Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

[quarktoo]

The open ended energy system is simply how he illustrated how the ozone absorbs infra red and goes back to being O2. As an open energy system, thermodynamics does not apply.

[newbie123]

The open ended energy system is simply how he illustrated how the ozone absorbs infra red and goes back to being O2. As an open energy system, thermodynamics does not apply.

Nothing applies until his device is even proven to work..   Which so far is hasn't.

But adding your own home brew (O4)  theories  to Stan Meyer's mystical papers  adds even more confusion to the situation.

[nightlife]

Stan was a bright man but yet even he never grasped the true concept of what energy is.
Everything is vibrant and vibrance is energy. Everything is made up of adams and adams are collections of energy. Traces of these vibrations are the only thing we have been able to see within a atom.
Energy is a vibration which is created by a contact created by two or more vibrances. It's not really a created vibrance as much as it is a vibrance emitance released by the vibrant contact. It is impossible to create a vibration that is as vibrant and or more vibrant then the vibration used to create a vibration. This is why true over unity can never be acheived. We can use one to release what is stored in another but we can never create new energy. Energy can never be created nor can it ever be distroyed. It can only be transfered, obsorbed and or released. Energy creates substances by way of magnetic fields they create when they come into contact with other energy's. The magnetic fields attractions and or repultions depend on the vibrance of the energy. This is what gives us the intelegent designs. Nothing is solid and everything is vibrant and everything emits a vibrance.

We can never steal energy from the sun, we can only obsorb the energy that the sun emits. What can and do do is steal energy from what would have obsorbed the suns energy by way of our own independant movement as well as by the way we are able to move objects from one location to the next. The sun releases it's energy just as everything does but at the same time, it also obsorbs energy as like everything does. When something emits more then what it obsorbs, it begins to deteriate. When something obsorbs more then it emits, it grows.

True over unity can never be acheived but finding more eficent ways to release energy that is stored can be. 
Everything is a energy source and everything holds more energy then what we would ever need during our own lifetime.
Every thing you see is a energy. Everything you touch is a energy. Everything you smell is a energy. Everything you breath is a energy. Every thing you hear is a energy. If they wern't, you would never be able to do any of those things.

We haven't even begun to touch the surface of what true energy is nor have we even come close to properly utilizing the energy we use. The earth and sun emits all the energy we need and we need to start looking for ways to properly obsorb that energy without wasting all the energy that we do. Keely and Telsa have come close and they may have even have figured it out and that part of their work may have been hidden from us. Finding efficient ways to attract, collect and utilize natural vibrances is the key to all our energy needs.

Good luck to you all and please know what energy truly is before you start trying to attract, collect, store and or utilize it.

[quarktoo]

I have never gleaned anything remotely scientific from Meyers lectures and/or videos, and I'm always amazed by the various things that some people latch on to, and take to heart. I never cease to be amazed by how many people disregard the science and take it all on blind faith.
If you have no scientific background the pseudoscience and invented technical jargon sounds very impressive, but in the real world it's nonsense. Nowhere does Meyer ever even give any balanced chemical equations for any supposed reactions. It's always about electrons being pulled off here there and everywhere!

Sorry Sparky, "the science" just happened on my bench a few hours ago and there is plenty of science in my background. You are hardly in a position of judging that.

AC or DC Faradays laws will apply if the water is being caused to ionise and charges are being exchanged.

If you spent a little more time at a bench building circuits and experimenting, you would know that it isn't AC. It would best be described as alternating VOLTAGE since both diodes are pointed at the cell and on the capacitor side of the inductors.

If you are so smart perhaps you could explain where the alternating CURRENT takes place in the cell when both diodes (and fast ones at that) are pointed at the cell?

Diodes block current and the amount of electrolysis can not be explained when the diode has a reverse recovery time of 4 ns and both diodes are pointed that the cell.

It really does puzzle me why so many people still think that Meyer actually knew what he was talking about.  He always talks about 'natural water'. What does he mean by that.... what exactly is natural water?

Natural water was defined by NASA as one of their requirements laid out in the advanced energy project. Do you think the people at NASA are idiots? They make and use a lot of oxidizer to boost that space shuttle and other various spacecraft, where do you think they obtain all that oxidizer?  Do you suppose that is the reason Meyer had to sign an affidavit stating he didn't obtain intellectual property from NASA used in his patent in the international test report?

Ron Stiffler also worked on the advanced energy project and invented things that he has been reluctant to show. I am tempted to upload something but won't violate his copyright or trust. Do you think he doesn't know how Meyer's stuff works? Stiffler posted a video on youtube at one point with a couple of electrode in a 5 gal bucket. It was quite impressive.

'The dielectric property of water (being 78.54 ohms @ 25 degrees C) permits the storage of "Electrical Charge" when a potential voltage difference exists between Electrical Voltage-Plates (E1/E2 as to (E9/E10).'

Congratulations on finding a typo in Meyer's notes. If you look real hard, you will find a bunch more. I find typos in your posts. Does that mean you didn't go to college to learn chemistry or is that just your "queens English"?

I make lots of typos too. That does not mean that I have not studied and replicated much of Meyer's work.

BTW - "ionise" is spelled ionize and "Faradays" is spelled Faraday's. It is poor form to make a typo while accusing Meyer of being an idiot for doing the same assuming he was the person that actually wrote what you read - big assumption.

I mean, come on, to call highly conductive salt water a dielectric is preposterous.

Ever heard of a saltwater capacitor? All tesla coilers know how to make these including half the people at this site. I guess you were in chemistry class while the boys were building Tesla coils.

This may come as a surprise to you but using the quantum interpretation of dielectric, all matter is dielectric.

Seems to me that people always conveniently overlook the garbage Meyer spoke and wrote in order not to dispell the fantasy.

To me it just emphasises the fact that you can sell anything with a bit of clever marketing, as there will always be plenty of naive and gulible people around to buy it... however useless the product happens to be.

You have spent years beating your head against a puzzle you claim is fraudulent. Are you an idiot?

So Meyer was an inventor and not a chemist. As a chemist, you seem to have difficulty even replicating Meyer's work much less inventing it. To suggest that Meyer was a fraud is laughable since he had to demonstrate and prove it to the patent office. Perhaps you are suggesting they are idiots?

How about Admiral Griffin? He was well educated in the subject matter and far more than what has been reported. He was also in charge of British military technology. Was he an idiot?

How about Dr. Greer who just bought Meyers stuff for a bunch of money. Is he an idiot?

How about all the chemist and scientist in the international test report that were able to replicate. Are they idiots?

How about the people that offered Meyer hundreds of millions of dollars. Are they idiots?

So Meyer didn't do something you think he should have so you can shove his work into your chemistry mold. Have you read the international test report? Plenty of lab stuff there.

Meyer called it "hydrogen fracturing". Dr. Puharich called it "shattering the water molecule". Do you suppose Meyer, Puharich, Mills, etc. refer to it as such because it isn't electrolysis? Maybe that is why you can't fit it into the mold of your shiny new chemistry degree?

If you want a chemistry explanation, why don't you read and replicate the work of Dr. Puharich. As an MD he had a few years of chemistry and he lays it out in his patent. The difference between Meyer and Puharich is minimal.

My apologies Ramset, wrong call on my part. Be just a mean as you want. I'm gone.

[Farrah Day]

Hey, we've got a live one here!

Quarktoo

Sorry Sparky, "the science" just happened on my bench a few hours ago and there is plenty of science in my background. You are hardly in a position of judging that

Who is Sparky? ... never mind. As you seem to have a full grasp of the Meyer technology, please explain to me the reaction whereby voltage alone leads to the dissociation of the water molecule and the resulting evolution of hydrogen and oxygen.

As per usual, I see a lot of hot air and plenty of theorising, but nothing concrete to work with.

Oh, the 'natural water' that NASA uses, I see now, that explains everything. That must be where old Stan got the term from, but which is it.... pond water, rain water, sea water, or perhaps it is the cool clear refreshing water from a mountain stream filtered by peat bogs???

If you are so smart perhaps you could explain where the alternating CURRENT takes place in the cell when both diodes (and fast ones at that) are pointed at the cell?

Diodes block current and the amount of electrolysis can not be explained when the diode has a reverse recovery time of 4 ns and both diodes are pointed that the cell

Where did I ever say anything about alternating current in the cell?  And where in Meyers Technical Brief does it show a schematic whereby two ultra fast diodes are used?  The only thing I recall seeing is one so-called blocking diode. Perhaps mine is a copy of the earlier 'flawed' Technical Brief? Where are you getting this stuff from? Please provide a reference to this info.

It's all very well nit-picking, but there is a very big difference in the dielectric constant of pure water and saltwater. Any calculations made with the figure of 78.54 when using anything other than pure water would be incredibly inaccurate. 

Incidentally, there is also a big difference between a typo and whole paragraghs of utter garbage. You like many others before you seem prepared to overlook all obvious flaws and inconsistencies in Meyers Technical Brief. Typos... come on, you're having a laugh.  And 'Ionize' is the American version of English 'Ionise' - Americans tend to like their 'Zs', I prefer more traditional English spelling.

And you surely can't be that naive to think that the patent office carries out rigorous and intense scientific tests to validate inventions... can you?  Just look at how many variations of electrolysers have been given patents. How many of those do you suppose have been tested to confirm exact claims before the patent was issued? Get real.

I can tell right away that you are going to be one of these people that (just like H2OPower) has figured it all out, but will never disclose anything in any understandable scientific terms and with balanced electrochemical equations to back it up.

I get the impression you're just here for your own 'feelgood factor'. To display an air of superior intelligence, stir things up, and then ultimately disappear into the aether (just like H2OPower) without providing anything remotely useful.  Well, at least your posts are intelligible, which until recently was quite a rare thing around here.

Please prove me wrong and provide something useful.