Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[dutchy1966]

Hi Hissyfit,

I can see where you are coming from with your comments. There is a lot of things published here that are at least doubtful.
I's like to know what your opinion is about the Lawton/RAvz replication of the SM work. (Pure from a scientific view)
Do you think SM has it all wrong or do you think it might work if we follow strictly his tech briefs and patents. I mean are the claims by lawton and Ravz (more than 300% faraday HHO production) for real in your opinion?

thanks,

Robert

[dutchy1966]

Hi Hissyfit,

I can see where you are coming from with your comments. There is a lot of things published here that are at least doubtful.
I's like to know what your opinion is about the Lawton/RAvz replication of the SM work. (Pure from a scientific view)
Do you think SM has it all wrong or do you think it might work if we follow strictly his tech briefs and patents. I mean are the claims by lawton and Ravz (more than 300% faraday HHO production) for real in your opinion?

thanks,

Robert

My opinion is simple: 

Until the results can be shown and quantified using reasonably accurate scientific measurement methods and until the methodology can be clearly documented and reproduced then it is all just pleasant charming stories.  I do not form opinions based on stories and claims.  In the absence of evidence and clear testing methods and good documentation, my default belief/opinion is skeptical doubt. 

It seems there is a concerted effort here to make sure none of that good science ever happens, despite the open pretense that this is a forum designed and intended to do just that.  99 percent of what I see here falls squarely into the category of socializing around mysterious foggy delusions and forming beliefs and alliances based on meaningless jargo and misunderstood physics. 

Why no one can just come out and say "Here is what I am accomplishing and here is exactly how I am doing it" is beyond me.  It appears no one here working on this stuff has the ability to communicate clearly or measure correctly or even define a particular goal or methodology.

Hissyfitnihilism

Hi Hiss,

Ok I think that is a reasonable point view. I am still gonna continue with the replication. Mainly because i want to either proof or disproof the claim.
I also think that you are contributing to this forum (although be it in your own way and for some people maybe a bit harsh and to direct  )
Hopefully I can change your skeptic view in the future (cos by that time it's must be pretty much proven that it works).
When and if that time comes I will certainly consult you to try and proof and claims wrong!

Robert

[dutchy1966]

I applaud your intentions.  Could you state for the record exactly what you hope to achieve/prove/demonstrate/replicate?  Thanks!

Hissy

The first task will be to either proof or disproof the claim made by lawton/ravz to produce more than faraday levels of hydroxy with the setup from the latest D14 pdf . That including proper conditioning of the cell as per ravz instructions.....

The outcome of this will determine if I want to take it further from there or not....

Robert 

[Duranza]

Well I must say this is sad.... Hissy Missy has nothing better to do, but to keep you from doing what you must to find the results. Wheather the bifilar works or not let us find out for our damn selves. And if you do work for big oil.... well better find another job, unless you plan to retire soon....

[motofox]

How many people have to replicate somthing before people believe it works?  If runningbares tubes were the same spec as ravis, then i believe he too would have a ravi replication..