The Problem with Meyer

[Farrah Day]

This is a copy of the personal message Hydro (Spewing) sent to me:

you are a bitch, you need your teeth beat down your throat, you little washington  boy, your a gen gen.

I would like to stick my foot up your ass, you little mother fucker

If these posts do not clearly illustrate the level of intelligence that this forum has been reduced to then most of you need your head examining.

To think that anyone with this mentality can bring anything useful to the party is sheer madness! 

[alan]

Dankie, I love you buddy but your wire ain't gonna sell and your countless promises of massive results from you and "your team" of voluntary/part-time cultist in the hope of selling more of your blessed wire... dip it in red wine and try to pass it off as "genuine" imitation of the wire used by some religous cults guru...

He'll have to order more, I am sure of that.
And we are no cultists, we are Muppet's.

I agree there are aspects to meyer where you can put question marks, absolutely, but we realize the message is more important than the messenger. The techbrief is unreadable, but no reason to dismiss it all, too important for that.

But all in all Meyers terminology when DIRECTLY translated and constructed does not reach over unity, this has been proven lots of times.

can you give an example of this proof pls?

Farrah day, if you really want to analyze/prove/disprove SM theoretically, try to interpret section 5 and see if you can bend it and make it fit the theories you have learned. I can't, so your view and interpretation is welcome. There is no magic, if it is real, it can be explained scientifically and perhaps with current scientific knwedge. And I think it is real.
he talks about it in this video and further http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN-_ZBPu4gg&feature=related

let's not throw arguments to the man

[AhuraMazda]

This is a copy of the personal message Hydro (Spewing) sent to me:

If these posts do not clearly illustrate the level of intelligence that this forum has been reduced to then most of you need your head examining.

To think that anyone with this mentality can bring anything useful to the party is sheer madness! 

Lol. That’s nothing. You should dig out some of the private correspondences between Tesla and Edison. The reason we never saw Tesla’s car again is because Edison set fire to it which accidentally spread and burnt down wardencliff.( I guess I just started another Web rumour).

[Farrah Day]

The problem with Meyer is that he never seemed to consider Faraday's laws.

Faraday, (unlike Meyer) was a brilliant scientist, and someone who actually knew what he was talking about. Indeed Faraday was a pioneer, and we owe to him much of what we know and understand of electrochemistry today. His laws cannot be dismissed - unless you don't possess the brains to understand them in the first place, that is.

If you do possess the brains to understand Faraday's laws in respect of electrolysis, then you will see quite clearly why it makes perfect sense. To simply dismiss Faraday's laws, as so many people around here seem quite happy to do, is foolhardy in the extreme and opens the floodgates for all the bad science that then tends to follow.

Simple ELECTROLYSIS… oh yeah… right!

I often see people coming into this area of science â€" and it’s quite obvious who they are â€" who try to actively take part in discussing a subject that not only do they have no background knowledge or education in, but which they clearly haven’t got a clue about. These people jump straight in at the deep end expecting either to be taught by others, or more often than not, simply and inevitably highlighting their own level of general ignorance on the forums â€" often to the frustration of others.

Take simple everyday electrolysis.  We all know this from high school… don’t we?  We simply draw a current through water containing an electrolyte and the water dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen at inert electrodes.  True enough, and that explanation might be enough to gain you a mark in your high school science exam, but it is nowhere near detailed enough an answer to be of any practical use if you intend to research WFCs.

Educating yourself to a level whereby you fully understand, let’s call it, ‘Standard Everyday Electrolysis’ will hold you in good stead for further WFC research. Understanding exactly what is happening in SE Electrolysis will allow you to not only make distinctions between other forms of water dissociation, but also allow you to make educated comments on the electrochemistry involved.

Full understanding of electrolysis will not come unless you get to grips with Faraday’s laws.

Hence a little background knowledge goes a long way to sensible discussion.

But...!  I hear you say, Meyer was not using standard electrolysis, so Faraday’s laws don't apply!

Well, even if this is the case, unless you take time to understand Faraday’s laws in the first place, you have no grounding from which to make that call, make intelligent observations, or come to any logical conclusions.
Armed with the understanding of Faraday’s laws you can then better understand the problems with what Meyer suggests is happening in his WFC, and so take part in educated discussion..

Ignorance might be bliss for most of you, but it won’t change the laws of physics!

[Farrah Day]

Well... finally... there is intelligent life out there.

For once a considered and intelligent post. Good grammar, spelling, paragraphs... the full works... thank you Loner.

I actually concur with what you say, and agree that laws work for most of the time and are generally the rule but there definately are exceptions.

If you read my initial post, you will realise that I have never dismissed Meyer's claims, I simply question the quacky science and the man himself.  I really hope he achieved what he claimed as that would justify my interest, my research and indeed this discussion. 

The point I was trying to illustrate was that understanding Faraday's Laws (which are quite valid for electrolysis) would lead to a better understanding of the nature of electrolysis itself, allowing an educated and informed opinion of other possible methods of dissociation of water.   Without this as a foundation in electrochemistry, how can people possibly consider other alternatives?

The John Kanzius, 'burning saltwater', discovery always comes to mind as a form of water dissociation that has yet to be explained in terms of the electrochemistry involved.  And as I've mentioned elsewhere, this discovery could be the boost Meyer's WFC technology needs in order to gain some credibility, as it seems to me to be every bit as mysterious - something that anyone familiar with Faraday's Laws of electrolysis should see straight away!

The difference of course, is that Kanzius made the discovery almost by chance and did not concoct any gobbledegook science to explain it, whereas Meyer seems to have made it his mission to confuse and confound us all.

With regards to the 'name calling', I have simply become intolerant of the mindless stupidity that is continually posted, and, yes, I know I should simply turn a blind eye to it... but the temptation to provoke the idiots just often gets the better of me. I'm rather embarrassed to say that in some perverted sort of way I find them kind of... entertaining!

PS. My English teacher once told the class of the 'i' before 'e', except after 'c' rule to help us with our spelling. I piped up saying that the word 'their' did not conform to this rule. "Ahhh", he said, "Yes, there are exceptions"