Stan Meyer's Initial Technology Replicated

[ARMCORTEX]

You demonstrated nothing, you proved nothing, you solved nothing, there is nothing.

Delusions, frauds, and lies.

Its all in your dreams, you are in a delusional mental state.

This is just the typical fireworks before the great realisation that you were conned.

Seen it many times.

But you are an adult, and you must come to terms with reality.

[chessnyt]

You demonstrated nothing, you proved nothing, you solved nothing, there is nothing.

Delusions, frauds, and lies.

Its all in your dreams, you are in a delusional mental state.

This is just the typical fireworks before the great realisation that you were conned.

Seen it many times.

But you are an adult, and you must come to terms with reality.

Fraud?  Oh my!  What a grand delusion this is.  I am not selling ANYTHING.  Nor am I soliciting funding.  I have funded all of my own private research on my own nickel.  I never took a dime of ANYONE's money, so I owe nothing to ANYONE. 

It is you who has been found out to be the liar, as evidenced by your claims of fraud.  It's nice to know who the liars are.   

Jealousy...oh yes.  I have seen this many, many times before.  Envy can eat right through a man's soul.  This is very typical. 

But then you are an adult, acting like a child.  We tend to accuse others of what we are guilty of 


Chess

[memoryman]

chessnyt, with all respect, so far all we have are very hard to believe claims.
You can do whatever you want and make any claim. IF you want credibility, then some form of credible evidence is needed.
Afaik, more energy is needed to dissociate H and O from water, then is available by recombining them.

[TinselKoala]

It generates enough hydrogen to fuel an internal combustion engine which in turn is able to take over the total power supply input to the system with plenty of power left over for auxiliary electrical appliances/devices.

So are you backing off from this claim now? This is a simple enough thing to demonstrate.... so get to it. Where is your demonstration that this claim is true?

Note that the claim is made IN THE PRESENT TENSE. So you are claiming that this can be done NOW. Let's see you do it. Or admit that YOU CANNOT.




 

[chessnyt]

chessnyt, with all respect, so far all we have are very hard to believe claims.
You can do whatever you want and make any claim. IF you want credibility, then some form of credible evidence is needed.
Afaik, more energy is needed to dissociate H and O from water, then is available by recombining them.

@memoryman:
Anybody can claim that they can run an engine on HHO gas.  For example, Stan Meyer claimed that he could run an engine on nothing but HHO gas and he backed up that claim by showing the world an engine that idled on HHO alone.  But there was a little problem with that demonstration.  There was a long extension cord coming from his house/garage that powered the cell the whole time he was idling the engine.  So some could say, well yeah.  He basically ran the engine from the power of his house/garage, and not isolated from an external power source.  I get that.


Vehicle idling video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytu-vwudz4




Then he showed the world that he could later drive that same vehicle (with the same engine) down the road at better than cruising speed while that extension cord could not possibly have been attached to the vehicle.  This time, he even had an unbiased camera crew from a TV station that he did not own, filming the whole experience.   There was no external power source and the people filming the car were not his employees or friends.  That's a pretty powerful demonstration.


Vehicle being driven in front of a TV news crew video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E




Then he allowed a Lt. Coronel from the U.S. military to examine the vehicle while it was running and turned off.  From there, the list just keeps getting bigger and bigger.  From news crews and a Lt. Coronel to an expert mechanic of 40 years, to close associates and fans.


Now if you don't believe any one of those recordings on video, or witnesses that inspected the vehicle and actually rode with Meyer in his water powered vehicle, then I'm afraid that there is nothing I could show you that would convince you, even if I was to "show" you by making a similar video recording of myself doing the same thing.


I understand all the same laws that you and everybody else can recite, as I have been taught them too.  I understand that you can convert energy from one form to another, but there is always losses involved, thus the sum input power is always greater than the sum output power.  I get that.  I really do.


With standard Faraday electrolysis, you would never get an engine to run on HHO.  The main reason is exactly as you state by using more energy to split the water molecule than can be returned through burning it (recombining it).  The problem is that any standard Faraday electrolysis process must use high amounts of current.  In addition, there is a need to add an electrolyte to the water in order to make the water more conductive.  In doing so, heat is generated in the water bath as a result.  Waste heat in any system is a sign of inefficiency and massive losses.


On the other hand, you can use NO electrolyte at all and get very little production (if any) which will also prohibit you from fueling an internal combustion engine (starving the engine). 
Now with the preceding in mind, what if you could get the kind of gas production you receive when you use brute force, only minus the current flow?  Your efficiency problems go away, as does the waste heat in the water bath.  Now you are able to fuel an engine without overloading the engine to power the water splitting device in return.


So what you need is a cell that splits the water molecule yielding the same kind of gas production as with brute force electrolysis, yet using only a small amount of current (or wattage) at the same time.
With Meyer's technology, you are using voltage potential to split the water molecule with very little current flow, because he designed the technology around amp restriction.  This means that you can use very small amounts of energy (wattage) yet get the same amount of gas production you would receive using LOTS of current (wattage).

But voltage potential with amp restriction is not quite enough.  This is where things start getting much more complex.  Your electronics must also find the resonant frequency of the water, which will always depend on the amount of contaminants present in the water in parts per million (or PPM).  Sounds doable, correct? 


But wait.  Another road block is yet to arrive just in time to ruin your faith in what I'm saying, because despite meeting all of the criteria above, something else is going to go awry soon after you find this ever illusive resonance.  The target resonance is going to change on you automatically.  You see, after you begin to generate hydrogen and oxygen through this process, the contaminants ratio (in PPM) in the water are going to change, which in turn will affect its own resonance.  In other words, as you start generating HHO, the contaminants will remain in the water bath which will form a stronger concentration in relation to the remaining water (as the water will leave the cell) and your electronics must be able to detect this and change its own resonant frequency to match this new resonance while continually following after it.  So to lock onto to resonance is great, but not if your electronics/circuitry are not able to follow it wherever it goes and as fast as it changes.  This is truly what Meyer was doing.  I don't use the term genius loosely.


So now what happens when you get the kind of gas production as you do with brute force electrolysis, but you use only a fraction of the power?  You get a sustainable process where you are using less energy to separate the water molecule into its atomic state yet the return of energy is greater than the amount used to split it in the first place upon recombining it.  It's like the different of opening the safe with dynamite, as opposed to using the combination.  You are switching off the water molecule's covalent bond instead of blasting it apart with brute force.


So once again, you use a smaller amount of energy to split the water, than you get in return recombining it.   
 
Now I only gave you this detailed response because you showed a little respect.  A little respect goes a long way with me.




Chess