Stan Meyer's Initial Technology Replicated

[chessnyt]

That does not take into account the possibility that there is a partial truth in any/all of the three theories.
It is also possible that any theory can be unprovable.

@memoryman:
It is possible that there is some truth to what the weather man says as well.  If he says there is a 10% chance of rain and it rains the entire day, he is correct.  On the other hand, if it doesn't rain, he is also correct, as he only gave it a small chance of occurring. 

I think you have missed the underlying point.  The initial point I was making is that science disagrees with itself.  The fact that there are three separate scientific theories to explain the universe is proof of that.

[memoryman]

Science does not agree or disagree with anything: it just IS. We, as human beings, interpret, infer, conclude etc.
"The fact that there are three separate scientific theories to explain the universe is proof of that." No, at the MOMENT we have (at least) 3 theories. We had others before and likely will have new ones again.
How does this apply to Stan's claims?
As far as I can see, there is at the moment little supporting evidence.
The same can be said for Joe Papp's noble gas engine, yet I think that there was something to that. His patents gave wrong and misleading information in them; maybe that is true of Stan's patent too.
If you are interested in sharing more info about why you think that Stan was right, I am happy to sign a NDA. My interests are in experiments with nano cavitation as a form of lenr, and converting ambient heat into electricity.

[chessnyt]

Science does not agree or disagree with anything: it just IS. We, as human beings, interpret, infer, conclude etc.
"The fact that there are three separate scientific theories to explain the universe is proof of that." No, at the MOMENT we have (at least) 3 theories. We had others before and likely will have new ones again.
How does this apply to Stan's claims?
As far as I can see, there is at the moment little supporting evidence.
The same can be said for Joe Papp's noble gas engine, yet I think that there was something to that. His patents gave wrong and misleading information in them; maybe that is true of Stan's patent too.
If you are interested in sharing more info about why you think that Stan was right, I am happy to sign a NDA. My interests are in experiments with nano cavitation as a form of lenr, and converting ambient heat into electricity.

@memoryman:
First of all, my response was to pompodoro .  In particular, I was responding to this reply:

Hi Chess, thanks for the explanation. There are of course some ideas there which are not accepted by science...

If my response wasn't relevant, then I think that it should not have merited a response from you defending science.

Secondly, I have no shortage of people who want to examine what I have.  Some have contacted me privately because they do not want their identities to become public knowledge.  Some of these people fear retaliation from their peers and employers, and some are just a little cautious after what became of Stan Meyer.  I am not here to judge these people, but I will respect their wishes and keep them confidential.  If they choose to later reveal their involvement on their own, then that is their call.  No man is an island unto himself, thus I have agreed to make these concessions.

Notwithstanding, your offer is appreciated, and I take it as a kind and generous offer.     

As far as I can see, there is at the moment little supporting evidence.

I beg to differ with you.  I believe that Stan has driven the "impossible" car in front of enough credible people to support his claims while he was still in the land of the living.  But then a man sees what he wants to see and he disregards the rest.  (A little Simon & Garfunkle quote).

The same can be said for Joe Papp's noble gas engine, yet I think that there was something to that. His patents gave wrong and misleading information in them; maybe that is true of Stan's patent too.

I have never attempted to replicate the Papp engine, so I have no comment on that technology.

I do know that Stan's patents do not reveal exactly how to build his system.  At first I thought that some of his patents were redacted, but now I am leaning towards the idea that Stan was merely being protective of his invention. 

Another great read Chess, I do enjoy your style of writing as well as your content.  I ask myself if your experience changed you as it has another fellow that has had success with the Stanley Meyer technology.  I bet it has, seems it would have to.

Something soon many of us will have to contemplate is this world we live in--how much of it is truth and how much of it is fiction.  When you watch that newscast of Stan running his buggy and statement is made, "even the Pentagon is interested", one has to know there are people on this planet that knew Stan was correct all along.  We were so close to all that technology going right into a black hole and never coming out.  I'm so thankful guys like yourself dug in and become determined enough to dig it back out.  To the point though, how many other things haven't been dug out and are lost to the general public like ancient artifacts?  Was it just greed and money that corrupted our knowledge?  I'm almost afraid to answer my own question because to do so means we likely lived a life that was more than 50% a lie.

Knowledge is power; in this case awareness.  Something or someone is this world knew it and jumped through their own ass to make sure we never acquired that power, that knowledge.  No one can tell me the great academics and engineers of this modern era couldn't look at Stan's patents and see there was a lot more going on there than they claimed.  They caved to forces I would like to see abolished from this planet.  I see the same thing going on right now with the nuclear industry.  Any child could understand you do not use a highly deadly substance to power your lights and heat your home when there is no way on earth to get rid of this dangerous waste.  Simply a very bad idea, yet it's everywhere doing exactly what some knew it would.  With disasters like Fukushima that cannot even be cleaned up, poisoning our oceans and our air...  Stan's technology could have completely erased this mess before it started; anyone with a half a brain knows it.

It's a bitter sweet state of affairs.  Now we know what could have been.  We see much of our labor has been wasted, turning sweat into money, then into energy to power our lives.  It was never necessary.  So much time wasted.  Time we will never get back and a world we may never be able to clean up.  It makes  me very angry and sad at the same time.  I feel so manipulated, maybe raped is a better word.  And for what?  So some fat ass with more chins than a Chinese phonebook could  get rich?  I feel my pulse pounding just thinking about it.

I hope many of us can walk in your footsteps Chess and realize all of this for themselves.  Maybe we can fix the world a tiny piece at a time and when we leave this world, take with us the knowledge so this never happens again.  I can see no other option.

@Dog-One:
Yes, the experience has definitely changed me.  The world has become a much larger ocean than I originally thought it was.  I realize now just how little I know and that I have much to learn.

It gives me great comfort to hear that others have accomplished what Stan has as well.  This ensures that the technology can never be buried again. 

Furthermore, I have no doubt that there are people with intimate knowledge of Stan's work who have taken cover and faded back into society after Meyer's demise. 

My paramount concern has always been to leave this world in a better condition than I found it.  It's not all about me.  It's about our planet. It's about our neighbors. It's about our children. It's about making a change before it's too late. It's about the future generations who will inherit what we leave behind.


Chess

[memoryman]

Thank you, Chess.
I thought that your post was a response to me.
My offer is not for personal financial gain; I share your sentiment about " My paramount concern has always been to leave this world in a better condition than I found it.  It's not all about me.  It's about our planet. It's about our neighbors. It's about our children. It's about making a change before it's too late. It's about the future generations who will inherit what we leave behind."
I don't believe the 'doomsday' predictions and am very optimistic about the future.
Btw, the intent of the patent system is that in exchange for protection, the inventor is supposed to reveal his invention in the patent sufficiently that a working device can be made from the patent description. A patent should be revoked if that can not be done.

[pomodoro]

There is a patent where water is split using a very high voltage DC, without electrolysis, by using insulating electrodes. Unfortunately the water acts as a dielectric, storing charge, and when the molecule splits, the charge of the dielectric is the energy used in the dissociation.  So this 'potential only' method still uses a heap of current although insulators are used....