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.
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.
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.
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! :)
Quote from: L505 on May 29, 2009, 02:49:59 AM
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..
Hehehe i don't think many will dispute his theoretical side was a bit weak these days ;)
So was Thomas Edison's.
Fortunately it's not required to make important discoveries.
But explanations of some kind are generally required to be awarded Patents... Lol can you imagine writing : "I have no idea why this works, it just does" on the Application?
Quote from: newbie123 on May 29, 2009, 11:35:24 AM
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/search/stephen-meyer/
Nice! Very informative interview! Thank you! Here is the link exactly... http://www.blogtalkradio.com/WaterFuelMuseum/2007/03/25/stephen-meyer-part-1
Quote from: jibbguy on May 29, 2009, 09:50:39 AM
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.
Huh? So drinking toxic waste and having water go into your body which is stealing electrons and causing intestine cancer is not something to worry about? If the energy truly is being stolen from water, and water needs to recover the energy from somewhere else - then it could be far more dangerous than oil.
If the water is not being modified, then the energy must be coming from elsewhere.
Some of you on these forums need to seriously think before posting.
Quote from: jibbguy on May 29, 2009, 11:46:58 AM
Hehehe i don't think many will dispute his theoretical side was a bit weak these days ;)
So was Thomas Edison's.
Fortunately it's not required to make important discoveries.
Actually it is required to make important discoveries. If you create toxic waste in our water supplies and you lack the intelligence (like some people on these forums) to protect humanity from suffering, you will do the exact same as the oil companies - cause us harm over time.
Quote from: HeairBear on May 29, 2009, 11:16:26 AM
Once again, you seem to have a hard time understanding common knowledge and how inventors use their own words to describe them.
Interesting that extracting infinite amounts of energy from water is common knowledge. For if it were common knowledge you would think that people like you would have working models proving this ludicrous fantasy truly is common knowledge (which, it is not, actually - that is quite obvious).
Quote from: HeairBear on May 29, 2009, 11:16:26 AMThus, 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.
Wow, how patronizing. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the energy required to create the light (yes, it is required that you add light energy you know) - which is then absorbed by the electron - is the same energy that you will get out of the electron later?
Or did your electron manage to contact God and ask him for some "free energy" while you were running those L.E.D.'s with just a 9V battery?
OMG!!!
Thank you so much L505!
I'll sleep so much better tonight knowing that I need to forget all this nonsense
because it could destroy the world.
Wheeew that was a close one, I thought I could do some good.
I'll just go back to being one of the sheeple.
Once again Thank You!.... I'm looking forward to more of your insight.
Quote from: mikemongo on May 30, 2009, 09:53:41 PM
OMG!!!
Thank you so much L505!
I'll sleep so much better tonight knowing that I need to forget all this nonsense
because it could destroy the world.
Wheeew that was a close one, I thought I could do some good.
I'll just go back to being one of the sheeple.
Once again Thank You!.... I'm looking forward to more of your insight.
I thought that Albert Einstein was on to something when he helped people create the atomic bomb too. When they released that atomic power from the help of Einstein, I wonder if all those Japanese babies who had defective arms, penises, and internal organs - were receiving benefits of atomic energy? or was it that Einstein really just didn't give a crap about that Nazi Japanese race since he was Jewish anyway? Well that is the end of my sarcasm today - topping off yours. Think before you invent - and remember the poor Japanese babies who suffered from atomic inventions.
If Stan's energy comes from the Sun then it could make sense similar to how solar power and photosynthesis comes from the sun. My posts only encourage people to find out more about Stan's energy. Your sarcastic ignorant posts that contain no science in them whatsoever (just your pure bickering), contribute nothing useful. If you have some science in your posts and any explanations of Stan's device, then you are free to bicker a bit - but please do not post pure bickering with no actual useful content in them.
Also, at least 2 other people have failed to even read my posts carefully - as they entirely missed the point that Stan himself said the energy is being replaced by the sun - not me. I am presenting quotes from Stan, and trying to understand the quotes. Others are jealous and discouraged that I have found new quotes from Stan (the horses mouth) so they instead bicker on about how the energy really must come from "energy levels" and not the sun. The problem, of course, is that energy levels are just measurements of the energy - the energy levels contain no "energy" unless that energy is added or subtracted - hence why one has to shine photons into electrons.
Quote from: L505 on May 31, 2009, 08:38:23 PM
If Stan's energy comes from the Sun then it could make sense similar to how solar power and photosynthesis comes from the sun.
The big question is how could H2O possibly store energy from the sun, other than the standard methods (photon interaction and energy levels)?
If you burn hydroxy gas you're left with plain water... And if it's the same temperature as some water in the sunlight, their energies are the same as well. There is no place to store 'hidden solar energy' which Stan Meyer seems to be inferring.
L505, Lets for arguments sake say that recombining HHO will produce a lesser water that needs to be "recharged" by the sun. Without the knowledge of how this recharging takes place or even how long it takes (i would assume that it would be in the natural calculation of how cold the vapour needs to be in order to condense into rain) Since when the exhaust from the ICE will not only emit H2O (unless you are not having an air intake) the product at the end wouldn't be "pure" H2O. I think that our only worry would be if this technology was perfected and used to such a quantity that even if the earth had elongated wet seasons that it couldn't replenish the supplies. But there is far more danger in the current buring of fossil fuels to power our devices. Health of ourselves. Remeber that the earth is more than 70% water and that the entire planet could be in a wet season if need be to recycle the water if that needs to happen. The excess rains "Could" clense a lot of the toxins in the air we have already put there... It isn't a perfect method but it is defiantly a step in the right direction if it can be perfected
Quote from: L505 on May 29, 2009, 02:49:59 AM
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.
Meyer is referring to the oxygen ozone cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle)
He produced a powerful form of ozone O4 in the air gas processor. The Ozone and water mist were injected at 120 PSI into the injector and a "high voltage high frequency arc" bond cleaved the covalent electron off the excited H2O molecule using the stronger attraction force of the O4 atom which instantly cleaved (common chemistry term) "fractured" Meyer's term or "shattered" Puharich's term the H2O molecule.
Meyer did not use DC current so Faraday's law does not apply. "restrict the flow of amps allowing voltage to take over"
The H2o molecule will cleave into HHO is superheated and allowed to vent. It is called a superheated steam explosion.
In the early version of Meyer (tube cell) it was a very different process - still not DC electrolysis but close as Meyer referred to it as "rippled DC current" and resonant VIC.
I could go into more detail but it would be speculative in places so I will decline and stick to the facts that are well documented.
It is worth noting that ozone has been taken all the way out to O8 and is referred to as red oxygen. The magnetic particles that Meyer used in his motionless generator "magnecules" as Santilli calls them, and sells them as were most likely O4 and not O3.
I think Farrah Day has a chemistry background, perhaps she could expand on which forms of ozone are magnetic if it is.
Odd that Dr. Santilli in Florida seems to have wound up with some of Meyer's technology.
Quote from: quarktoo on June 12, 2009, 03:09:02 AM
Meyer is referring to the oxygen ozone cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle)
He produced a powerful form of ozone O4 in the air gas processor. The Ozone and water mist were injected at 120 PSI into the injector and a "high voltage high frequency arc" bond cleaved the covalent electron off the excited H2O molecule using the stronger attraction force of the O4 atom which instantly cleaved (common chemistry term) "fractured" Meyer's term or "shattered" Puharich's term the H2O molecule.
Really? Where does Stan Meyer explain this?
Quote from: newbie123 on June 12, 2009, 10:35:35 AM
Really? Where does Stan Meyer explain this?
His Colorado lectures, his notes, his air gas processor sitting on the back of the dune buggy.
Quote from: quarktoo on June 12, 2009, 03:12:34 PM
His Colorado lectures, his notes, his air gas processor sitting on the back of the dune buggy.
Can you give me a specific reference? I've read most of S. Meyer's papers (a while ago) but I don't remember seeing this.
Quote from: newbie123 on June 12, 2009, 04:18:27 PM
Can you give me a specific reference? I've read most of S. Meyer's papers (a while ago) but I don't remember seeing this.
Read them again, it is most of what he talked about.
Quote from: quarktoo on June 12, 2009, 05:03:24 PM
Read them again, it is most of what he talked about.
You show me where exactly in the Meyer Tech Brief (or other document) you see any mention of O4.. I couldn't find a single instance.
I didn't see any mention in the colorado lectures either.
I did find this video though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WlM-TcIxN4
I've never seen it before.. (might be old news)
Quote from: newbie123 on June 12, 2009, 05:37:19 PM
You show me where exactly in the Meyer Tech Brief you see any mention of O4.. I couldn't find a single instance.
I didn't see any mention in the lectures either.
I did find this video though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WlM-TcIxN4
I've never seen it before.. (might be old news)
I don't have the time to read for you, the desire to jump to your demands or the will to communicate with you any longer. Perhaps you need the reading practice and should do that yourself?
You might start with Meyer's notes at figure 5-6. There is a nice picture for you to look at. Maybe that will help.
Most people realize that if you take ambient air and run it through the electric arc of the injector, ozone is produced along with other compounds such as methanol as the CO2 in the air bonds with oxygen and other oxides as well such as nitrous oxide..
I think most people get what the purpose of the ozone generator is since Meyer talked about it in detail in his lectures. You can read how Meyer magnetically collected the "magnetic particles" and made them stable using UV light and have seen the small device mounted on the dune buggy next to the air gas processor. There are photos of it on this web site.
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!
AC or DC Faradays laws will apply if the water is being caused to ionise and charges are being exchanged.
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? Well in his video clip he goes on to say that just about any old water can be used including salt water, but in his technical brief: RE: VIC Matrix Circuit: Memo WFC 426, page 7 - 8 he states, quote:
'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).'
Now firstly of course the dielectic constant of water is not a measure of ohms, and secondly this constant only applies to very, VERY pure water.
I mean, come on, to call highly conductive salt water a dielectric is preposterous.
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.
Farrah Day
Am I mistaken? or didn't you do an extensive Meyer Cell repro attempt on this forum a couple of years ago.
Chet
Quote from: quarktoo on June 12, 2009, 06:39:55 PM
Most people realize that if you take ambient air and run it through the electric arc of the injector, ozone is produced along with other compounds such as methanol as the CO2 in the air bonds with oxygen and other oxides as well such as nitrous oxide..
Well if you can't support anything you state with references, it leads me to believe that you're just making things up and adding your own theories (which can cause problems and waste time).
Btw, which (5-6) figure are you referring to? I can only find "open ended energy system" which says nothing about Tetraoxygen.
Quote
I think most people get what the purpose of the ozone generator is since Meyer talked about it in detail in his lectures. You can read how Meyer magnetically collected the "magnetic particles" and made them stable using UV light and have seen the small device mounted on the dune buggy next to the air gas processor. There are photos of it on this web site.
That's fine and dandy , but what does all this have to do with tetraoxygen? Were you just making things up?
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.
Quote from: quarktoo on June 13, 2009, 12:15:58 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
'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.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
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.
Hey, we've got a live one here!
Quarktoo
QuoteSorry 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???
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: nightlife on June 13, 2009, 01:52:16 AM
Stan was a bright man but yet even he never grasped the true concept of what energy is.
Two naive assumptions...
@quarktoo
Are you going to defend yourself? Or should I just assume that you're full of it?
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 08:25:10 AM
As per usual, I see a lot of hot air and plenty of theorising, but nothing concrete to work with.
Incidentally, there is also a big difference between a typo and whole paragraghs of utter garbage.
Weird isn't it? It's almost as if people are trying to defend Stan Meyer and his technology, even though in all of his documents, patents, and information there isn't enough info to making a working WFC or hydrogen device....
So now we have people injecting their own theories, etc, on what Stan Meyer might have been REALLY DOING (grasping at straws) Could it be that he wasn't really doing ANYTHING special?? Could it be he was delusional? Oh no no no....
Quote from: newbie123 on June 13, 2009, 10:46:14 AM
Two naive assumptions...
Naive? Easy there. Stan was bright and your denial is nothing more then your own misconception of the work he has done.
I have yet to see a true replica of his work to even assume it doesn't work. Some of his most important work is still being hid from us and or as been lost for ever. There are some threads here where we have came up with some good designs that may work but I have yet to hear of any one building one to see if they do and or do not work. Everything has a vibrance break down point. Just as everything has a vibrance make up cemistry. This is what some of John's work is about. Stan took a spark and broke it down into diferent vibrances which allowed him to use one to split and then another to fire. The firing had to take place where the split was already seperated. In this case, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If it wasn't, the energy released from one would be absobed by the other making it what it was before it was split creating a implosion instead of a explosion. Therefore none of the oxygen that was split can be present and or only lesser amounts can be present when the hydrogen is ignited. The amounts would determain the strenth of the explosion. Equal amounts would create a implosion where as odd amounts would create a explosion as long as the larger amount is the substance being fired apon. The mixture is as critical as the vibrance of the vibrances used to split and fire are. The vibrant cemistry of the split mixture is already 100% compatable where as outside like componets are most likely not conditioned enough to be 100% compatable.
Yes we all may have our own theorys but we all have to agree with the basics as to what we can see, hear, touch feel and smell. Vibrance makes that all possible becuase without vibrance, there would be nothing at all. Hearing of others theory's helps inspire others to create there own and or to just get involved. We need as many as we can to get involved because the more help we can get, the better the chances are to acheiving what we all are seeking. Name calling and rude comments do nothing but steer others away so please keep the name calling and rude comments to your selves.
Again, good luck to you all and I will now go back to hiding under the rock I just crawled out from under again.
Quote from: nightlife on June 13, 2009, 02:34:14 PM
Naive? Easy there. Stan was bright and your denial is nothing more then your own misconception of the work he has done.
Just curious.. Why do you think he was bright?
All I've seen from Stan Meyer are: Some patents filled with misinformation (or deception). Some lectures full of bogus information and fantasy science.. Not a single working WFC replication.. Some videos that prove nothing... What else is there?
Quote
I have yet to see a true replica of his work to even assume it doesn't work.
So do you just assume that it does work, without any skepticism?
Quote
Some of his most important work is still being hid from us and or as been lost for ever.
Another wild assumption. Someone is actually selling all of Stan Meyer's notes (cabinets full) ... equipment, buggy, etc... right now for around 100,000 USD. A real bargin ... If there is just one shred of information really explaining how to build a WFC.
Quote
There are some threads here where we have came up with some good designs that may work but I have yet to hear of any one building one to see if they do and or do not work.
My point exactly. Why are people having to come up with their own designs? This is what I call 'grasping at straws' ... Why keep wasting your time analyzing Meyer's bull shit stories and circuits?
If Stan Meyer did something special (by accident, imho) ... He was doing LENR / Cold Fusion ... That is all it could have been, there is nothing else... No magical vibrational energy harnessing, just nuclear fusion (which is still very cool)..
Lots of interesting and real scientific information available on this subject at www.lenr-canr.org, btw.
Quote
Everything has a vibrance break down point. Just as everything has a vibrance make up cemistry. This is what some of John's work is about. Stan took a spark and broke it down into diferent vibrances which allowed him to use one to split and then another to fire. The firing had to take place where the split was already seperated. In this case, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If it wasn't, the energy released from one would be absobed by the other making it what it was before it was split creating a implosion instead of a explosion. Therefore none of the oxygen that was split can be present and or only lesser amounts can be present when the hydrogen is ignited. The amounts would determain the strenth of the explosion. Equal amounts would create a implosion where as odd amounts would create a explosion as long as the larger amount is the substance being fired apon. The mixture is as critical as the vibrance of the vibrances used to split and fire are. The vibrant cemistry of the split mixture is already 100% compatable where as outside like componets are most likely not conditioned enough to be 100% compatable.
Lol.. What? Please don't just make things up. Yes, atoms and molecules vibrate but don't get carried away.
@ Nightlife
QuoteThe firing had to take place where the split was already seperated. In this case, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If it wasn't, the energy released from one would be absobed by the other making it what it was before it was split creating a implosion instead of a explosion. Therefore none of the oxygen that was split can be present and or only lesser amounts can be present when the hydrogen is ignited.
You weren't by any chance Meyers ghostwriter were you, because you're well up there in the realms of pseudoscience. Have you any idea of the nonsense you have just posted?
I totally agree with Newbie, nothing in any video lecture I have seen of Meyer inclines me to think he was bright or indeed gifted in any way... rather the opposite - and the videos are there for everyone to see. He always comes across as a regular Joe talking about stuff waaay beyond his knowledge or understanding and is clearly totally out of his depth. If you can't see this it is only because you lack the education in the subject to do so - as it appears do many others.
And as Newbie highlights, to simply assume something works because no one else has yet replicated it to prove it doesn't, is a quite absurd statement.
And what the hell is all this talk of vibrance... for Pete's sake???
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 04:08:50 PM
He always comes across as a regular Joe talking about stuff waaay beyond his knowledge or understanding and is clearly totally out of his depth. If you can't see this it is only because you lack the education in the subject to do so - as it appears do many others.
Farrah Day,
I agree, but I wouldn't call him an average Joe...
The thing that throws people off with Stan Meyer, is his extreme confidence and apparent honesty. He acts like he knows exactly what he's talking about even when he's DEAD WRONG (this can be easily proven).. In my mind this is HUGE red flag, but some people choose to judge his information/inventions by his charismatism and apparent character (over even some mystical Tesla technology). Which is the foolish thing to do. The best frauds ever were very charismatic, confident, likable, seemly honest, etc....
When I first watched the Stan Meyer news clip (a long time ago).. I was intrigued and thought... Why would this guy come out and BS everyone about his technologies? He seems very honest.. He even has a working water car video.... etc. .. All this doesn't matter.
After reading his patents/papers, and watching his lectures, while I learned more about the science, I started to see problems with his theories and information...
What's with the broken record syndrome Newbie? You keep repeating yourself as if no one is listening to you. You keep trying to debunk with your opinion and show no data of your own. I have never encountered a person who claims that their misunderstanding is proof for debunking. Are you saying "I don't understand what he said so it's wrong."? Although when it comes to Boyce, you turn into the exact opposite of what you just claimed all others are. You don't believe Stan was legit even after numerous studies and demos of working devices, but, Bob who has nothing more than stories and poor circuit diagrams along with no working demos is in your opinion the real deal...
Smoke another bowl Newbie, I think it's working!
HB
QuoteYou don't believe Stan was legit even after numerous studies and demos of working devices,
Just curious, what studies and demos of working devices are you refering to? I know of none that back up Meyer's claims.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 07:15:24 PM
HB
Just curious, what studies and demos of working devices are you refering to? I know of none that back up Meyer's claims.
I thought you would never ask... Here is one, Copied from this page http://www.osen.org/Technologies/Hydrogen/StanMeyerReport/tabid/373/Default.aspx
Article about Stan Meyers
Reprinted in part from an article in "ELECTRONICS WORLD + WIRELESS
WORLD" January 1991:
Eye-witness accounts suggest that US inventor Stanley Meyer has
developed an electric cell which will split ordinary tap water into
hydrogen and oxygen with far less energy than that required by a
normal electrolytic cell.
In a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of
Engineering at Queen Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony
Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith
Hindley, a UK research chemist. Meyer's cell, developed at the
inventor's home in Grove City, Ohio, produced far more
hydrogen/oxygen mixture than could have been expected by simple
electrolysis.
Where normal water electrolysis requires the passage of current
measured in amps, Meyer's cell achieves the same effect in
milliamps. Furthermore ordinary tap water requires the addition of
an electrolyte such as sulphuric acid to aid current conduction;
Meyer's cell functions at greatest efficiency with pure water.
According to the witnesses, the most startling aspect of the Meyer
cell was that it remained cold, even after hours of gas production.
Meyer's experiments, which he seems to be able to perform to order,
have earned him a series of US patents granted under Section 101.
The granting of a patent under this section is dependent on a
successful demonstration of the invention to a Patent Review Board.
Meyer's cell seems to have many of the attributes of an electrolytic
cell except that it functions at high voltage, low current rather
than the other way around. Construction is unremarkable. The
electrodes - referred to as "excitors" by Meyer- are made from
parallel plates of stainless steel formed in either flat or
concentric topography. Gas production seems to vary as the inverse
of the distance between them; the patents suggest a spacing of 1.5mm
produces satisfactory results.
The real differences occur in the power supply to the cell. Meyer
uses an external inductance which appears to resonate with the
capacitance of the cell - pure water apparently possesses a
dielectric constant of about 5 - to produce a parallel resonant
circuit. This is excited by a high power pulse generator which,
together with the cell capacitance and a rectifier diode, forms a
charge pump circuit. High frequency pulses build a rising staircaseDublin Tech has a nice study too, I can dig it up if you like. For some reason, I can find what you say is not there and I seem to understand it when you say it doesn't make sense. Hell, if you really have to have your cake and eat it too, I can run over to Stephen's house and have a chat with him too. He's got his own company out also and he's looking for investors. For some reason though, I get the feeling that even if I did replicate it for you and proved beyond a doubt that it works, you would still deny the facts, for you seem to be discussing this topic just to stir the pot.
The only thing you want is an equation? of what? A non-exothermic electrochemical reaction induced by external stimuli? What the hell is an equation gonna do for ya? Solve the problem of building it? According to Dublin it's "4H3O+ +4OH- --> 2H2 + O2 + 6H2O"
newbie123, I will answer all your questions with this one submission.
It is obvious that you do not comprehend what Stan has been said to have accomplished and or how it could be accomplished. He was a bright man and bright enough to not make it as obvious as it really is as to how it works.
Knowing that you can not comprehend what Stan has been said to have done leads me to believe that there is no way you can comprehend what I have said. I gave you some clear easy to understand examples of what energy is, it's up to you to take the time and really think about them and then you may start to understand what it is that I am talking about.
I am not a big fan of Stans but I have took the time to understand what he could have done and how it could be done. I personally am not a fan of using a inteligent design as a fuel source. I prefer to search for ways to utilize the natural flows of energy that inteligent designs emit.
Good luck to you and please don't try and debunk anyones ideas and or designs untill you fully understand what it is that they are trying to do and or have done.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 04:08:50 PM
@ Nightlife
You weren't by any chance Meyers ghostwriter were you, because you're well up there in the realms of pseudoscience. Have you any idea of the nonsense you have just posted?
I totally agree with Newbie, nothing in any video lecture I have seen of Meyer inclines me to think he was bright or indeed gifted in any way... rather the opposite - and the videos are there for everyone to see. He always comes across as a regular Joe talking about stuff waaay beyond his knowledge or understanding and is clearly totally out of his depth. If you can't see this it is only because you lack the education in the subject to do so - as it appears do many others.
And as Newbie highlights, to simply assume something works because no one else has yet replicated it to prove it doesn't, is a quite absurd statement.
And what the hell is all this talk of vibrance... for Pete's sake???
Farrah Day, I may be in within the relm of what your thought of what pseudoscience is to you but please note that I did give some examples and therefore can not be thought of as being pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is the lack of supporting evidence and our senses alone are all the supporting evidence needed to crasp the theory I have posted. I could go more into detail but it would take the focus off the topic of this thread.
Your education appearently does not allow you to know how to understand what Stan has been said to have done and or how it could work. It would be absurb to assume something works becuase no one has yet to properly duplicate it and trust me when I say that it took me some time to truly understand how it could work. I personally have not tried to replicate it mainly becuase I have no true interest in utilizing water as a energy source.
By you asking what all the talk of vibrance is leads me to assume that you don't have a clue about what true energy is. We have all these people out here looking for ways to produce energy but yet I have yet to come across anyone who even knows what energy is. LOL
Whats electricity? A VIBRANCE
Whats a sound? A VIBRANCE
Whats a smell? A VIBRANCE
Whats a feeling? A VIBRANCE
Whats seen? A VIBRANCE
Whats energy? A VIBRANCE
Vibrance is every thing and without it, there would be nothing. Vibrance is not created, it is released. I amy start a thread to help you and others understand what it is that I am talking about.
Good luck to you and I do hope that you too can learn to grasp what true energy is. ;)
Quote from: HeairBear on June 13, 2009, 07:06:02 PM
What's with the broken record syndrome Newbie? You keep repeating yourself as if no one is listening to you. You keep trying to debunk with your opinion and show no data of your own.
I do sound like a broken record, because I keep getting the same lame arguments as to why Stan Meyer must be legitimate.
Quote
I have never encountered a person who claims that their misunderstanding is proof for debunking.
What is my misunderstanding? Please tell me.
Quote
Are you saying "I don't understand what he said so it's wrong."
I'm just saying that you don't have a working replication, and haven't seen wide spread independent replications & verifications.. So it's wrong.
Quote
Although when it comes to Boyce, you turn into the exact opposite of what you just claimed all others are. You don't believe Stan was legit even after numerous studies and demos of working devices, but, Bob who has nothing more than stories and poor circuit diagrams along with no working demos is in your opinion the real deal...
Really? I think Boyce is the real deal? That's new to me.. Maybe I should repeat myself again then..... HE'S A CRANK UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE!
Quote
Smoke another bowl Newbie, I think it's working!
Get your story right before attempting another snide remark.
HB
I'd seen that article before and the most interesting thing about it was the part which stated that the unit remained cold after long periods of operation.
If Meyer was a fraud, he could easliy have modified the ammeter to show milliamps instead of amps, and remember that this was only a visual demonstration. It was not a thorough or detailed independent investigation, it was all in the control of Meyer. Gas output was not measured for example, and we all can produce what seems like litres of bubbles from ss tubes in plain tap water with relatively low current with ss tubes spaced very closely together - we can all produce the same visual effect as Meyer. Furthermore we all know that electrolyte is not needed even in standard electrolysis as the report suggests it is.
My insistence on a balanced electrochemical equation for the reaction/s taking place - that no one has yet proffered - is quite valid. Whatever is occuring is not by magic, so there will be specific reactions taking place.
It's all very well Meyer saying he was pulling water apart using HV, but this is meaningless and quite laughable in scientific terms unless you can substantiate that statement with valid reaction processes. The claim would be well backed up if he had - or anyone else could - provide a process of reactions that leads us to the evolution of H2 and O2.
Charges must be exchanged at some point, it CANNOT simply be about pulling electrons off the water molecules by some 'Electron Extraction Unit' or whatever made up term Meyer employed, and then magically get O2 and H2 evolving. Think about it.
It's all very well conveniently overlooking these important little details, but it is in these details that the science resides. It is in these important details that the proof of concept lies... or not.
But I guess the science is completely irrelevant to folk who believe in magic.
QuoteThe only thing you want is an equation? of what? A non-exothermic electrochemical reaction induced by external stimuli? According to Dublin it's "4H3O+ +4OH- --> 2H2 + O2 + 6H2O"
Is this supposed to be an explanation that answers all the questions??
I don't know what you think this is supposed to be, but clearly you have no grasp of what I'm getting at - where are the charges exchanged in that equation?
QuoteWhat the hell is an equation gonna do for ya? Solve the problem of building it?
What a stupid thing to say. If you knew what the balanced equations were, if you knew what science was taking place, you could build a unit to enhance the process. Instead most people simply, blindly build units hoping they will do what they want them to do.
You know, I'm tired of talking to people who live in fantasy worlds!
And yet, you keep coming back. I have watched you pull this trollish crap many times before and it's getting old. Go build a TPU with Loner and bother those people. Maybe they will accept your condescending attitude which is so very loathed here in this section. Better yet, try a dialogue with Stiffler and see how he responds to your childish banter. Oh, and take Newbie with you...
You know what HB, all I've ever wanted to do is to get to the science behind Meyers WFC. And it is science not magic.
I look at all the possibilities and try to fathom what I could be missing that would make it work, unlike many who simply accept it... though can never replicate it!
For all those people who believe in Meyer or profess to understand how his WFC works, no one has yet explained the electrochemistry involved which would substantiate the claims.
Meyer did himself no favours by the crap he wrote (and even that link you provided states his demonstration was more impressive than the para-scientific jargon in his technical brief).
Without people like Loner, Newbie and myself asking the right questions and looking for real answers to those questions, you and the rest of the mindless Meyer fanatics will forever be on a quest to nowhere and be getting there very, very slowly.
My so-called condescending attitude simply comes from my low tolerance for idiots and having to wade through piles of illiterate or nonsensical posts made by uneducated or ignorant wannabes such as yourself.
What have you ever proffered by way of explanation of the workings of the Meyers WFC? Nothing... like most, you're waiting for educated people to fill in the gaps and give it you on a plate.
The real problem around here is that there are only a mere handful of open-minded people with a background education in science that can actually make any progress with this... the thing is most of them spend much of that time having to do battle with retards.
Pretty pathetic really.
Ok I'll go and build a TPU with Loner... I'm sure by the time I get back you will have it all figured out.... or maybe not :D
Quote from: HeairBear on June 14, 2009, 09:06:14 AM
And yet, you keep coming back. I have watched you pull this trollish crap many times before and it's getting old.
Well shit HB.... What do you expect? You put words in my mouth, say that I have a misunderstanding, continue to defend the nonsensical, and you still won't answer my questions. (like so many other around here!)
I'm not a troll.. I've been coming to this forum for the last 3 years (without commenting). I used to think a lot of these FE technologies might be real.. But then I learned what real is (in science): (warning: broken record alert!) Wide spread independent replications/verifications of claimed phenomenas. I think most here understand this.
But now I'm just curious why everyone is so hell bent on Stan Meyers, when there is real progress happening in the LENR/CF arena (which might have some real potential)?
QuoteBetter yet, try a dialogue with Stiffler and see how he responds to your childish banter.
From what I've seen Dr Stiffler doesn't respond well to criticism either (big surprise on this forum), but I don't know enough about his circuits to comment.
Hi Newbie, I think I should take the credit for HB's last breathtaking response.
Anyway, just to say that I've read and looked into quite a bit of Stifflers work, and he does some really interesting work and seems to open source it all. My hat's off to him.
From what I can gather, very much like ourselves, he simply has a low tolerance for stupid posts and has no time for stupid people.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 14, 2009, 11:36:28 AM
From what I can gather, very much like ourselves, he simply has a low tolerance for stupid posts and has no time for stupid people.
People do troll his threads... But I've seen him get angry when people try to argue that his circuits just utilize common electromagnetic phenomena (I believe it was at energeticforum.com, but the Admins deleted the skeptics posts).
What exactly is cold fusion Newbie? or LNR... whatever it's called today. When asked what he would change if he could do it all over again, Pons replied, "I wish I would have never used the word fusion". I agree the tech is worthy of more research but it's still "junk science" in the eyes of the majority.
Are you implying Stan was doing a form of cold fusion? OK... how? why aren't you doing any of these experiments? I would love to see you be the first from this forum showing an attempt at what you think is a viable form of alternate energy. If we are all wrong, than go do what's right and show us.
Farrah, quit typing and go do some Stiffler stuff, I think he is about to sell some more of his toys which are not too expensive, at least when I bought one. Not all of his work is open source (free) but interesting none the less. You think Stan made up wording, Stiffler has a few new ones of his own.
Quote from: HeairBear on June 14, 2009, 01:25:48 PM
What exactly is cold fusion Newbie? or LNR... whatever it's called today.
LENR/CF is just that: low energy nuclear reactions. It's is a developing electrochemistry experiment that apparently produces excess heat through a fusion-like process (their best guess atm) in the cathode (deuterium loaded). The process will produce evidence such as transmutation (creation of Mg, Al, and other elements in the lattice of the cathode). Lots of information on the web about this topic.
Quote
When asked what he would change if he could do it all over again, Pons replied, "I wish I would have never used the word fusion". I agree the tech is worthy of more research but it's still "junk science" in the eyes of the majority.
This is changing though, it is becoming more accepted by scientists..
Quote
Are you implying Stan was doing a form of cold fusion? OK... how?
I'm saying Stan Meyer's published work isn't worth pursuing, but there are some parallels between his work and LENR/CF... For example, In some LENR experiments, strong electric fields have been shown to increase the excess heat in the process.. There are a few more but I can't think of them atm. If Stan Meyer produced energy it was probably via a fusion-like process.
Quote
why aren't you doing any of these experiments?
I'm waiting for parts to show up. I found some Platinum clad (screen) electrodes for only $5/sq in (really cheap!) , if anyone is interested.
Quote
I would love to see you be the first from this forum showing an attempt at what you think is a viable form of alternate energy. If we are all wrong, than go do what's right and show us.
I'll try. But it probably won't be very exciting {mild personal remark removed}
Ohhh for piss sakes quit with the personal stabs!
LOL!!! i love reading the banter here... Look since he is no longer alive he was one of but a few things...
1. A simplton that may have stumbled onto something that he barely understands... but it is still his and he invented it.
2. A fantastic con-man!!!
3. A non-commercially educated genius who knew exactally what he was doing but didn't know how to make the general public... or even the people who knew about the industry... how it worked...
4. A calculative intelligent greedy man who simply ran into bad luck.
5. An obscure genius who wanted everyone to know he could to something but never really wanted them to be able to copy him...
Take your pick... and get over it!!! arguing over what he meant or what sort of guy he is... all this talk about how someone is right and someone is wrong with only your ignorance and your word as proof... fantastic!!!
now where is Dankie time to stir him about his wire and his team that are still winding bobbins no doubt!!!
Quote from: newbie123 on June 12, 2009, 10:35:35 AM
Quote from: quarktoo
Quote from: quarktoo on June 12, 2009, 09:09:02 AM
Meyer is referring to the oxygen ozone cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle
He produced a powerful form of ozone O4 in the air gas processor. The Ozone and water mist were injected at 120 PSI into the injector and a "high voltage high frequency arc" bond cleaved the covalent electron off the excited H2O molecule using the stronger attraction force of the O4 atom which instantly cleaved (common chemistry term) "fractured" Meyer's term or "shattered" Puharich's term the H2O molecule.
Really? Where does Stan Meyer explain this?
I really wish someone could give me a reference for this O4 production talk.
I wouldn't hold your breath while you wait for a reply Newbie... you might start turning a little blue.
Quarky also posted this when he was attempting to educate me through his superior intellect:
QuoteQuote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 01:54:18 AMI 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 made me smile, because saltwater capacitors use glass as the dielectric, the saltwater effectively acts as the conducting electrodes. So much for his superior intellect and all his clever talk.
I've never seen or read anything whereby Meyer went into that kind of detail - frankly I doubt he was capable of it.
I'd forget Quarky's input, he's said his piece, had his moment in the limelight and obviously can't provide a reference to what he stated.
Quote from: L505 on May 29, 2009, 02:49:59 AM
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.
Try to see it like this:
when a photon interacts with a molecule or atom, light energy gets 'absorbed' and the energy level of the atom raises, the raise in energy is equal or less than the photon energy.
Now, how does the absorption of photon energy take place - how does the 'conversion' take place from photon to atomic energy level? [and vice versa, why does a molecule emit photons when the electron 'collapses' to the nucleus from a high energy state?]
I don't know myself, Meyer said: By pumping in energy from the vacuum, or universal energy into the energy spectrum of the atom - this is the source of the atomic energy [or ionization energy]. Photons are a way to pump in vacuum energy, so is voltage, because they force the electron to be deflected to a higher energy orbit [... longer orbit -> increased electric stress on nucleus -> slowing down of gyroscopic movement -> opening of energy apertures -> EM vacuum energy to energy spectrum ..].
according to Stan. I do believe it.
Nowhere does stan mention Ozone, but it is probable it is being produced by the air processor, since no arc discharge may takes place but a corona discharge instead - by displacement current resonance I think.
--
Unlimited Renewable Solar Energy from Water
by Dr. Peter Graneau, Dr. Neal Graneau
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Books&tab1=Display&id=80&tab=3
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1323
Funny. Typical scammer BS: "I know exactly how Stan Meyer's tech works!" , "you doubt me, and question me, so now I'm leaving the forum", "If you send me $250, I'll show you how it works!" .. gimme a break..
Newbie, yes I think that about sums up Quarky. And to be honest it's nothing less than I would have expected from him. Guess he's going to try to find a few suckers on another forum.
Seems to me he was hoping that we would simply accept him as having superior knowledge and intellect, before he asked us for $250 of our cash in order to learn the secrets.
He never did tell me how the ions reacted to form O2 and H2 without any current flow - guess that comes after the $250 payment, eh. A complete tosser really.
I like the bit where he says he's spent $100K on discovering the secret as if this gives him credibility. Now there's a nice round figure... I guess that justifies him asking for $250 :D
Will be watching the other forum with interest to see if there are any takers. I'm a member of that forum, but it's composed mainly of out-and-out and blinkered Meyer fanatics and has been stagnant for a good while now.
Alan
QuoteI don't know myself, Meyer said: By pumping in energy from the vacuum, or universal energy into the energy spectrum of the atom - this is the source of the atomic energy [or ionization energy]. Photons are a way to pump in vacuum energy, so is voltage, because they force the electron to be deflected to a higher energy orbit [... longer orbit -> increased electric stress on nucleus -> slowing down of gyroscopic movement -> opening of energy apertures -> EM vacuum energy to energy spectrum ..].
according to Stan. I do believe it.
I tend to start yawning if a sentence starts off, "Meyer said..", as he didn't really say much that was actually comprehendable.
It is common knowledge and well known science that photons will be absorbed by atoms and raise electrons to higher orbits (energy levels), but it takes an exact amount of energy to raise an electron to a higher energy level. Likewise photons are emitted by atoms if an electron drops to a lower energy level. This is accepted science.
QuotePhotons are a way to pump in vacuum energy
Come on, a photon itself carries energy, where does he get the vacuum energy part from. As usual he makes things more complicated than they really are in order to baffle people - classic Meyer gibberish.
Hi again Farrah,
How does a photon deflect an electron to a higher energy orbit?
Energy is being converted, from photon to electron deflection, since they are not the same quality of energy, how?
Must be a complex mechanism, does science have an answer to this question?
Quote
Come on, a photon itself carries energy, where does he get the vacuum energy part from. As usual he makes things more complicated than they really are in order to baffle people - classic Meyer gibberish.
It does, and this amount of photon energy will be siphoned in from the vacuum through the proton into the energy spectrum [according to Meyer ;D ]
Why do atoms emit radiation when the electron drops to a lower energy state?
Because the charge is moving through the electric field of the proton, generating EM waves / photons?
If so, the other way around: are electrons pushed outward when interacting with the EM waves of the photon?
QuoteIt does, and this amount of photon energy will be siphoned in from the vacuum through the proton into the energy spectrum [according to Meyer ]
Yes, according to Meyer (who was no scientist and did not use standard scientific terms)... and therein lies the problem.
Alan I know it might be difficult but do not take too literally anything that Meyer states, it will only create confusion. The science simply never adds up in Meyer's personal interpretation of things.
If an electron orbiting an atom drops to a lower energy level it emits a photon. This photon contains exactly the amount of energy (no more or no less) than is required. Vice-versa, to move an electron to a higher energy level, a photon of exactly the correct energy must be absorbed by the atom. A photon of more or less energy will not achieve this, it has to be exactly the right energy photon. Different atoms and different electron orbits required different amounts of energy to shift energy levels, so specific photons, carrying specific energy affect specific electron orbits. Different frequencies of EMR provide different photon energies - all photons do not carry the same amount of energy.
When an electron drops to a lower energy state, that surplus energy has to go somewhere, so the atom releases it as a photon.
So, certain EMR will have no effect whatsover on shifting electrons to higher levels. It has to be EMR carrying photons of exactly the correct energy level to be absorbed by any specific atom and so move an electron to a higher energy level.
Hope this helps.
As per axioma, but does science also explain why it works this way or does it only explain the statistics a la quantum?
am eager to learn this
the reason must be of electromagnetic origin
Quote from: alan on June 18, 2009, 01:22:36 PM
As per axioma, but does science also explain why it works this way or does it only explain the statistics a la quantum?
am eager to learn this
the reason must be of electromagnetic origin
A quantum of radiation is emitted when an electron makes a transition (or jump) from a higher energy level orbit to a lower one. This radiation will be in the form of a photon at a specific frequency. As electrons energies are restricted to discrete levels, transitions will only occur by the absorbtion or emission of photons of the correct energy (frequency).
Required reading would be the works of Niels Bohr. Much has been discovered and many theories proven over the years, but there are many things that still remain unknown (or disputed), and the deeper you dig the more patchy things get. However, a lot is known and accepted in quantum physics with reference to electron energy levels within atoms.
I'm not sure how much more I can proffer at this level; the science is out there and available to study, but it can get very heavy reading from this point on. Besides, you don't want to learn from myself or anyone else around here - if you really want those answers get them from a reliable and trusted source and save yourself from the headaches of misinfo.
One thing I'm sure of though: There will always be questions you can ask that scientists do not yet know the answer to.
Ok let's start with some simple questions a noob like I can't answer:
why won't the electron collapse into the proton, since they attract each other? [mutually generated and repelling EM fields?]
If an electron is transfered to a higher energy level, how does a photon force it outwards and what is keeping it over there? [does it at all stay there?]
or does a photon increase the charge of an electron or proton, and as a result get more mutually repelled by the force thats keeping them separated?
???
now, is it possible to alter the electron orbit by voltage? [absolutely, aka displacement current.]
can this alter the energy level by forcing the electrons to a higher orbit, without electron collision taking place [like a fluorescent light]?
is it possible to create a charge that is interlocked and has no path to flow away?
million dollar question:
is it possible for this charge to create a displacement current without this dipole being broken down by the EM fields created by the displacement current?
Alan
Quotewhy won't the electron collapse into the proton, since they attract each other?
Now you're asking the questions that I don't believe science knows the answers to. The same thing applies to planets orbiting the sun... why doesn't the gravitational force of the sun simply suck us in... or is it very slowly?
The electron has an energy that keeps it in orbit around the nucleus, and we know that if it gives up some of that energy it's orbiting distance will reduce (if there is a vacancy), but it seems an electron will always contain the minimum amount of energy to maintain an orbit. This energy seems to be the nature by which our universe functions, a fundamental energy that exists... always... but what do I know!
I think the answer to your question is yet to be understood by anyone... except maybe Quarky ;)
I don't think voltage can effect an electrons orbit, it has to be a photon particle. Voltage is only potential energy, a photon is a particle of energy. It is the electron that absorbs or emits a photon in order to make a transition between energy levels. Every electron energy level in every atom requires a specific discrete amount of energy to make a transition, this is why only photons of certain frequencies are absorbed or emitted by orbiting electrons. Incidentaly, if an outer electron absorbs too much energy it can free itself from the atom altogether, and, I believe, in this state the electron is free to attain much higher energy levels.
Quoteis it possible to create a charge that is interlocked and has no path to flow away?
million dollar question:
is it possible for this charge to create a displacement current without this dipole being broken down by the EM fields created by the displacement current?
Not sure what you mean by this. The charges on the plate of a capacitor or a Van de Graf generator are static until discharged. Have no idea about your million dollar question.
Though, I must say that I don't think this depth of understanding is particularly necessary to make progress in the field that concerns us here.
As I said, for a better understanding study the work of Bohr, and hope your brain can take it all in without your head exploding!
I have posted this book before but I'm gonna do it again cuz it's a kick ass book.
http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasm/
I like where this thread is going now... There must be a ton of literature about this very subject. What will we find?
And Meyer's version... http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/section5.pdf
Tesla's version... http://rpmgt.org/588177.html
Rife/Bedini... http://www.icehouse.net/john34/rife.html
Old School... http://www.levity.com/alchemy/
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 18, 2009, 05:20:33 PM
The electron has an energy that keeps it in orbit around the nucleus, and we know that if it gives up some of that energy it's orbiting distance will reduce (if there is a vacancy), but it seems an electron will always contain the minimum amount of energy to maintain an orbit. This energy seems to be the nature by which our universe functions, a fundamental energy that exists... always... but what do I know!
From my understanding Nature gets really, really, strange at the atomic scale (nothing like our macro scale).... For example, electrons have been shown to not really orbit around the nucleus like a planet and a sun. Atomic electrons actually stay in what is referred to as an orbital or "probability" cloud... (explained by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) ...
They (electrons) can show up anywhere around the nucleus, and even inside the nucleus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture) at times, or even multiple locations at once.. This was the big problem with classical electrodynamics... It didn't account for this behavior. According to classical electrodynamics the electrons should just crash into their nucleus.. But this isn't the case (luckily) .. So some really bright physicists came up with Quantum Electro Dynamics .. Which models an electron's behavior accurately.
The the shape of the orbital and energy levels can be described and predicted by the schrodinger equation (which basically replaced the Bohr model.. And made it obsolete)..
Also, electrons also have a property known as quantum spin, as do photons, and quarks.... and as far as I know this phenomena cannot be described in physical terms (none mathematical) .. i.e. quantum spin isn't like a spinning planet..
QuoteFrom my understanding Nature gets really, really, strange at the sub atomic scale (nothing like our macro scale).... For example, electrons have been shown to not really orbit around around the nucleus like a planet and a sun. Atomic electrons stay in what is referred to as an orbital or "probability" cloud...
Yes, the probability cloud makes Bohrs depiction of the atom look like something from a junior school blackboard. This is a further development from Bohr in terms of how the electrons behave. Enter Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger, and move from quantum theory to quantum mechanics. Whereby the action of simply looking at something will affect the result... mind-bogling stuff.
Alan, also read up on the work of Schrodinger.
FarrahDay:
Quote
I don't think voltage can effect an electrons orbit, it has to be a photon particle. Voltage is only potential energy, a photon is a particle of energy.
See how a capacitor works:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=KgNhk-HcI4oC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq
page 212 bottom left.
The polarization of the dielectric is done by voltage alone, because no electrons are exchanged in a good dielectric. The energy to create the charge on a cap is derived from the total work to bring equal charges together on the plates.
Corona discharge is also a voltage phenomenon.
Voltage as kinetic energy can affect the orbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Principles_of_operation
Voltage is charge brought toghether, when charge is doing work, it breaks down, because electrons travels from negative to the positive charge pole. The amount it can do is equal to the energy it'd cost to create the dipole. [nothing new]
Quote
Not sure what you mean by this. The charges on the plate of a capacitor or a Van de Graf generator are static until discharged. Have no idea about your million dollar question.
Is it possible to let voltage potential or static charge do work without discharging, or, without current?
For example:
If a television [or v/d graaff] attracts dust [we all know this from experience], without the dust making contact to the tv, is the static charge on the tv being discharged?
If so, what works against it? [charged particle through an electric field creates EM energy, this must be working against it]
What if there is no path for this charge to flow along, when worked aganst? Then it can't discharge while displacing the particle.
According to the Aharonov-Bohm, potentals do indeed have physiscal significance, according to CED it doesnt [,if i remember correctly, not sure].
Water has a dipole moment by itself.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diph2o.html
What if you resonate this by an oscillating voltage potential, while not allowing the potential to discharge through the water? [function of the VIC chokes]
Perhaps these are more relevant questions
also interesting:
waterbridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBn1ozht-E
I'll give thse 2 [bohr, schrodinger] a shot, doubt I'll grasp it :)
Alan
QuoteThe polarization of the dielectric is done by voltage alone, because no electrons are exchanged in a good dielectric. The energy to create the charge on a cap is derived from the total work to bring equal charges together on the plates.
This is not so though is it, because the voltage itself is the result of a build up of charges on the plate of a capacitor. The capacitor might not pass electrons, but it is the electrons that provide the potential difference between the plates.
Agreed voltage alone without the passage of current can influence other charged particles or bipolar molecules, etc, without current flowing. But, unless insulated in some way, as soon as any charged particle reaches the source of the voltage, it will interact, exchange charges and effectively we will get current flow.
This is why Meyer's WFC has yet to be explained. I've no doubt that the electric field caused by high voltages on the plates will cause water to ionise, but that only gives us H+ and OH-. How does Meyer explain how we get from this point to the evolution of H2 and O2, without the H+ and OH- ions exchanging charges at the electrodes and hence current flowing?
No one has yet answered this simple, but fundamental question. Meyer never even touched on it, and yet it is this simple detail that Meyer's credibility relies on. This little detail is the one that plagues me and no doubt is the reason so many scientists are so sceptical of (or simply dismissed) Meyer's claims.
With ions being some 50,000 times the mass of electrons, there will be a significant build up of charge on the plates of the WFC before the relatively massive ions are induced into motion. Furthermore, electrons have much less resistance to travel than the ions, and though we are only talking fractions of a second, the initial time lag between electrons reaching the electrodes and the ions doing the same would be, relatively speaking, quite enormous.
However, as interesting as this phenomena might be, I'm not sure it is of any real use to us in regards to hydrogen and oxygen production, because we still need to exchange charges somewhere to get from H+ and OH- to H2 and O2!
My current experiments involve insulated electrodes, pulsed at a high voltage to induce ionisation, but then using separate electrodes within the cell to allow charge exchanges - hence no extra current is drawn from the PSU.
I hope to be detailing these experiments soon on the "Dissociation of Water" thread, but I'm currently also experimenting with a TPU.
Of course, you could always send Quarky $250 and he will give you all the answers on a platter ;)
A little TPU gem... http://keelynet.com/energy/emery.htm
Sorry, off topic a bit. I'll make up for it later.
I'd be interested to see some detailed experiments on how water is affected by certain types of electric fields (ie. pulsed, alternating between electrodes) .. Electric fields from what I can gather do the following: Lower the water's dielectric value, strong enough electric fields can result in the "complete destruction" of water's hydrogen-bonded network (which sounds interesting, but I'm not really sure what this means exactly)
Reference:
I. Danielewicz-Ferchmin and A. R. Ferchmin, Water at ions, biomolecules and charged surfaces, Phys. Chem. Liquids 42 (2004) 1-36.
Does anyone have access to this book?
http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~zfd/pdf/b106c03.pdf
How can Stan steal energy from the Sun? first when I used the word "steal" I was using it for drama. What I meant was that he figured out a way to absorb energy from sunlight (photons).
Here is how he did it, if he was not a fraud. He finally in the later stages knew that ALL WATER CONTAINS ELECTRONS no matter what kind of water - take those electrons away (EXTRACTION CIRCUITE) and you must put them back later! This is what h20power and many others never explain!
How can you create electrons, you would ask? They can't be created, you are thinking? Ah ha! Can they be created and destroyed? Kind of, not really.. Photons are available to us everywhere. You can convert photons into electrons. See how a solar panel works which creates electrons from photons (creates? maybe a bad word, again an exaggeration).
Okay, so here is how Stan created a new electrolysis process - he stole electrons from the water. He created a solar panel out of water. The fluid is a gigantic solar panel. The exhaust coming out the tail pipe is missing electrons and must be recharged by something. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite one.
Now, this means that if it is true that Stan created a solar panel out of a fluid - then we can mathematically and scientifically prove his device obeying all the laws of physics. The energy to run our cars comes from the SUN and water is used as our storage medium. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS OBEYED AND THE PHYSICISTS AND TOP SCIENTISTS in the world will no longer debate his device - they will simply accept it as self evident.
Stan I believe did not understand his device until later on when he realized the energy was NOT from God, but from the sun itself (or, anything that can recharge the drained water - photons from the sun just happen to work well)! Well, the water was acting as a "battery" with many many many electrons in it. Then the sun (or something) must recharge that battery which was drained.
Many inventors are genius in some areas ( I call it partially intelligent ), but they do not always understand other areas. It is completely odd that people can invent devices that work, but they do not understand them - BUT IT HAPPENS I have seen it thousands of times. I know of plenty of genius minds who do not understand fully what is going on, but are able to build racing cars or other complex devices that have a lot of science, chemistry, and physics behind them.
That is, if his device works. So far, this is the ONLY theory that obeys law of conservation of energy. People like h20power have never written any balanced energy equations or explained where the energy comes from - they just resort to voodoo magic like "it is like how lightening works" without actually explaining that lightening gets its energy from the wind and the sun.
IF STAN WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THIS ON DAY 1, then there would be less controversy! I honestly think he did NOT understand this on day 1, and it is sad that he only understood it later. Again, this is all assuming he was not a fraud.. though.
The exhaust coming out the tail pipe of YOUR replications must be tested on mice. It is a simple and easy way to solve my concerns regarding toxicity and cancer.
Simply collect lots of exhaust gases from your volkswagon stan meyer replications, or whatever model of car you are working on, and then get some labs to do mice tests. Have the mice drink and breath the water in a lab. I know what you are thinking - blah, mice tests? who is gonna perform those. Well, TRUST ME, if this technology is a go, then LOTS of people and labs will be willing to do mice tests! Don't worry about that. I am simply WARNING humanity that if this technology is a go - we must do health tests!
The safety testing can be done. It is easier than I thought. If the mice get cancer then we MUST recharge the water before dumping it into our atmosphere. If it only is a toxicity concern in our lakes and rivers after we "de-electron" millions of gallons of water... well, think about the water engine revolution coming up and how many thousands of barrels of oil we use? Yes health is a concern, and mice tests aren't that hard!
We may create something similar to toxic oil spills - our lungs will be breathing water without enough electrons - what happens when our cells absorb this faulty water? Does it have effects in our lungs? How about drinking it from lakes. Mice tests will answer the question hopefully.
Maybe some of our water is already missing electrons from thunderstorms, I do not know. Possibly some water falls out of thunderstorms into lakes without returning to a balanced status. If so, we must study how much imbalance humans and animals can tolerate, and how this imbalance will affect us. understand that I am not trying to DISCOURAGE people from inventing the water car, I am rather ASSISTING people in performing the right safety checks so that humanity can live on happily and SAFELY!
A lot of inventors disregard safety. Stan had his floor blow up when he was working on his engine. Many people on youtube don't wear eye glasses. Some people blow up things under their hoods and burn exhaust valves from too much hydrogen. Tesla never researched whether his wireless electricity would cause cancer. Today we can test much easier than back then. If we ensure that "water as a battery" is a safe battery, then it is far better and easier to use than oil. That's all I am suggesting - proper safety for humanity's sake (and let's not forget PLANTS that drink water, along with animals - what does this water do to our food?)!
Even if the water is toxic, we can still recharge it by collecting it and making special pools of water on farms, like solar panels. I am not sugggesting the technology is a NO GO just because it might be toxic. There are solutions. IT MAY NOT EVEN BE TOXIC - test must be done. Or if you have any evidence or websites that water is NOT toxic when it is missing electrons, then go ahead and post.
Also, remember that fossil fuel, OIL and COAL is just a form of battery. That COAL came from PLANTS which came from the SUN! Now do you see how physicists will be happy and we can apply the law of conservation of energy, and stop all this bible thumping God nonsense which did Stan no real good? Do you see how I or we can solve the whole controversy aspect, and get the scientists and labs on top of the technology happily? One must explain the technology without crackpottery. Water, as a discharged battery which is then recharged - is not crackpottery.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 12, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
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.
Agree for the most part, however Tesla had similar problems and he was no dummy. Tesla wrote POEMS to explain some of his theories for creeps sake. Tesla also tried to use analogies like how mass and energy were like "body and mind" in order to disprove Einstein E=mc2. All inventors can be a little be rebellious and even bring God into their writings (tesla did that too unfortunately!)
Just because Stan was not a perfect rigorous scientist or mathematician, does not mean he did not find something useful for us. I am an extreme skeptic and have always held a 50/50 on stan. 50 percent of me was saying he was a fraud, and 50 percent was saying he was honest (due to his body language in his videos - he does not at all speak or act like a con man - except for his tinted glasses he is basically an honest speaker who simply lacks rigor - lots of people lack rigor but are still honest helpful people).
So understand that I as a skeptic am even starting to now think Stan really was on to something but he did not fully understand it until later stages. Even Tesla had some crackpot-like science going on which he explained better in some writings, but poorly in others. Not all inventors are perfect rigorous scientists - they are rebels and outcasts who use unfortunately Art and God (and poems) at times to explain their inventions. Fortunately during the later stages when religious inventors understand their inventions properly - they then start to see that it is not God that is powering the invention, but something scientific like photons from the sun and electrons missing in water. Stan didn't live long enough to remove God from his invention - he would have done so gradually as he realized it was the Sun, not God. But he probably would say "God is the Sun" or some bull shit. Point is, we need to forgive Stan for his religious nature and his lack of rigor. WE Need to be the Rigor now, and fill in that expertise that Stan lacked. Humans all have different specialties and areas of expertise - Stan happened to lack Rigor - let's fill it in then, and get others to also!
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 08:25:10 AM
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.
The photons in the Sun are converted into electrons which fill in the gaps of the water that comes out the tail pipe. Solar panels do convert photons into electrons.
As for the energy required to strip the electrons from the water... this will be the final key rigor that is required to prove this device works. An analogy: think of a magnet that is stuck together. Can you get this magnet unstuck for free? no. So you drop the magnet in lake water and pull them apart using the energy from the sun some how using photons. You develop a device that simply converts photons into a puller that pulls the magnets apart. This obeys the laws of physics.
People think we can get free energy from magnets so let us pretend like Stan they invent something that actually gets energy from the sun, but they don't know it. Then later on they figure out the true source of energy finally, and no it is not a free energy magnet system but rather a magnet that is pulled apart by the sun so it can be placed together again. Now we have an electric motor that simply needs more rigor behind it.. but if it works then yes all we need is a combination of rigor, and the actual working device! Then we are set to go. Even if the device initially lacked rigor, we can provide the rigor NOW.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 14, 2009, 04:29:10 AM
My insistence on a balanced electrochemical equation for the reaction/s taking place - that no one has yet proffered - is quite valid. Whatever is occuring is not by magic, so there will be specific reactions taking place.
The chemical reaction has a result with missing electrons which is different than typical electrolysis and burning of hydrogen. When we burn hydrogen usually the chemical equation is balanced. Supposedly Stan has an unbalanced equation which is then balanced by photons from the sun, later. Photons do and can create electrons - solar panels are an example. If Stan's device is just a very special solar panel then we can prove it through equations. However if he was a fraud, which I am obviously still open to.. as a skeptic.. then I am just wasting my time with the photon from the sun theory. Note that it doesn't have to come from the sun - it could come from, fossil fuels too - or wind mills - the sun and wind would be the most environmentally friendly for humanity.
What comes out the tail pipe in the chemical equation is not h20 but a water that is missing electrons, and therefore it cannot be classified as water really.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 14, 2009, 10:47:15 AM
You know what HB, all I've ever wanted to do is to get to the science behind Meyers WFC. And it is science not magic.
I look at all the possibilities and try to fathom what I could be missing that would make it work, unlike many who simply accept it... though can never replicate it!
I have explained much of the science, if indeed I am correct that is. I continually harped on the fact that lightening gets its energy from the wind and the sun. If Stan is getting energy from the electrons stored in water, and creating a lower energy water for the sun to recharge, he has indeed created a special battery and we can rigorously prove it through equations. But only I have provided the actual science behind "where did the electrons go and when do they get replaced chemically?" The answer is photons from the sun, or electrons from windmills will replace stan's de-electroned water.
WHETHER OR NOT THE de-electroned water actually exists and whether or not Stan is a fraud or not is still out in the open - but only I have provided the actual questions and answers that are important - the sun, the sun, the sun! Photons converted into electrons.
Ironically Stan also uses the reverse - injecting photons in, through his gas processor. H20power thinks he has solved this part but never answers the missing electron issue. I answer it by what comes out the tail pipe and how it gets recharged.
But as a scientific person, I do encourage people to disprove my photon theory. What really needs rigor from here on is the proof that water can exist in a de-electroned state out the tail pipe... and the energy required to get it to that state. It is in fact different than regular electrolysis because regular electrolysis does not create this special unstable water out the tail pipe. We also need to look into our current lakes and ask whether or not some unstable water already exists from lightening storms that didn't go the best they could with regards to discharging and equilibrium. If this water phenomena exists in nature too, it gives us more evidence that water with missing electrons is possible.
We also have to ask whether our air will be harmed and will it be missing electrons if our atmosphere tries to make equilibrium with the vapor out the tail pipe. Which electrons will jump first, when this de-electroned water goes out the tail pipe? Which ones will stabilize the water? hopefully the sun and traffic lights shining down on the car will simply provide us photons near immediately, and that is how most of the unstable water will be recharged. That would reduce the costs of storing the "bad de-electroned exhaust water" on farms to recharge in large pools.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 18, 2009, 11:34:00 AM
It is common knowledge and well known science that photons will be absorbed by atoms and raise electrons to higher orbits (energy levels), but it takes an exact amount of energy to raise an electron to a higher energy level. Likewise photons are emitted by atoms if an electron drops to a lower energy level. This is accepted science.
The vapor coming out the tail pipe is low energy because the flame never succeeded in stabilizing like a regular flame would. The energy that a regular flame from a match takes, comes from the electrons in the atoms jumping levels. The energy that Stan's flame takes is stopped. The flame creates a special vapor that is low energy. The vapor then turns into a low energy fluid, or remains as a low energy vapor - the sun then provides the missing electrons, which is the question that needed to be answered all along. What happened to the missing electrons? How did Stan get away with extracting electrons - why didn't the electrons simply go back where they wanted to be? He created a condition where the flame was not like a regular flame that you see from a match. The energy comes from the SUN. But it could also come from wind mills or fossil fuels if need be.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 18, 2009, 05:20:33 PM
I don't think voltage can effect an electrons orbit, it has to be a photon particle. Voltage is only potential energy, a photon is a particle of energy. It is the electron that absorbs or emits a photon in order to make a transition between energy levels. Every electron energy level in every atom requires a specific discrete amount of energy to make a transition, this is why only photons of certain frequencies are absorbed or emitted by orbiting electrons. Incidentaly, if an outer electron absorbs too much energy it can free itself from the atom altogether, and, I believe, in this state the electron is free to attain much higher energy levels.
The photon particle is what the Gas processor is all about.
There is indeed energy required to dislodge electrons. The question is, when we burn the hydrogen, can we create a powerful flame not like a regular flame which just converts everything back into regular water. A powerful flame that does not recombine the hydrogen/oxygen into regular water? Then we have found the energy source that Stan was tapping into. Water has energy available in it only if we can steal the energy through mass. Electrons have mass. Without the water turning back into water again, what do we have? A loss of mass. A consumption of the electrons in water mass.
A fraudulent perpetual motion machine would steal the energy from water and out the tail pipe we would have regular water again. But, the question is can we put something out the tailpipe that is not water. Then we have a proper chemical equation to work with. Water that is missing electrons and therefore we can restore the lost energy through the sun, or windmills. Is the flame very special, in that the flame is not a regular flame that creates low energy water - instead it creates low low low low low energy water that cannot even really be classified as water. It is ionic mist that is at even lower energy level. This low low low energy level mist is then recharged by the sun or windmills - law of conservation satisfied.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 19, 2009, 07:58:23 AM
This is not so though is it, because the voltage itself is the result of a build up of charges on the plate of a capacitor. The capacitor might not pass electrons, but it is the electrons that provide the potential difference between the plates.
It is the electrons that have gone missing that provide a potential difference in Stan's system. The electrons gone missing mean that the Sun has to replace them (or windmills, or even fossil fuels) at some point later.
There is current flow in Stan's system. It is after the water comes out the pipe and the sun shoots photons into the water to recharge it. That is where the current is.
Stan's vapor that comes out of the pipe can be thought of as a solar panel in fluid form being expelled, or a solar battery that has been discharged by the vehicle and now needs recharging once it comes out the pipe. This obeys laws of conservation and is what is needed to satisfy rigorous physicists and mathematicians.
The question is does the flame which does not actually act as a normal flame, exist in the combustion chamber? is Stan not a fraud, then? A regular flame emits several photons and heat and just creates regular water! What happens in a different flame? Stans flame emits more photons and heat because the ash is not water with equal electrons - the electrons were taken, and it is not a low energy ash out the tail pipe - it is an EXTREMELY LOW LOW energy ash out the tail pipe. See the difference? Lower ash than water is created (therefore more energy stolen, that needs to be replaced to obey conservation of energy).
This energy that is used to power the vehicle needs to be conserved and it is replaced by sun photons out the tail pipe or collected for farms with big pools to recharge.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 19, 2009, 07:58:23 AM
Agreed voltage alone without the passage of current can influence other charged particles or bipolar molecules, etc, without current flowing. But, unless insulated in some way, as soon as any charged particle reaches the source of the voltage, it will interact, exchange charges and effectively we will get current flow.
This is why Meyer's WFC has yet to be explained. I've no doubt that the electric field caused by high voltages on the plates will cause water to ionise, but that only gives us H+ and OH-. How does Meyer explain how we get from this point to the evolution of H2 and O2, without the H+ and OH- ions exchanging charges at the electrodes and hence current flowing?
Stan does not want current to flow or the h2 and 02 to be evolved. He wants the unstable substance to be created and electrons to be consumed (extracted) so that they are not available for recombining. Since the electrons are stolen, there is an unstable flame and an unstable vapor ash that is produced - even lower energy than water. Water is low energy, but it can go even lower. This low energy water must then be recharged by the sun or the wind, or even fossil fuels. What is created is an ash that is more of an ash than regular water.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 19, 2009, 07:58:23 AM
However, as interesting as this phenomena might be, I'm not sure it is of any real use to us in regards to hydrogen and oxygen production, because we still need to exchange charges somewhere to get from H+ and OH- to H2 and O2!
Why not just hold a match or spark some of the H+ or OH- and see what low energy ash you create, instead of providing higher energy plentiful electron h2 and O2 substances. But you have to extract electrons to keep it unstable in lower energy. Those electrons once extracted, luckily are something we can use: electricity. But, that's not all - we get a different than expected flame, when we burn something that is unstable.
What happens when an atomic bomb burns - is it like lighting a match to wood? Is the flame in an atomic bomb a regular flame? Why not? Mass is missing.
Work in progress: low energy ash exhaust theory:What happens when we burn unstable H and O and do not have as many electrons available? We are forced to form something that is not water - rather a closely nit together lattice, a thickly bonded lower energy water. More covalent bonds shared. What do MORE BONDS mean? A LOWER ENERGY ASH then regular water. The more bonds we have, the lower the energy. Water is low energy state because there are some h2o bonds. But even lower energy is MORE bonds and more sharing taking place. This LOW ENERGY ash is the key. If unstable water molecule has electron stolen from the hydrogen section, this leaves positive hydrogen to latch on to not one oxygen but two oxgens if it can form a lattice fence. The positive hydrogens can timeshare two oxygens instead of one oxygen and you have extremely low energy since it is not H2O but a gigantic fence.
Whether this low energy ash is toxic is my question, and I also wonder if it really exists or whether it is a mistake THOUGHT up by someone who was hoping it existed but didn't know for sure.
If mass is missing, then where did it go and must we replace it? We took the mass by stealing the electrons from water. We replace it by converting photons to electrons, by using the sun to recharge the low energy ash that came out the tail pipe. Similar to a solar panel, but a very special solar battery this water is.
Water is a
low energy ash - but what is a lower energy ash than water? Lower than low. Bonded water lattice composed of stacked up molecules with an odd timeshare system. Out the tail pipe comes a lower ash than water which is lacking electrons and therefore must form a different timeshare. With a different timeshare there must have been more energy released because the more bonds there are formed in the flame, the more energy had to be released. With more timeshares it means the energy had to be given off which moves the car. When the sun hits this low energy ash once it comes out the tail pipe, the low energy ash wants to be regular water again because more electrons are added via photons ramming in to it. The odd timesharing lattice breaks into a higher energy water (yes water is higher energy in this case then our low energy ash). The key to this technology may be to rid our brains of thinking that WATER IS THE LOWEST ENERGY ASH WATER CAN BE ONCE HYDROGEN IS BURNED. What can we do to create a lower energy ash, even lower than regular water? Create more bonds with less electrons and more timesharing.
.
"FREE RADICAL FORMATION
Atoms are most stable in the ground state. An atom is considered to be "ground" when every electron in the outermost shell has a complimentary electron that spins in the opposite direction. By definition a free radical is any atom (e.g. oxygen, nitrogen) with at least one unpaired electron in the outermost shell, and is capable of independent existence (13). A free radical is easily formed when a covalent bond between entities is broken and one electron remains with each newly formed atom (13). Free radicals are highly reactive due to the presence of unpaired electron(s). The following literature review addresses only radicals with an oxygen center. Any free radical involving oxygen can be referred to as reactive oxygen species (ROS). Oxygen centered free radicals contain two unpaired electrons in the outer shell. When free radicals steal an electron from a surrounding compound or molecule a new free radical is formed in its place. In turn the newly formed radical then looks to return to its ground state by stealing electrons with antiparallel spins from cellular structures or molecules. Thus the chain reaction continues and can be "thousand of events long." (7). The electron transport chain (ETC), which is found in the inner mitochondrial membrane, utilizes oxygen to generate energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Oxygen acts as the terminal electron acceptor within the ETC. The literature suggests that anywhere from 2 to 5% (14) of the total oxygen intake during both rest and exercise have the ability to form the highly damaging superoxide radical via electron escape. During exercise oxygen consumption increases 10 to 20 fold to 35-70 ml/kg/min. In turn, electron escape from the ETC is further enhanced. Thus, when calculated, .6 to 3.5 ml/kg/min of the total oxygen intake during exercise has the ability to form free radicals (4). Electrons appear to escape from the ETS at the ubiqunone-cytochrome c level (14)."
Stan talks about a chain effect in Colorado lecture. The same chain effect is seen with free radicals as shown above from science article. Therefore one cannot say Stan was not talking scientifically - he did talk about science in his lectures, such as this free radical phenomenon of unstable substances.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Antioxidants/Introduction.html
This is one reason I am concerned about toxicity because free radicals are not so good to have in our water supply.
Quote from: Farrah Day on June 19, 2009, 07:58:23 AM
However, as interesting as this phenomena might be, I'm not sure it is of any real use to us in regards to hydrogen and oxygen production, because we still need to exchange charges somewhere to get from H+ and OH- to H2 and O2!
I gave this a thought:
2h2o and 2h2 + o2 have an equal amount of eletrons in stable state, right?
2h2o = 20 electrons, 2h2 = 4, o2 = 16,
so the amount of electrons before and after the process is in equillibrium [pls correct me if i'm wrong, how can a commercial wfc as a battery deliver electricty then?].
charge exchange is required in the standard electrolysis/hydrolysis process like you pointed out, I think this electron is delivered by the water itself due to voltage ionization.
according to this patent [tay hee hau], electrolysis without external charge exchange is possible, it's caused by ionization by collision:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=DYo5AAAAEBAJ&dq=4427512
not to forget that every electron put into the water, is taken out at the other electrode