its now being developed to texture woven material to be waterproof and to create a shield on the space shuttle to with stand entry. Poly atomic oxygen has the ability to oxidize anthrax in the air, h5n1 viruses. One should look up this not new science and check it out it has small applications know but in the future people will be using it for everything. First post here in the science part hope this is what its about.




posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
O8, that's news to me, the highest i've heard of so far was O6 (aka diozone), which is alledgedly useful when trying to isolate so called ORMEs (orbitally re-arranged metallic elements iirc), which is a fringe subject all by itself.

i'm quite surprised NASA is using polyoxygen, though, i'll do a search.


btw, nitic oxide doesn't need to be generated temperature, electric discharge can do that too, the safest way to produce O3 (not the most efficient, though) is probably UV light. ionisation should be considered, too....

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Could I get some links as to where you gained this information from? "Because I said so," doesn't work for me.

Links please.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Sure! but these links do not carry any weight imho, so i left them out, not everyone is interested in everything you know.

on ORMEs and polyozone : www.subtleenergies.com...

on nitric oxide production www.inspiredliving.com...

on ionisation and ozone generation www.on-lines.com...

if you want more i think i have some in my archive, but they don't strictly deal with ozone alone, so i'll stop spamming for now. regards.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I would be surprised if gaseous O4 or higher lasted more than a few microseconds, if it formed at all it would have to be spectacularly unstable.

Are there any references to this outside the ormus group? I've seen some crap relating to "instant AIDS cures" and the "ARANIZER" (I figure that's what you found by phrase similarity). Interestingly, they all seem to share this habit of citing a lot of real publications relating to ozone to coat a veneer of credibility over their story, then veer sharply away into this O4 and O8 business. The peer-reviewed references stop about that point, too, and most hook back to this Ed McCabe guy. I'll bet outside the guys selling AIDS cures and magic ozone generators you won't find any cites in a peer-reviewed magazine or text.

Now, you CAN create solid O4 (tetraoxygen) at extremely high pressures by mechanically forcing the atoms into a lattice. But you're talking gigapascals of pressure.

prola.aps.org...

Here's a straight-forward 'no':
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...


Inhaling ozone in high concentrations causes damage to your lungs. In small quantities it's good at cleaning the smell out of air, but if you can smell it by itself, you've probably got too much of it. The safe level is pretty low.

The FDA is getting ready to drop the hammer on the electrostatic air cleaner manufacturers that emit ozone, that's why you're seeing Sharper Image add on that wart full of hopcalite on the back.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Fundamental Studies of Oxygen Rings and Other High Energy Molecular Systems
Author: Henry F Schaefer III-funding numbers-61102F2303FS-Performing Organization name-Georgia Univ Research Foundation Inc, Boyd Grad Studies Res Cntr. Sponsoring/monitoring Agency Name-Air Force Office of Scientific Research/AFOSR/NC Suite B115, Bolling AFB DC (Dr. Berman)
The Object of this research is to characterize the energetics, spectroscopic properties, and elementary chemical reactions (including unimolecular reactions) of the oxygen ring molecules) O4 and) O12 and related species. The approach used will exploit recent developments in ab initio molecular quantum mechanics. In a collaborative effort with ongoing experimental research to identify and synthesize high energy density molecules, excited electronic states and positive ions of these species will be studied.

This is a good read-In the “The Toxicity of Ozone” a report by Clark E. Thorp,
While there are many "experts" stating that ARAN as O4, O5, O6, OX, etc., cannot and does not exist, a Japanese physicist, Dr.Uozumi, through "balanced mathematical and chemical equations," revealed that airborne Oxygen, when exposed to dense, high velocity electron plasma (without any heat from electrode sparking), will form into higher atomic groupings like O10. This is through alterations in the individual atomic valences of the Oxygen Atom. Once this "Super Oxygen" is released, it very rapidly tries to return to the more stable O2. In its rapidly decaying from O10, down to O9, O8, O7, O6, O5, O4, O3, and O2, it randomly gives off electrons that encounter other previously unaffected Oxygen molecules, and impacts them, giving them some of its secondary free electrons. These Oxygen molecules are transformed by this process into higher forms, from O9, to O8, O7, etc., which in turn break down into O7, O6, etc., also releasing electrons and creating other higher forms, which then break down and give off electrons, etc...,"
In Van Nostrand's SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Fifth Edition, identifies Oxygen (O4), as the "rare, very unstable, non-magnetic, pale-blue O4.”
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT from the Air Force Office of Scientific research-Grant AFOSR-92-J-0047.
Fundamental Studies of Oxygen Rings and Other High Energy Density Molecular Systems.

transformationalbreakthroughs.org...
This multiple order of oxygen is a very underresearched item, you can find much more by researching. Yes you will find many that say it does not exist, but some said the earth was flat also.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Protector
Could I get some links as to where you gained this information from? "Because I said so," doesn't work for me.

Links please.

this is from long lance work -transformationalbreakthroughs.org... Oxygen is a very energetic and active element, and is capable of mediating several type of energies, some of which are not as yet recognized by Science.

Forget triatomic oxygen thats what ozone is but poly-atomic oxygen is a very rare blue gas of non-magnetic nature. The best way to produce O4 above is by a corona plasma field where the O2 is pushed over or through it and the O2 splits to single atoms. the single atoms of oxygen is bombarded with excess electrons escaping from the electrical water like plasma. The trick is not to create a spark that would split the nitrogen atom or produce a heat over 136 degress. The single oxygen atoms then start to combine due to the energy from the spin resonance of the electron field. When we start think of O4 and above you have to understand that physics cannot answer this question but quantum mechanics is where you have to go. Understand that two thirty-eight pound units can clean the air of a 40by400 foot poultry growout house and the bacteria and viruses from day one of the chicks in the house until 7 weeks later when they are fully grown has already been done for Homeland Defense aka safety Act office.

I have thought that O20 and above might be possible but some research findings think that might be impossible but many think O4 is impossible.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I would be surprised if gaseous O4 or higher lasted more than a few microseconds, if it formed at all it would have to be spectacularly unstable.

Are there any references to this outside the ormus group? I've seen some crap relating to "instant AIDS cures" and the "ARANIZER" (I figure that's what you found by phrase similarity). Interestingly, they all seem to share this habit of citing a lot of real publications relating to ozone to coat a veneer of credibility over their story, then veer sharply away into this O4 and O8 business. The peer-reviewed references stop about that point, too, and most hook back to this Ed McCabe guy. I'll bet outside the guys selling AIDS cures and magic ozone generators you won't find any cites in a peer-reviewed magazine or text.

Now, you CAN create solid O4 (tetraoxygen) at extremely high pressures by mechanically forcing the atoms into a lattice. But you're talking gigapascals of pressure.

prola.aps.org...

Here's a straight-forward 'no':
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...


Inhaling ozone in high concentrations causes damage to your lungs. In small quantities it's good at cleaning the smell out of air, but if you can smell it by itself, you've probably got too much of it. The safe level is pretty low.

The FDA is getting ready to drop the hammer on the electrostatic air cleaner manufacturers that emit ozone, that's why you're seeing Sharper Image add on that wart full of hopcalite on the back.



Real science does not deal in snake oil-There are better ways to address the creation of o4, your newton is a broken link and the other was what twenty lines about metallic binding and oxygen. Polyatomic oxygen is non metallic non magentic and is pale blue. You should see its creation and I bet the above cited experiments were very costly. Nasa, Homeland defense, us army and many others are actively working with O4 and above molecules. The Machines I use do not produce ozone until it all most breaks down into O2 but it does not produce NOx nitric oxides aka acid rain. Regular ozone produceing machines and for that matter ion machines produces each and one a by-product of Nitric acids into the air and that is dangerous to your health; but you will find no where where anyone has died from ozone exposure.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Gaseous O4, as you see in the brief description, is "very unstable". That really doesn't cover it.

Thorp's work is dated 1950. There's been a huge body of study since then...I notice you didn't quote any, but then these seem to be quotes from the Aranizer site. Of course, if I were marketing an intentional ozone generator, I'd be dipping into the past to find anything with positive spin I could find. I don't doubt they had to go back to 1950 to find it.

That Schaefer paper, I believe, refers to solid oxygen rings which form under extremely high pressure as I described; the solid O4 (it's red when it's solid) was from an HEDMS project also. I notice the Aranizer sites only publish snippets. It's in the library at Bolling AFB, though, which means I can probably request an copy from DTIC. I'll see if I can get one on the way. It should be interesting.

However, "Oxygen is a very energetic and active element, and is capable of mediating several type of energies, some of which are not as yet recognized by Science. " just sounds like total new age malarkey.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   


Real science does not deal in snake oil-There are better ways to address the creation of o4, your newton is a broken link and the other was what twenty lines about metallic binding and oxygen. Polyatomic oxygen is non metallic non magentic and is pale blue. You should see its creation and I bet the above cited experiments were very costly. Nasa, Homeland defense, us army and many others are actively working with O4 and above molecules. The Machines I use do not produce ozone until it all most breaks down into O2 but it does not produce NOx nitric oxides aka acid rain. Regular ozone produceing machines and for that matter ion machines produces each and one a by-product of Nitric acids into the air and that is dangerous to your health; but you will find no where where anyone has died from ozone exposure.


Doesn't deal in snake oil...yet you are talking about "energies as yet unknown to science"?

The newton link isn't broken for me..the other paper refers to the O4 ring transition at 96GPa. Here's a bit simpler abstract for you referring to the same study:

www.aip.org...

Since you don't want to look, I'll find you some cites about ozone damaging the lungs.
We are in the midst of designing the control electronics for a sub electrostatic cleaner and got to help some with the cell design, I'm not exactly speaking out of my hat here. Ozone generation is great in a confined space inside the cleaner, it eats on a lot of nasties that build up, as long as you destroy it all before it leaves the cleaner. It is a big no-no inside the boat. The design ensures a really high ozone level in one chamber along with a lot of UVC, then it goes through some hopcalite to destroy the ozone and CO, then through a sort of heater with a metallic catalyst, to destroy the ketones, ammonia and whatnot that float around the boat and give it that characteristic sub stink.

Hopcalite, especially when activated by the ozone it's destroying, will break down a lot of VOCs, but some of them are just a bit more than it can handle, and you use the "catalytic converter" to break the rest of it down.

But you just don't let the ozone out into the boat. In fact, you have to destroy all the ozone that the electrical equipment produces.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Wow, the problem here is that there are so MANY cites, what to post?

www.healtheffects.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
ajrcmb.atsjournals.org...
www.ingentaconnect.com...;jsessionid=kwgp0sx5o3cl.alice
toxsci.oxfordjournals.org...
www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk...
www.nlm.nih.gov...

bla bla bla, between 40 and 60,000 hits for terms like ozone induced pulmonary lung damage etc.


Here's a good one: www.epa.gov...
or the hazardous substance data bank link:
toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...:@term+@rn+10028-15-6

where they tell you:


... 0.35 PPM FOR 2 HR INCR RESP RATE & DECR TIDAL VOL ... 2 PPM ... INHALED FOR 2 HR, CAUSES SENSE OF PRESSURE IN CHEST, TEMPORARY EXHILARATION FOLLOWED BY DEPRESSION & DECR IN LUNG CAPACITY. ... (5 TO 10 PPM) CAUSE INCR IN PULSE ... RESP EFFORT ... & WHEN INHALED FOR MORE THAN AN HR MAY CAUSE PULMONARY EDEMA & DEATH.
[Thienes, C., and T.J. Haley. Clinical Toxicology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972., p. 191]**PEER REVIEWED**



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Wow, the problem here is that there are so MANY cites, what to post?

What has any of those sites have to do with polyatomic oxygen, why are you such a expert. If you don't believe in polyoxygen thats your beef. O3 and O4+ are to different birds. Pros and cons on both sides yet you did not cite the approved for use in the food industry. Ozone has been used for water purification since 1909 in france, in america glade sprayand others have such a push of their product. Why is it that we always cited some epa site yet the epa allowed above voc from coal plants. Poly atomic oxygen does live as a part of nature. I could sit here and listen to you jump like a monkey all day long. If your developing a ozone machine your in a club with thousands of others and I in a club of one, in fact since you think polyoxygen creates by products you need to study a lot more then citing some article can ozone reach 50 ppm with you in the room for several hours no, O4+ at 50 ppm can allow people to work for several hours without harmful effects. I don't understand why your pushing ozone when O4 is not ozone totally different.

No one of your references addressed poly atomic oxygen, why not address poly oxygen but of course your a ozone scientist, I forgot.
Lets put it this way if the government wanted you to know, it would take you in as a certified specialist in that field and I do not think that will happen.
Highjacking my thread with ozone is not within the thread itself why do that, cite some of the allotropics of oxygen if you will to stay on subject.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

"Regular ozone produceing machines and for that matter ion machines produces each and one a by-product of Nitric acids into the air and that is dangerous to your health; but you will find no where where anyone has died from ozone exposure."



"WE hear alot about ozone and the dangers of breathing it yet many people buy air purifiers that produce ozone to clean the air. Problems ocur when the elements used to create ozone get hot at or above 146 degrees."



"This is a good read-In the “The Toxicity of Ozone” a report by Clark E. Thorp, "


Ozone in more than trace concentrations IS toxic. I could saturate the thread with cites both text and net, but the ones I put down already should be more than sufficient.


What has any of those sites have to do with polyatomic oxygen,


They have to do with you saying erroneously that ozone is not toxic. Repeatedly.


Pros and cons on both sides yet you did not cite the approved for use in the food industry. Ozone has been used for water purification since 1909 in france,


Why are you dodging the issue? I don't care if it's used in water purification. That's fine by me. Drinking it doesn't rot your lungs. Breathing it does.


in fact since you think polyoxygen creates by products you need to study a lot more...


Pfft. I sincerely doubt gaseous O4 you manage to generate, if any, would survive more than a few milliseconds. However, let's say magically you DO create it. What is the mechanism by which your putative O4 destroys viruses, bacteria and whatnot? It does so by degrading into O3 and free monatomic oxygen, which is a spectacularly reactive oxidizer. Oddly enough, that's exactly what O3 does when IT degrades to O2. If you had O4, which I doubt, it will cause the same damage as ozone. Only it will do so twice per molecule of O4, so mole-for-mole it will be twice as toxic as ozone.


No one of your references addressed poly atomic oxygen


Sure they did, they just stated that it was only stable in solid form under tremendous pressure. As, I believe, we will find that Schaefer paper to also state when DTIC mails me a copy. You know, the one that the Aranizer crowd so often cites as proof, as you did also.


O4+ at 50 ppm can allow people to work for several hours without harmful effects.


Interesting...how exactly did you instrument this? It's tough enough getting an accurate ppm reading for ozone. The prime we were working with spent tens of thousands of bucks getting a decent ozone meter and measurement room set up. It's amazingly difficult to get a good O3 reading...the ozone interacts with the walls, the moisture in the air, the surface of the air cleaning machinery and what you measure one day you won't the next unless you control temperature, humidity, suspended particulates and so on to a gnat's arse.

I can't find a single instrument that will indicate ppm of gaseous O4. What measurement instrument did you use to establish that you are generating O4, and in what concentration? I can't wait to find out.



Lets put it this way if the government wanted you to know, it would take you in as a certified specialist in that field and I do not think that will happen.


Wanted me to know what, exactly? Is there a big conspiracy in hiding O4? Are you thinking I'll have any issues with getting a copy of that Schaefer paper from DTIC or BAFB? Dude, you can't be serious, it's not even restricted.


post script: Easy peasy. A copy is on the way from DTIC to my place of work. Stay tuned for 'what exactly does that Schaefer document on high-energy density molecular fuel have to say about allotropic oxygen, if you read the whole thing instead of a line here and there?", it should be in next week sometime.







[edit on 16-8-2006 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
A. detection of ozone concentrations can be achieved easily by using the WOLF instrument a hand held ozone detection instrument. Runs about 2400.00. Data collected by instrument can be downloaded to your computer for analysis with many types of software.
B. I don't make the O4 above air the machine makes it.
C. Just where have you found information that states that persons have been hurt by ozone, who are they and what studies are you citing for your information.
D. you donw grading the Aranizer corporation is real no no. Have you proff that their equipment does not produce O4 and above oxygen molecules.
E. you doubt yet you show not proof that it does not exist, either put up or shutup your trolling this thread.
F. Here again you show how little you know about the subject of allotropics of oxygen. OZone is a triatomic molecule and O4 is a poly-atomic oxygen do I need to go higher then your pin head or what.
G. If you can add then you will understand that weights of oxgen differ when it collects in clusters. O4 is about 11% higher than O3 but I forgot your a rocket scientist and I am a no one.
H. If your not some broke kid why not buy some of the equipment and test it yourself, If your not allowed to have that much money go to one of the demos. C
I. Call the Factory and talk with them I am real sure your theory that O4 does not exist at least as you say as magic air will be taken as nothing more then a crank call.
J. Call the HomeLandDefense Office and ask them about the use of PolyAtomic Oxygen in ATT use, that is a real laugh.
K. Unless your able to show documents that state O4 and abve do not exist the why are you trolling this thread.
L. As for your opinion of what you don't know if you do not understand the technology do touch it.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Our planet is a mostly condensed gas, one of which can be destructive if the molecules are split. Hmmm, chain reaction of uncontrolled hydrogen seperation any one?

Imagine for a second, what would happen in that situation.
Or am I just imagining that wrong, theoretically?



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

A. detection of ozone concentrations can be achieved easily by using the WOLF instrument a hand held ozone detection instrument. Runs about 2400.00. Data collected by instrument can be downloaded to your computer for analysis with many types of software.


Yes, detection of OZONE, or O3. The Wolf instrument is ok but not that accurate, and if you buy two, you'll generally get two different readings. Not to knock them, but we found in the course of measuring ozone for the submarine air processing plant that most ozone meters are not that accurate. It's a real butt pain. I was lucky to NOT be in that part of the project, but I heard many a loud complaint.

But that's just an aside. I'll restate my exact question: "I can't find a single instrument that will indicate ppm of gaseous O4. What measurement instrument did you use to establish that you are generating O4, and in what concentration?"

What instrument was used to measure O4? O4. O4. Not O3, or O3 and maybe some other oxidizing gas mixed. What instruments are you familiar with which can measure O4 concentrations to the exclusion of other gases, most particularly excluding O3? What proof is there that gaseous O4, or any other higher order gaseous oxygen polymer is being produced and emitted? In what manner are you instrumenting for higher order oxygen allotrope production that excludes detection of lower order allotropes? The Wolf instruments sure won't do it. You see, you're claiming that the machines you sell produce Ox where x ranges from 4 to maybe 20. How do you know? My suspicion is that you are producing O3 and nothing else, at least nothing with a half-life of over a few seconds at best, and more likely in the millisecond range, if it exists at all. I'd like to know how you know you are producing O4, and in specific concentrations which you state.



B. I don't make the O4 above air the machine makes it.


Pfft.



C. Just where have you found information that states that persons have been hurt by ozone, who are they and what studies are you citing for your information.


Nine's not enough? There were tens of thousands of hits on Google. I went through the first three pages and picked out the most believable.


D. you donw grading the Aranizer corporation is real no no. Have you proff that their equipment does not produce O4 and above oxygen molecules.


"quit knocking the machines I sell, or I'll sue!" Yeah, I heard the same thing on another thread where the health book guy was threatening me.

Let's review:

statement 1: "I've seen some crap relating to "instant AIDS cures" and the "ARANIZER" "

Yes, I google O4 and that's what I mostly see, AIDS cures and the Aranizer. Trivial to prove.

statement 2: "Interestingly, they all seem to share this habit of citing a lot of real publications relating to ozone to coat a veneer of credibility over their story, then veer sharply away into this O4 and O8 business. The peer-reviewed references stop about that point, too..."

Go to their website. Look at their technical "proof"...ozone, ozone, ozone. Then it stops, except sometimes for the reference to the Schaefer paper. They don't cite anything else that's peer-reviewed, as far as I know, relating to O4, although some sales sites for it toss in a lot of references to Ed McCabe. As I also state. Again, trivial to prove true.

statement 3: "I notice the Aranizer sites only publish snippets. " Also true, also trivial to prove. What's going to be interesting is when I get the paper next week. If in fact, he's talking about making free gaseous Ox, then I'll admit it. If not, I'm going to publish that too.

statement 4: "I notice you didn't quote any, but then these seem to be quotes from the Aranizer site." Trivial of proof also. Nearly every cite you post is common to sites that sell the Aranizer.

statement 5: "You know, the one that the Aranizer crowd so often cites as proof, as you did also. " Trivial of proof as well.

You see, to be a "big no-no", it has to be both untrue, and published with intentional malice. The burden of proof on "untrue" involves you proving that I knew my statements to be incorrect when I made them. I believe that my statements ARE, in fact, quite true, and can be proven true in less than 10 minutes by examining the websites that sell this device.


E. you doubt yet you show not proof that it does not exist, either put up or shutup your trolling this thread.


What I've shown proof of is that O4, and possibly higher allotropes, do in fact exist, but only under great pressure. I suspect that I will prove this again next week when my copy of Schaefer arrives and I publish MY snippets of it, right here. Because his research was also tied into what was a rocket fuel research project, the same as the other one I cited: the high-energy density molecular fuel project.

I'll even admit to the existence of gaseous O4, but it is incredibly unstable and most likely won't get out of the machine by the time it degrades, if you are actually making any at all. Do you have a published half-life of gaseous O4? I sure couldn't find one. A real publication, too, not one of these new age places. Something peer-reviewed or generally accepted to be accurate would be nice. Something you'd find in the chem-E section of the library, like a chemical reference book.

I've asked you how you're instrumenting that your machines are producing higher order allotropes to the exclusion of ozone, and I really don't believe you can. So, back atcha. Where is your proof, as substantiated by a nationally accepted lab, that you are in fact producing the O4 that you claim in your advertisements?

What is your definition of troll? You proposed specific claims, I countered them. You are resorting to ad hominem attack, I am not. You propose cites that support your position, I point out that they either don't, are outdated, have a huge number of directly contradictory studies by believable organizations or in fact directly contradict the point you are trying to make.

That's usually called a discussion.

I'm not trying to post inflammatory, insulting or mocking posts. I don't believe the devices you sell do what you claim. I'd like to see some substantiation, but I don't believe you know how to prove the claims you make.

What I do find interesting is the number of sites selling the Aranizer that make direct health claims, make direct claims of manner of operation such as "emits O4" which I suspect that they cannot provide lab testing to substantiate, and post anecdotal evidence from users in support of specific health claims. This is usually grounds for FDA and/or FTC action. You might check into what happened to David Hinkson over at WaterOz. 43 years in the pokey is a long, long time. He, too, sold ozone generators with specific health claims and user testimonials.


F. Here again you show how little you know about the subject of allotropics of oxygen. OZone is a triatomic molecule and O4 is a poly-atomic oxygen do I need to go higher then your pin head or what.


Insults! Isn't this a violation of the terms and conditions? But at any rate, I think I've demonstrated that I do in fact understand them quite well. Technically, even O2 is polyatomic oxygen, although O2 and O3 are generally distinguished by calling them diatomic and triatomic rather than poly. What you have not demonstrated is any understanding that if you DO produce higher order allotropes, that they degrade by emitting monatomic oxygen. This is implicit in one of the first statements you made: "Once this "Super Oxygen" is released, it very rapidly tries to return to the more stable O2. In its rapidly decaying from O10, down to O9, O8, O7, O6, O5, O4, O3, and O2..."

Uh, if it exists, what did you think was happening as it changes from O10 to O9 and so on? Each transition releases another molecule of monatomic oxygen, a potent oxidizer and the mechanism for lung damage by ozone. Only your putative allotropes will emit MORE of this substance. So O4 is twice as damaging as O3, O5 three times and so on.

I also noticed that on the Aranizer websites they have a neat graphic that admits to this.


G. If you can add then you will understand that weights of oxgen differ when it collects in clusters. O4 is about 11% higher than O3 but I forgot your a rocket scientist and I am a no one.


This is patently untrue, if you mean that the atomic mass of oxygen itself varies based on its chemical bonds. Chemical bonds do not affect nuclear characteristics. A mole of O2 weighs about 32 grams; a mole of ozone about 48 grams, and a mole of O4, if you could produce one and weigh it quickly enough would be about 64 grams. As you compare differential percentage of weight going from o2-o3, o3-o4, o4-o5, of course the percentage differences will be less as the order increases, because you are making a smaller percentage change. That doesn't mean the weights of the constituent atoms are changing, just that by adding one more oxygen to O4 you are making less of a weight difference by percent than if you added one to O2. Basic algebra.

However, I'm not sure why this matters, it's sort like saying "bees can smell fear". Ok, but what has that got to do with anything?


H. If your not some broke kid why not buy some of the equipment and test it yourself, If your not allowed to have that much money go to one of the demos. C


Tsk, tsk. More insults. Why would I want them? I have plenty of ozone and corona generators around here. If I were going to toss a lot of money down a rat hole, I'd be more likely to spend it on a nice .30-338 I've had my eye on.

I-L: Not really worth addressing.

Stay tuned for Schaefer, next week. Did you have any other peer-reviewed proofs of the existence of higher-order stable gaseous oxygen allotropes other than that one? I just LOVE to get copies of this sort of thing. Especially the military ones, I get those free. Cite me some more I can get from DIA or the State Dept's library or DTIC publications. I'm not sure where I get DHS research but if you can name a source at Homeland Security I'll check that out too. If they back up your position, I'll switch sides. Frankly, I looked for an hour or two and didn't see any believable ones that weren't from the HEDMF project group, which as far as I know were all allotropic solids.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Our planet is a mostly condensed gas, one of which can be destructive if the molecules are split. Hmmm, chain reaction of uncontrolled hydrogen seperation any one?

Imagine for a second, what would happen in that situation.
Or am I just imagining that wrong, theoretically?


I'm not sure what you're asking. It would take energy to separate each hydrogen from water, the process is endothermic so there's no means of producing a chain reaction that I can see.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
From what I recall, to create a poly- anything, you need to establish equilibrium.

For O2 to move into other states, this is difficult because it is Highly reactive.

What you want to do is cast from O3, then establish dynamic states.

That's how I used to do it, anyway.


BTW, seeding works with O2 due to its covalence.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by bothered]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
To get back to this thread and people that do not understand atomic theory in Molecular Systems.


This is a place where a report and study by Georgia Univ Research Foundation and the Air FFOrce Office of scientific Research researched the use of O8 and O12 as High Energy Density Molecular systems.

The title is -Fundamental Studies of Oxygen Rings and Other High Energy Density Molecular Systems
author Henry F. Schaefer III---Funding nbrs 61102F2303FS
Performing Org Name and addressee
Georgia Univ Research Foundation Inc
Boyd Grad Studies Res Cntr
Athens Ga 30602
Sponsoring /Monitoring Agency
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
110 Duncan Avenue
AFOSR/NC: Suite B115-OSI
Bolling AFB DC 20332-0001-Dr Berman-Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Report Number - F49620-92-J-0047
Know if you want to know what is powering the space shuttles engines you should read the report.;
Not sure why there are people that like to attack everything someone posts, but it sure is not cool. tom bedlam states he is a not sure but what proof does he have except , his company does work on submarines he states. He never heard of wolf instruments until I stated about it and then it became once again a bad product, because fhe heard tht someone in his company say so. This is like fema stating that a 757 hit the pentagon because its part of the government and we must believe.
I am not sure why the guy is stating such wild claims about things he did not even know about until I posted it.
bothered states to create a poly-anything you need to establish what bothered.

But that's just an aside. I'll restate my exact question: "I can't find a single instrument that will indicate ppm of gaseous O4. What measurement instrument did you use to establish that you are generating O4, and in what concentration?"
You cannot find something because you do not believe in it. So far you stated it does not exist why stop at findiing out if it is O4 why not O5,O6,O7,O8, O9,O10
if your smart enough you can weight it to detect changes in drift.
Its like I said before if you really want to know and understand about Higher forms of Allotropics of Oxygen, go through the US SafetAct, HomelandDefense you cannot go wrong there.
In 1943 Herman W. Schuette received patent #2,308,111 for his Octozone Generator his used cylinder Oxygen with his octozone generator to obtain O4,O6,and O8.
Really not sure why ADVISOR asked about chain reaction of hydrogen, but thats ok some people are uncomfortable with thinking that there is something above ozone.
My opinion is to try going to a good,library of science and reading books on theories of movements in Oxygen and maybe understand that internet question google does not give what you ask. Real science is in studies not search engines.





posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
My opinion is to try going to a good,library of science and reading books on theories of movements in Oxygen and maybe understand that internet question google does not give what you ask. Real science is in studies not search engines.


I agree the Internet is not the best place to study, with all the re-directs you get.
Not to mention I've been running on an obverse, time-lagged, sub-strated version of the I-net for some time.
People have too much interest in me for what they accomplish!




top topics



 
0

log in

join