It is common knowledge and well known science that photons will be absorbed by atoms and raise electrons to higher orbits (energy levels), but it takes an exact amount of energy to raise an electron to a higher energy level. Likewise photons are emitted by atoms if an electron drops to a lower energy level. This is accepted science.

The vapor coming out the tail pipe is low energy because the flame never succeeded in stabilizing like a regular flame would. The energy that a regular flame from a match takes, comes from the electrons in the atoms jumping levels. The energy that Stan's flame takes is stopped. The flame creates a special vapor that is low energy. The vapor then turns into a low energy fluid, or remains as a low energy vapor - the sun then provides the missing electrons, which is the question that needed to be answered all along. What happened to the missing electrons? How did Stan get away with extracting electrons - why didn't the electrons simply go back where they wanted to be? He created a condition where the flame was not like a regular flame that you see from a match. The energy comes from the SUN. But it could also come from wind mills or fossil fuels if need be.

This is not so though is it, because the voltage itself is the result of a build up of charges on the plate of a capacitor. The capacitor might not pass electrons, but it is the electrons that provide the potential difference between the plates.

It is the electrons that have gone missing that provide a potential difference in Stan's system. The electrons gone missing mean that the Sun has to replace them (or windmills, or even fossil fuels) at some point later.

There is current flow in Stan's system. It is after the water comes out the pipe and the sun shoots photons into the water to recharge it. That is where the current is.

Stan's vapor that comes out of the pipe can be thought of as a solar panel in fluid form being expelled, or a solar battery that has been discharged by the vehicle and now needs recharging once it comes out the pipe. This obeys laws of conservation and is what is needed to satisfy rigorous physicists and mathematicians.

The question is does the flame which does not actually act as a normal flame, exist in the combustion chamber? is Stan not a fraud, then? A regular flame emits several photons and heat and just creates regular water! What happens in a different flame? Stans flame emits more photons and heat because the ash is not water with equal electrons - the electrons were taken, and it is not a low energy ash out the tail pipe - it is an EXTREMELY LOW LOW energy ash out the tail pipe. See the difference? Lower ash than water is created (therefore more energy stolen, that needs to be replaced to obey conservation of energy).

This energy that is used to power the vehicle needs to be conserved and it is replaced by sun photons out the tail pipe or collected for farms with big pools to recharge.

However, as interesting as this phenomena might be, I'm not sure it is of any real use to us in regards to hydrogen and oxygen production, because we still need to exchange charges somewhere to get from H+ and OH- to H2 and O2!

Why not just hold a match or spark some of the H+ or OH- and see what low energy ash you create, instead of providing higher energy plentiful electron h2 and O2 substances.  But you have to extract electrons to keep it unstable in lower energy. Those electrons once extracted, luckily are something we can use: electricity. But, that's not all - we get a different than expected flame, when we burn something that is unstable. What happens when an atomic bomb burns - is it like lighting a match to wood? Is the flame in an atomic bomb a regular flame? Why not? Mass is missing.


Work in progress: low energy ash exhaust theory:

What happens when we burn unstable H and O and do not have as many electrons available? We are forced to form something that is not water - rather a closely nit together lattice, a thickly bonded lower energy water. More covalent bonds shared. What do MORE BONDS mean? A LOWER ENERGY ASH then regular water. The more bonds we have, the lower the energy. Water is low energy state because there are some h2o bonds. But even lower energy is MORE bonds and more sharing taking place. This LOW ENERGY ash is the key. If unstable water molecule has electron stolen from the hydrogen section, this leaves positive hydrogen to latch on to not one oxygen but two oxgens if it can form a lattice fence. The positive hydrogens can timeshare two oxygens instead of one oxygen and you have extremely low energy since it is not H2O but a gigantic fence. 

Whether this low energy ash is toxic is my question, and I also wonder if it really exists or whether it is a mistake THOUGHT up by someone who was hoping it existed but didn't know for sure.

If mass is missing, then where did it go and must we replace it? We took the mass by stealing the electrons from water. We replace it by converting photons to electrons, by using the sun to recharge the low energy ash that came out the tail pipe. Similar to a solar panel, but a very special solar battery this water is.

Water is a low energy ash - but what is a lower energy ash than water? Lower than low. Bonded water lattice composed of stacked up molecules with an odd timeshare system. Out the tail pipe comes a lower ash than water which is lacking electrons and therefore must form a different timeshare. With a different timeshare there must have been more energy released because the more bonds there are formed in the flame, the more energy had to be released. With more timeshares it means the energy had to be given off which moves the car. When the sun hits this low energy ash once it comes out the tail pipe, the low energy ash wants to be regular water again because more electrons are added via photons ramming in to it. The odd timesharing lattice breaks into a higher energy water (yes water is higher energy in this case then our low energy ash). The key to this technology may be to rid our brains of thinking that WATER IS THE LOWEST ENERGY ASH WATER CAN BE ONCE HYDROGEN IS BURNED. What can we do to create a lower energy ash, even lower than regular water? Create more bonds with less electrons and more timesharing.

"FREE RADICAL FORMATION

    Atoms are most stable in the ground state. An atom is considered to be "ground" when every electron in the outermost shell has a complimentary electron that spins in the opposite direction. By definition a free radical is any atom (e.g. oxygen, nitrogen) with at least one unpaired electron in the outermost shell, and is capable of independent existence (13). A free radical is easily formed when a covalent bond between entities is broken and one electron remains with each newly formed atom (13). Free radicals are highly reactive due to the presence of unpaired electron(s). The following literature review addresses only radicals with an oxygen center. Any free radical involving oxygen can be referred to as reactive oxygen species (ROS). Oxygen centered free radicals contain two unpaired electrons in the outer shell. When free radicals steal an electron from a surrounding compound or molecule a new free radical is formed in its place. In turn the newly formed radical then looks to return to its ground state by stealing electrons with antiparallel spins from cellular structures or molecules. Thus the chain reaction continues and can be "thousand of events long." (7). The electron transport chain (ETC), which is found in the inner mitochondrial membrane, utilizes oxygen to generate energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Oxygen acts as the terminal electron acceptor within the ETC. The literature suggests that anywhere from 2 to 5% (14) of the total oxygen intake during both rest and exercise have the ability to form the highly damaging superoxide radical via electron escape. During exercise oxygen consumption increases 10 to 20 fold to 35-70 ml/kg/min. In turn, electron escape from the ETC is further enhanced. Thus, when calculated, .6 to 3.5 ml/kg/min of the total oxygen intake during exercise has the ability to form free radicals (4). Electrons appear to escape from the ETS at the ubiqunone-cytochrome c level (14)."

Stan talks about a chain effect in Colorado lecture. The same chain effect is seen with free radicals as shown above from science article. Therefore one cannot say Stan was not talking scientifically - he did talk about science in his lectures, such as this free radical phenomenon of unstable substances.

http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Antioxidants/Introduction.html


This is one reason I am concerned about toxicity because free radicals are not so good to have in our water supply.