Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

[L505]

Actually, I found some information stating that Stan Meyer actually steals energy from the Sun. This is new to me since before I found him in videos stating that the energy was from the vacuum or from "God" (sigh).

If it comes from the Sun, it would explain where it comes from without it being from Magical sources.

Some quotes below:

http://www.automorrow.com/articles/meyers2.html

"Nitrous oxide formation is held to a minimum." (end quote)

Ahh, but is it in YOUR cells? Lightening causes fertilizer...

(begin quote) "When you ignite gases from water, the by-product is a de-energized water mist which goes out the exhaust," Meyer explained. "It's an open energy system. The water mist is then re-energized by absorbing photon energy from the sun and then returning to the earth's water supply in the form of rain for energy re-use. We can also use a dosed, transparent recycling system to keep the vapors from going out into the atmosphere, yet still allow the photon energy absorption process to take place. This is now being looked at for possible future use"...

..."The Water Fuel Cell only uses natural energy present in our environment," said Meyer. "It doesn't add to or subtract from universal energy that is already present in the combustible gas atoms of water. All we have done is tap into this universal energy safely."  (end quote)

Hmmm.... at one point Stan was saying it was from the Vacuum. From this source in 1993/1994 he says it is from the sun? Is the energy from both the sun and the vacuum, or just the Sun alone? or does the Sun recharge the vacuum?  These questions are not necessarily meant for you to answer right now, because you probably can't - they are just to ponder.

http://www.automorrow.com/articles/meyers2.html

Warning: anyone working on the Stan Meyer device better be pretty careful about what they are doing to our environment and water supply. (if  the stan meyer system is even legitimate; I have small faith that it is.)

This could also mean something happened to Water when earth was formed.. and it absorbed energy through photons. Could even tie into evolution and/or Big Bang theories. Is it pseudoscience though? I do not know.

[L505]

Also for those interested in proving the Meyer system mathematically and scientifically, it might be of interest to actually consider how much energy is in a photon and where this energy came from to get the photon in the first place.

For example an interesting post on a forum:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=134791

I have not seen anyone show any math or science for how the photon energy in Stan's system "adds up" and where this energy came from.

[jibbguy]

There is no need to worry about our water supply with high efficiency Hydroxy on demand... In fact it could be a huge plus in this regard.

The amount of water polluted to process mined coal and shale oil /oil sands now, is greater than the "water as fuel" use would be.

When these energy-efficient hydroxy production technologies become widespread, those more expensive and polluting means of mining oil and coal will soon cease... And the cheaper and less polluting mining methods should suffice for the much lower requirement. 

Canada's economy may suffer from losing the oil sands money; but the huge pollution going on up there in Alberta and Saskatchewan will at least end, because it will no longer be economically feasible to do it.

Cheap de-centralized energy means ocean desalinization becomes a viable method of water supply for a large portion of the Planet living in the "Littorals".... Just in time to help offset the huge amounts of fresh water being dumped into the oceans from glacier melt caused by Global Warming (deny the reasons for it if you like, but the glacier melt IS HAPPENING WITHOUT ANY DOUBT whether some want to admit it or not; and for what ever reason).

Cheap decentralized energy also means water purification systems and well pumps can finally come to poor rural areas and all over.

This threat of water becoming "scarcer" thingie is often used as an argument against using water as a fuel... LOL as if using petroleum and coal is somehow "better" What a laugh!

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't "wash"

"Clean Coal" mean "dirty water". Shale oil & oil sands means VERY dirty water. When people hear that "Lindsey Williams" stuff about huge hidden "reserves", why doesn't anyone ever ask:

"In what form is the oil supposedly hidden up there actually in?"

Is it in "sweet light crude" form? Heavy Crude? Shale Oil or Oil Sands? He never bothers to say. But it is more likely that if it exists at all, it is NOT in the first two, but in the second two.

Mis-direction and disinformation.... Whether Reverend Williams meant it that way or not... Now being used to convincing peeps there is no reason to stop using petroleum as fuel.   

If it is actually in the form of "shale oil" and "oils sands"... Then the more expensive... And most polluting methods of mining ever seen on the planet... Are required to obtain it.

The oil and coal corps spend billions yearly on dis-info campaigns, so it's not surprising many people have heard these scare tactics about "water". It's also not surprising these same corporations are the major polluter of water on the planet. 

[HeairBear]

Once again, you seem to have a hard time understanding common knowledge and how inventors use their own words to describe them. Please allow me to enlighten you with some minor reading and an open mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Copied from this page... http://www.tpub.com/neets/book1/chapter1/1c.htm


Energy Levels

    Since an electron in an atom has both mass and motion, it contains two types of energy. By virtue of its motion the electron contains KINETIC ENERGY. Due to its position it also contains POTENTIAL ENERGY. The total energy contained by an electron (kinetic plus potential) is the factor which determines the radius of the electron orbit. In order for an electron to remain in this orbit, it must neither GAIN nor LOSE energy.

    It is well known that light is a form of energy, but the physical form in which this energy exists is not known.
One accepted theory proposes the existence of light as tiny packets of energy called PHOTONS. Photons can contain various quantities of energy. The amount depends upon the color of the light involved. Should a photon of sufficient energy collide with an orbital electron, the electron will absorb the photon's energy, as shown in figure 1-2. The electron, which now has a greater than normal amount of energy, will jump to a new orbit farther from the nucleus. The first new orbit to which the electron can jump has a radius four times as large as the radius of the original orbit. Had the electron received a greater amount of energy, the next possible orbit to which it could jump would have a radius nine times the original. Thus, each orbit may be considered to represent one of a large number of energy levels that the electron may attain. It must be emphasized that the electron cannot jump to just any orbit. The electron will remain in its lowest orbit until a sufficient amount of energy is available, at which time the electron will accept the energy and jump to one of a series of permissible orbits. An electron cannot exist in the space between energy levels. This indicates that the electron will not accept a photon of energy unless it contains enough energy to elevate itself to one of the higher energy levels. Heat energy and collisions with other particles can also cause the electron to jump orbits.

Have a nice day!

[newbie123]

Hmmm.... at one point Stan was saying it was from the Vacuum. From this source in 1993/1994 he says it is from the sun? Is the energy from both the sun and the vacuum, or just the Sun alone? or does the Sun recharge the vacuum?  These questions are not necessarily meant for you to answer right now, because you probably can't - they are just to ponder.

According to Stan's brother Steve Meyer..    Stan wasn't really sure what he was doing exactly, in one of these interviews (I can't remember which one) he says this.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/search/stephen-meyer/

Which shows how good he could BS people.   But the problem with his theories are:  he made them up without considering well known science..