Even his test cells have been located and are available for sale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4xuM7tWky0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpBlN2_VlVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufXuMnNc5oY
Not to be negative, but isn't it a bit of a red flag they they are selling Stan's stuff? Perhaps it's due to legal issues regarding his estate, but if his hydrogen cell, etc does what he claimed they did, I somehow doubt they'd be up for sale. It seems like proof that they don't work.
I wonder how Dan got hold of all this stuff and why has he been quiet for all these years.
I thought Dr. Steven Greer bought the Dune Buggy already?
Quote from: happyfunball on January 19, 2010, 05:14:49 AM
Not to be negative, but isn't it a bit of a A they they are selling Stan's stuff? Perhaps it's due to legal issues regarding his estate, but if his hydrogen cell, etc does what he claimed they did, I somehow doubt they'd be up for sale. It seems like proof that they don't work.
Confirmation that his device actually does work comes from his collection of granted U.S. patents on various parts of his water fuel cell system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the U.S. Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by U.S. Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established. If he was a fraud, then the U.S. Patent Office would have to be considered his accomplice.
It would not surprise me one bit if you were on the payroll of the oil industry. The same people who offered Meyer $1 billion dollars to sell out. How much are they paying you? Are they getting a bargain hiring you to try and smear the works of Meyer that could undo their global power and dominance?
The fact that you are attacking the work of a man who was poisoned to death because he wouldn’t sell out makes you and your intentions very obvious. Now go and tell the unholy oil company owner bosses of yours we didn’t buy their first round of disinformation.
Quote from: chessnyt on January 19, 2010, 10:46:52 PM
Confirmation that his device actually does work comes from his collection of granted U.S. patents on various parts of his water fuel cell system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the U.S. Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by U.S. Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established. If he was a fraud, then the U.S. Patent Office would have to be considered his accomplice.
It would not surprise me one bit if you were not on the payroll of the oil industry. The same people who offered Meyer $1 billion dollars to sell out. How much are they paying you? Are they getting a bargain hiring you to try and smear the works of Meyer that could undo their global power and dominance?
The fact that you are attacking the work of a man who was poisoned to death because he wouldn’t sell out makes you and your intentions very obvious. Now go and tell the unholy oil company owner bosses of yours we didn’t buy their first round of disinformation.
Good gawd@ on the payroll. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Stan would have had to specify the output efficiency of said hydrogen cell to obtain a patent. I'm not attacking anyone. The world is full of scam artists, and their counterpart, those who think beleiving something is legit will make it so, and that criticism is always an attack. If Stan Meyer's devices work as stated, I highly doubt they'd be be auctioning them off.
Did you follow the Mylow fiasco? Many people reacted as you are, with indignance and accusations. Mylow's motor was a scam.
Watching those video's tell me that there is more then what we have been shown. I sen the injectors he shows but none of them are the one that Stan has shown to replace sparkplugs with when he was talking about how we could replace our sparkplugs with his injector and run our cars off water. I don't recall Stan sating that a special circuit board was needed. could have sworn that he said that water and the injector was all that was needed and the energy to produce the hydrogen came from the coil.
It's been a while and I may be wrong. I will try to find the video I am talking about and post it. I am pretty sure we have already posted it in another thread.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 19, 2010, 10:54:40 PM
A gawd@ on the payroll. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Stan would have had to specify the output efficiency of said hydrogen cell to obtain a patent. I'm not attacking anyone. The world is full of scam artists, and their counterpart, those who think beleiving something is legit will make it so, and that criticism is always an attack. If Stan Meyer's devices work as stated, I highly doubt they'd be be auctioning them off.
Did you follow the Mylow fiasco? Many people reacted as you are, with indignance and accusations. Mylow's motor was a scam.
Don’t try to turn this into the “Mylow†scam. Mylow didn’t have any patents (that were proven experimentally by the US Patent Office or otherwise), he wasn’t offered $1 billion dollars to sell out and he wasn’t murdered after refusing to sell out. He didn’t drive a dune buggy powered by the device he invented in front of credible news media outlets who actually went for a ride with him while filming.
Thank you for revealing who you really are. How many web sites do they have you working?
Quote from: chessnyt on January 19, 2010, 11:31:25 PM
Don’t try to turn this into the “Mylow†scam. Mylow didn’t have any patents (that were proven experimentally by the US Patent Office or otherwise), he wasn’t offered $1 billion dollars to sell out and he wasn’t murdered after refusing to sell out. He didn’t drive a dune buggy powered by the device he invented in front of credible news media outlets who actually went for a ride with him while filming.
Thank you for revealing who you really are. How many web sites do they have you working?
And thank you for revealing who you really are. A mindless drone who learns nothing from countless numbers of scam artists. Did the news reporter TEST Stan's dune buggy? Of course not. Therefore, nothing was learned one way or the other. Mylow was supposedly working from long expired Howard Johnson patents. I would suggest taking a far more critical view of these claims. Accusing people of being 'disinformation agents' does nothing. I'll tell you this, if I were the guy in that video, I would have hooked up Stan's hydrogen cell and tested it ASAP.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 20, 2010, 12:55:54 AM
And A revealing who you really are. A mindless drone who learns nothing from countless numbers of scam artists. Did the news reporter TEST Stan's dune buggy? Of course not. Therefore, nothing was learned one way or the other. Mylow was supposedly working from long expired Howard Johnson patents. I would suggest taking a far more critical view of these claims. Accusing people of being 'disinformation agents' does nothing. I'll tell you this, if I were the guy in that video, I would have hooked up Stan's hydrogen cell and tested it ASAP.
Easy there killer. Lets go back to where this all started and see why it works.
Andrija PUHARICH was acually the first I know of who came up with the on demand water fuel injector. It was said that he drove his motor home for hundreds of thousands of miles around North America in the 1970s using only water as fuel.
I am almost positive that this why Stan has done what he had. I beleive he knew of this following patent and may have even made it better.
http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm
I don't recall any topic discussing what Andrija has done and I will start one to discuss his work.
Quote from: nightlife on January 20, 2010, 01:40:02 AM
Easy there killer. Lets go back to where this all started and see why it works.
Andrija PUHARICH was acually the first I know of who came up with the on demand water fuel injector. It was said that he drove his motor home for hundreds of thousands of miles around North America in the 1970s using only water as fuel.
I am almost positive that this why Stan has done what he had. I beleive he knew of this following patent and may have even made it better.
http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm
I don't recall any topic discussing what Andrija has done and I will start one to discuss his work.
Killer? Lol. Man you peeps are quite sensitive. Meanwhile, another unsubstantiated claim. You go start that thread, though. While you're at it, sign up to bid on Stan Meyer's hydrogen cell. Money where one's mouth is, as it were...
Quote from: happyfunball on January 20, 2010, 12:55:54 AM
And thank you for revealing who you really are. A mindless drone who learns nothing from countless numbers of scam artists. Did the news reporter TEST Stan's dune buggy? Of course not. Therefore, nothing was learned one way or the other. Mylow was supposedly working from long expired Howard Johnson patents. I would suggest taking a far more critical view of these claims. Accusing people of being 'disinformation agents' does nothing. I'll tell you this, if I were the guy in that video, I would have hooked up Stan's hydrogen cell and tested it ASAP.
What’s the matter Happyfunball? Not so happy anymore, huh? It’s ok for you to be skeptical of others but it’s not so fun when others are skeptical of you, right?
Do you have to wait for a thread to die first before your boss pays you?
Quote from: chessnyt on January 20, 2010, 08:50:23 PM
What’s the matter Happyfunball? Not so happy anymore, huh? It’s ok for you to be skeptical of others but it’s not so fun when others are skeptical of you, right?
Do you have to wait for a thread to die first before your boss pays you?
Pretending I'm unhappy isn't going to help your paranoia or fragile ego...
Quote from: happyfunball on January 20, 2010, 11:46:49 PM
Actually, it was you who jumped in and lost his mind, I merely presented a skeptical view.
I am merely presenting a skeptical view as well. Are you the only one who is allowed to be skeptical?
Quote from: happyfunball on January 20, 2010, 11:46:49 PM
To answer your question, I am perfectly happy. I don't lose my mind over healthy skepticism.
I don’t know. I detect some serious anger from you. I am very skeptical of your happiness.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 20, 2010, 11:46:49 PM
Sorry you're such a miserable person, I would be too if my ego was as fragile as yours. Accusations of being paid make you seem like a desperate child. Trying to twist it so that I'm somehow unhappy does as well.....
I’m just being skeptical of someone who gives off such negativity. Most of your posting are negative in nature so why else would you be here if you were not getting paid to be here? All you do is wine, cry, complain that everyone here is a fraud. Why else would you be here since this place is full of scam artists in your eyes?
Quote from: chessnyt on January 21, 2010, 12:17:34 AM
I am merely presenting a skeptical view as well. Are you the only one who is allowed to be skeptical?
I don’t know. I detect some serious anger from you. I am very skeptical of your happiness.
I’m just being skeptical of someone who gives off such negativity. Most of your posting are negative in nature so why else would you be here if you were not getting paid to be here? All you do is wine, cry, complain that everyone here is a fraud. Why else would you be here since this place is full of scam artists in your eyes?
You're not being skeptical. Don't do the semantics thing.
You detect your own anger, I did not give off negativity, I am skeptical. Big difference. I began my initial post with a statement of not intending to be negative. Perhaps you should try reading.
Most of my postings are not negative in nature. However, without skeptics, this forum would not be genuine. Paranoia about disinformation agents is a little sad.
I didnt say the forum is full of scam artists. However, there have been many scam artists in the history of free energy. To think otherwise is to be uneducated.
The only one crying here is you. That is a verifiable fact.....
Quote from: happyfunball on January 20, 2010, 02:51:23 AM
Killer? Lol. Man you peeps are quite sensitive. Meanwhile, another unsubstantiated claim. You go start that thread, though. While you're at it, sign up to bid on Stan Meyer's hydrogen cell. Money where one's mouth is, as it were...
Killer as in topic killer.
I have no desire to purchase Myers cells, my desire was to find out how he did it and that I have. It has also led me to other findings that I am now reseaching.
We are all like children looking for what has already been found and then hid from us.
Let me ask you this since you seem to think you know so much. What is energy?
Quote from: nightlife on January 21, 2010, 12:32:10 AM
Killer as in topic killer.
I have no desire to purchase Myers cells, my desire was to find out how he did it and that I have. It has also led me to other findings that I am now reseaching.
We are all like children looking for what has already been found and then hid from us.
Let me ask you this since you seem to think you know so much. What is energy?
You have no desire to purchase Stan Meyer's cell? Come on now.
How did you conclude I think I know 'a lot?' You tell me what energy is, your question indicates you disagree with the conventional definition.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 21, 2010, 12:22:54 AM
Most of my postings are not negative in nature.
All the postings you have made in this entire thread are negative. Now that is a fact.
You’re the one with the dramatic “good gawd†like a little child who was just told to get his feet off the table.
Do you have to punch some sort of time card before you log on?
Quote from: chessnyt on January 21, 2010, 01:03:38 AM
All the postings you have made in this entire thread are negative. Now that is a fact.
You’re the one with the dramatic “good gawd†like a little child who was just told to get his feet off the table.
Do you have to punch some sort of time card before you log on?
'Good gawd' is a light hearted reaction to the absurd nature of your accusations. Projecting your behavior onto me is pathetic.
Negative? Wrong. I presented a skeptical view of Stan Meyer's stuff going up for auction, It seems very odd to me. Accuse me of being a paid 'agent' once more and I'll take it up with the moderator to have you banned. It's tedious, grow up already.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 21, 2010, 12:48:53 AM
You have no desire to purchase Stan Meyer's cell? Come on now.
How did you conclude I think I know 'a lot?' You tell me what energy is, your question indicates you disagree with the conventional definition.
I seriously have no desire to purchase a Meyers cell nor do I wish to build one.
As for my conclusion of your intelligence, that it based on what I have been presented with thus far. I do not know how intelligent you really are but based on what you have stated so far, you are either playing dumb or you actually are when it comes to this topic.
As for energy. It is not that I disagree with the conventional definition as much as the conventional definition is not detailed enough. Energy is nothing more the a vibrance. Everything is energy because everything is vibrant. It is quite a bit more complicated then that as to how vibrance becomes something more then what we know as a vibrance.
I mentioned the pistol shrimp for a reason which should have opened your eyes to what is being done here. The shrimps claw emits a resonance that instantly splits the water molecule and ignites the hydrogen creating an explosion that is delivered in the direction the pressure is emitted in. The energy used is very little compared to the explosion created.
Now considering what I have researched, I have no doubt that Myers could have actually accomplished what he has been said to have. Like I had said before, I think Myers based his work on the work that Puharich has done.
Puharich was a very sought after scientist by governments and other well known scientist. He was in a sense, the man behind the scenes who was kept quite and surrounded by superior intelligence.
This is one topic you can not start bashing without doing the proper research first. If you would have done the proper research, you would not be bashing this topic unless you have a special interest in doing so.
I am done discussing this with you at least until you start showing a real interest in this topic other then to just bash it.
Quote from: nightlife on January 21, 2010, 02:12:31 AM
I seriously have no desire to purchase a Meyers cell nor do I wish to build one.
As for my conclusion of your intelligence, that it based on what I have been presented with thus far. I do not know how intelligent you really are but based on what you have stated so far, you are either playing dumb or you actually are when it comes to this topic.
As for energy. It is not that I disagree with the conventional definition as much as the conventional definition is not detailed enough. Energy is nothing more the a vibrance. Everything is energy because everything is vibrant. It is quite a bit more complicated then that as to how vibrance becomes something more then what we know as a vibrance.
I mentioned the pistol shrimp for a reason which should have opened your eyes to what is being done here. The shrimps claw emits a resonance that instantly splits the water molecule and ignites the hydrogen creating an explosion that is delivered in the direction the pressure is emitted in. The energy used is very little compared to the explosion created.
Now considering what I have researched, I have no doubt that Myers could have actually accomplished what he has been said to have. Like I had said before, I think Myers based his work on the work that Puharich has done.
Puharich was a very sought after scientist by governments and other well known scientist. He was in a sense, the man behind the scenes who was kept quite and surrounded by superior intelligence.
This is one topic you can not start bashing without doing the proper research first. If you would have done the proper research, you would not be bashing this topic unless you have a special interest in doing so.
I am done discussing this with you at least until you start showing a real interest in this topic other then to just bash it.
What's going on here is a childish reaction to skepticism. Do you really not find it very odd that Stan Meyer's inventions would simply be auctioned off? Surely, if they are what he claimed, the auction bids will go into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you disagree? Interest in a topic includes skepticism. That's life.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 21, 2010, 02:22:38 AM
What's going on here is a childish reaction to skepticism. Do you really not find it very odd that Stan Meyer's inventions would simply be auctioned off? Surely, if they are what he claimed, the auction bids will go into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you disagree? Interest in a topic includes skepticism. That's life.
From what I have seen being actioned looks to be authentiic. The problem is that there are some things missing which I had mentioned before. What looks to be available looks to be what most have already figured out. I am interested in the files and research but I am afraid that it most likely has been picked thru already and missing the keys needed.
I am also interested in the injectors but again, I am worried about them being tampered with and missing key parts. And again, there does seem to be some injectors missing and those would be the ones I would be most interested in. The circuit board is also appealing but again I am worried about it not being what I think it may be.
The furnace is quite interesting and new to me. I would like to see more of it.
Close up pictures would tell more.
How much would the plate and tube cells predate the injectors and eventually buggy? I like the structure in Stan's work, showing from the stuff on camera. He was not kidding about, that's clear.
Apparently after a significant time researching the estate, no OU has been found.
The computers and floppies may reveal more.
Anyone know what crucial parts missing from the buggy to prevent it from being a turn-key water car, and why?
Quote from: Cloxxki on January 21, 2010, 03:07:05 PM
How much would the plate and tube cells predate the injectors and eventually buggy? I like the structure in Stan's work, showing from the stuff on camera. He was not kidding about, that's clear.
Apparently after a significant time researching the estate, no OU has been found.
The computers and floppies may reveal more.
Anyone know what crucial parts missing from the buggy to prevent it from being a turn-key water car, and why?
Good info. Makes a little more sense now.
Quote from: Cloxxki on January 21, 2010, 03:07:05 PM
Anyone know what crucial parts missing from the buggy to prevent it from being a turn-key water car, and why?
I can not tell what is exactly missing nor would anyone know what may be missing without ever seeing what was used to make it run off water. The guy in the video said the distributer and curcuit board on the table was for the buggy. I am not sure about th injectors but none of the ones pictured looked like the last one Myers had talked about. I am also sure that the right injectors will be needed as well as the right curcuitry. Without them, I think everthing else is worthless except for maybe the pc's, records and possibly the furnace.
I am very interested in seeing more of the furnace. I have not found any listings for the aucton, has anyone else and if so, do you have a link to it?
Quote from: happyfunball on January 21, 2010, 01:59:50 AM
'Good gawd' is a light hearted reaction to the absurd nature of your accusations. Projecting your behavior onto me is pathetic.
Negative? Wrong. I presented a skeptical view of Stan Meyer's stuff going up for auction, It seems very odd to me. Accuse me of being a paid 'agent' once more and I'll take it up with the moderator to have you banned. It's tedious, grow up already.
Sounds like a hall monitor in elementary school…Report me little hall monitor boy…lol. I say you’re an disinfo agent too. Ain’t you gonna report me funbawl? Does your pussy hurt really bad? Are you telling mommy on me? Moooooommm!
You are soooooo pathetic.....lol ROTFLMAO
Quote from: OscarMeyer on January 21, 2010, 08:25:47 PM
Sounds like a hall monitor in elementary school…Report me little hall monitor boy…lol. I say you’re an disinfo agent too. Ain’t you gonna report me funbawl? Does your hurt really bad? Are you telling mommy on me? Moooooommm!
You are soooooo pathetic.....lol ROTFLMAO
If you're so insecure that you need to accuse me of being a 'disinfo agent' 20 times, then yes I think you should be banned. Don't like it? Have a good cry.
Quote from: OscarMeyer on January 21, 2010, 08:25:47 PM
Sounds like a hall monitor in A…Report me little hall monitor boy…lol. I say you’re an disinfo agent too. Ain’t you gonna report me funbawl? Does your hurt really bad? Are you telling mommy on me? Moooooommm!
You are soooooo pathetic.....lol ROTFLMAO
Yes, they can dish it out but they sure can’t take it.
Quote from: Cloxxki on January 21, 2010, 03:07:05 PM
How much would the plate and tube cells predate the A and eventually buggy? I like the structure in Stan's work, showing from the stuff on camera. He was not kidding about, that's clear.
Apparently after a significant time researching the estate, no OU has been found.
The computers and floppies may reveal more.
Anyone know what crucial parts missing from the buggy to prevent it from being a turn-key water car, and why?
Stan didn’t get a chance to finish the current setup on the dune buggy (which is the injector setup) before he died, so this would be a tough question to answer and Don may be more inclined to answer this question. He can be reached at the forum at waterfuelcell.org in the “Stan’s Buggy Found†thread.
The first setup was seen in the news coverage footage that can be found all over the net. It was the carbureted setup which was using multiple cells powered by an independent alternator fixed to a single phase AC motor which in turn was powered by a special AC/DC power converter, very different than a normal inverter. This first setup worked and Stan drove the buggy for several years with this first setup but ended up removing this setup to move on to injectors.
Quote from: nightlife on January 21, 2010, 06:38:25 PM
I can not tell what is exactly missing nor would anyone know what may be missing without ever seeing what was used to make it run off water. The guy in the video said the distributer and curcuit board on the table was for the buggy. I am not sure about th injectors but none of the ones pictured looked like the last one Myers had talked about. I am also sure that the right injectors will be needed as well as the right curcuitry. Without them, I think everthing else is worthless except for maybe the pc's, records and possibly the furnace.
I am very interested in seeing more of the furnace. I have not found any listings for the aucton, has anyone else and if so, do you have a link to it?
The existence of the furnace was only revealed to the public recently and all the side cover panels have been removed for the video you see it debuting in. The current owner possesses full documentation on the furnace which Meyer designed and built. This is one of the items Meyer never allowed anyone to point a camera at.
Quote from: chessnyt on January 22, 2010, 12:21:02 AM
Yes, they can dish it out but they sure can’t take it.
If you can't handle skepticism, don't start threads.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 22, 2010, 01:16:16 AM
If you can't handle skepticism, don't start threads.
If you can’t take your own medicine, stop trying to be a doctor.
Happyfunball,
Have you even followed Stanley's work? A lot of his stuff is on video and worked and has been replicated!
You should stay off this thread unless you have something useful to contribute.
4Tesla
PS - His main research was in HHO.. an alternative fuel.. nothing to do with OU.
I'm not sure if any body mentioned any thing about the first video, the vic on the floor looked like it had six coils. Is this right? or I'm seeing something that's not there.
Hi !
I like your V8 timing belt approach !!
The name of Mr. P is Puharich.
The even bigger question for me is where Mr. P got his inspiration - or who did it for him - because his business was reported to be somewhat different.
....
Quote from: Loner on January 23, 2010, 11:36:00 AM
I hate to negative, but the actual "Physical" devices may not be much help in obtaining the information on Meyer. There are things about his "methods" that are not revealed, and as I haven't proof of the exact details, I am not qualified to comment on the theory, however I do know that unless you have a "FULL" device, in actual operation, deriving the theory of operation ain't a simple task. (Desired bad english...)
The first thing that must be accepted is that "Normal" electron flow based electrolysis has NOTHING to do with the process. Standard transformer theory is the next thing that must be ignored. Once you get to that point, it should be a little easier, but still not simple.
If you actually have read the "P" man's patent (I can't spell his name from memory.), you can relate Meyers video lectures quite handily, as long as you ignore certain incorrect references to "electrons", as Meyer, himself, switched back and forth, assuming we would understand this dividing line. Most, to this day, never are able to cross that line. Without making that leap, one should be a skeptic, as this type of device IS impossible using standard procedures. Hand me the original Tube setup, with the original circuit, and not include the actual transformer that went with THAT specific design, and poof, no useful results. (Remember, secondary resonance, etc....)
Of course, seeing that I don't have an operating system, my comments are worth no more than anyone else's. Until someone has an actual operating device, using the "Tickle" function, as coined by Beardon, then we really won't know, one way or the other. I have done enough to prove that a standard setup, just using conventional signals and electrolysis theory, is not what Meyer is about. (Nor the "P" man either....) I could go on for far too long, as I've spent too much time on this in the lab, but I hope I've said what I felt was needed, that being the fact of obtaining the original components probably won't be much of a help. If it's not complete, then how it works is back to "Theory". If it IS complete, and operable, then very useful data could be obtained, as long as the person reverse-engineering it was open-minded enough to accept what he finds.....
As a final example of what I really mean, if you wanted to stall someone's research into an ICE, and handed them a V8 engine that was NOT running, fixing it could be difficult. If they had NO knowledge of how it worked, it gets harder. NOW, just remove the Timing chain (Belt...) and see how long it takes. Just improper re-assembly would destroy the engine. Now realize that this is a simple mechanical device.... See where I'm going......
I see where you're going with this and I have never said that it would be easy putting together a working prototype of Meyer’s water powered car nor am I changing my position now. I believe it will be a difficult and tedious task to accomplish even given all the components that are currently available.
My own opinion is to attempt to reassemble his first dune buggy setup which was the carbureted version of his water car. The reason I believe this may be the best approach is because it is the most tried and true water car system Meyer assembled and drove around for several years. Also, it was the only completed water car setup Meyer assembled.
Since Meyer didn’t get a chance to actually finish the injector setup, nobody (and I could be mistaken here) knows precisely which components are missing or needed to be built to complete the injector setup. For example; the current injector system has a control circuit board that was left unfinished by Meyer. God only knows how much and then specifically what else was unperfected, uninstalled or yet to be designed, tested and built to finish the injector setup. My hat is off to those claiming they know.
Also, nobody knows for sure what is left in Meyer’s documentation (electronic or otherwise). I would personally like to see a collection of experts assist the owner in reassembling the carbureted setup of Meyer’s water powered car (bird in the hand so to speak) but I’m not the owner and that’s not my call.
Quote from: fritz on January 23, 2010, 07:14:59 PM
Hi !
I like your V8 timing belt approach !!
The name of Mr. P is Puharich.
The even bigger question for me is where Mr. P got his inspiration - or who did it for him - because his business was reported to be somewhat different.
....
Puharich spent many years working on alternative energy devises. His main work did go hand in hand with what his alternative energy work. You must also know that he was friends with and worked with some great names such as Tesla and Bearden and many others. Energy is vibrance and his work was all about vibrance.
We don't know much about this man because he was isolated and surrounded by government intelligence. Even in his last days he was housed with intelligence. He had a lot to do with HARRP as well as many other top secret projects. There is much to learn from what this man has done if only we could get a hold of the classified files that contain his work.
I will be going south to see my dad next month and I will talk to him about Puharich, Rauscher and some of the other names I have came across. I will bring up those names and see what he say's. They all served during the same time and if they were really someone, he would know them. I would just call him but he will hang up on me if i try to talk to him about any of this stuff. He won't even get internet because it's not secure enough for him. If it wasn't for his wife, he wouldn't have a phone. He is a nuclear engineer who was one of the highest ranking naval cheifs at that time and he refused to become an admiral which is why he retired. He was given a choice and he chose to retire.
Now lets get back to Puharich's injector. I think you all are missing a very important factor and that is the frequency's used. These frequency's are sent to the last two plates of the injector just before the exit point. These frequency's are not our average frequency's used in electricity. They seem to be used to create a harmonics used to split the water molecules. Kind of like we do when using positive and negative plates but with both being positive but different frequency's. This takes us back to some of John Hutchinson's work as well as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure. It's all about the vibrance limit of the water molecules bubble. Neutralise the bubbles vibrance and the contents will be vulnerable. Then we can supply a vibrance that will release the vibrancy's that makes up the contents which would create a burst of vibrance.
I am quite tired right now. Just got back from a long day at the casino. I will explain more about this later.
Something you all must get in your heads is that nothing is solid and everything is vibrant because everything is made up of vibrancy's and everything has a vibrancy limit. There is no such thing as an electron unless we consider it as a vibrance. Don't allow yourself to think things are any more complicated then they really are. When you do, you end up missing out on the obvious.
Come out side of the box with me for a few. What happens when you split an atom? You release the energy that is compressed inside of it. What is energy? Energy is nothing more then a flow of vibrance. Think about it. ;)
Quote from: jratcliff on January 19, 2010, 12:17:12 PM
I thought Dr. Steven Greer bought the A Buggy already?
The Orion Project had showed an interest in purchasing Stan Meyer’s equipment but as of recent they have backed out of a deal with the owner.
Quote from: chessnyt on January 22, 2010, 01:28:20 AM
If you can’t take your own medicine, stop trying to be a doctor.
What medicine is that? I expressed skepticism. Do you really think is isn't absurd to try to tell me you are doing the same by expressing 'skepticism' that I am 'happy?'
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 22, 2010, 02:51:36 AM
Happyfunball,
Have you even followed Stanley's work? A lot of his stuff is on video and worked and has been replicated!
You should stay off this thread unless you have something useful to contribute.
4Tesla
PS - His main research was in HHO.. an alternative fuel.. nothing to do with OU.
Yes, I know all about Stan Meyer. The basic speculation is, he had an extremely efficient means of electrolysis. We don't know if he did or did not. The method would obviously need to be extremely efficient to be worthwhile. His dune buggy was essentially a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with on-board splitting. Supposedly. We don't have that either. Parts are missing, apparently. What exactly do we have? Lots of speculation, accusations of govenrmental interference, and speculation that he was murdered.
If you listen to the Stephen Meyers interview , you will know that Stan was still in R@D , he got a few patents and continued working , he wasnt finished with it and died .
I am working with the Stephen Meyers system , better explained and apprently the back to square one re-design of his brother .
http://www.youtube.com/user/dankiewfc
Stephen Meyers is in fact Stephen Chambers from xogen I believe .
Quote from: Loner on January 23, 2010, 11:42:43 PM
Fritz, I have wondered about that myself, but never looked into it. (There is never enough time for all the basic research I want to do.) If you come across any info, that would be great.
The official homepage:
http://www.puharich.nl/
Some interesting youtube stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oa0bFK6iNI
(just google a bit - there´s lots of stuff)
In opposite to Mr. M - the patents and technical stuff from Mr. P is way more consistent - for me.
Somehow - I still think that there is a connection between both people.
Its reported that Mr.P had to stop publishing his research - and somehow - if I think about the quasi-scientific glibberish on some Meyer videos - it would make more sense if you would just imagine that Mr.P handed out his stuff to Mr. M.
This would explain a lot. (for me). P. had to stop his activities in the late 80ties - Meyer had his first patents in the early 90ties
Mr. P died on the 3rd January1995 in North Carolina
Mr. M died on the 21th of march 1998 in Ohio
http://www.puharich.nl/Bio/Resume.htm
More questions than answers.....
Mr. M was less smart and less educated than Mr . P . Stan was more a creative fool , he must have tought that his system was different .
I assimillated the info from Mister . P and have an modulator design in the works .
The Problem with M. P is his dam ceramic cell , wich I know nothing about .
Stephen had a reference to the Mr . P patent , both of them have AC sine like circuit with a ringing phenomenon and constant impedance matching , standard procedures for an antenna . There was power going in there , it wasnt as cold as Stan said , or maybe he blinded himself to his method .
Here is some info I had laying around
that might help understand Mr. P some.
Why aren't file attachments here at least
the size of a lousy floppy for gosh sakes?
1.40-Mb / 1,440-Kb / 1,457,664 bytes
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/121839
I mean, the 1,100-Kb limit is just to small
for even a half decent large close-up pic
or a schematic that is of any complexity.
The PDF is 1.09 MB (1,146,201 bytes)
I'll use Win-RAR and split it at 1-Mb to post.
Part 2of2 will be in the next post...Sigh...
UPDATE:
WOW, Now it is telling me the max is 300-Kb !!!
For the love of pizza, of what use is that ???
So it is 300-Kb each attachment,
but NOT 1,200-Kb total per post ?
just 1,100-Kb total per post instead ?
So four 300-Kb attachments won't fit evenly?
Seems like bad math to me... :-\
It should be at least 1,500-KB
so five split files, or one floppy fits. ;)
Part 4of4 attached below.
Additional stuff:
"Cutting The Gordian Knot of the Great Energy Bind"
"by Andrija Puharich"
http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm
You posted 2 times part 2 .
Ok thx for that .
Frikkin Puharich was too crazy , If I was a ceramic chemist id probably try it , I know about a bit of electronics and know a bit of control loops theory , what could he have used as a material ?
Im sure he fine-tuned his process even more untill his death.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TW3-4NR18M3-4&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1180025111&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1b5129ffda92f1ddce78e0af3eec1550
There is really something special about stainless steel , these articles are not my strong point tho .
I imagine that as molecules bounce around and the tubes surface have the wave action going and trashing and moving is when the 'electrons cross the barrier' . He said of his brother 'quote' , Stan figured out a way to let the electrons cross the barrier .
Puharich said the same , somekind of electron tunneling happening .
VIC technology.
Take for example this VIC transormer stuff.
Thats very very old school mixed signal tube amp pulse design stuff.
That doesn´t pop out of nothing within few years o autistic research and experimenting.
So where did Mr. M got that support ?
The way how VIC stuff operates is somewhat above mainstream electrical engineering.
Maybe Mr. M had some telepathic link to Mr. P - like that with Ira Eichhorn ;-(((((
Quote from: dankie on January 25, 2010, 07:27:22 PM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TW3-4NR18M3-4&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1180025111&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1b5129ffda92f1ddce78e0af3eec1550
There is really something special about stainless steel , these articles are not my strong point tho .
I imagine that as molecules bounce around and the tubes surface have the wave action going and trashing and moving is when the 'electrons cross the barrier' . He said of his brother 'quote' , Stan figured out a way to let the electrons cross the barrier .
Puharich said the same , somekind of electron tunneling happening .
So - no cavitation, no ultrasonic, no stepchargin....
So if you have right material, properly passivated......
Quote from: fritz on January 25, 2010, 07:34:58 PM
VIC technology.
Take for example this VIC transormer stuff.
Thats very very old school mixed signal tube amp pulse design stuff.
That doesn´t pop out of nothing within few years o autistic research and experimenting.
So where did Mr. M got that support ?
The way how VIC stuff operates is somewhat above mainstream electrical engineering.
Maybe Mr. M had some telepathic link to Mr. P - like that with Ira Eichhorn ;-(((((
Stan tried alot of things , I contacted a person who met him and posted @ waterfuelcell about an encounter with him . Stan researched and developped the WFC till his death . He made other things too , creative fool ...
He had his research paid by other people , big mistake , happens all the time . People have no patience ... They made a mess of everything , just wasnt meant to be like all the other sad stories .
Quote from: fritz on January 25, 2010, 07:44:58 PM
So - no cavitation, no ultrasonic, no stepchargin....
So if you have right material, properly passivated......
The way I see it , we gotta force that exchange of electrons , with super small things called molecules . Not many ways are offered to us here besides electrical signals and physical movement .
Yeah theres some ultrasonics in the mix , Gauss is right .
If you read the Stephen patent and see parallel with Mr P's .
http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/StephenMeyer/20050246059.pdf
I expect the vibration to be there more in a 3 tube 3 phase cell .
A normal 2 tube cell will slightly vibrate , just as the breaking glass experiment you you right it with the right frequency .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KuwJXMQUdc
It would be nice to see the Steel's surface crystal with a microscope after such a stressful experience .
Quote from: dankie on January 25, 2010, 05:47:59 PM
You posted 2 times part 2 .
Thank you for that feedback Dankie,
we only have a very short period of time to fix anything!
I downloaded my own four files (3+1) as a test,
they unpacked correctly for me, so I don't understand.
I found out this forum at one point had
a 50-Kb per attachment limit. :o :-\
Heck, I've thrown digital cameras away
that made 640x480 picture files larger
than 50-Kb for gosh sakes.
still a shame to use two seperate posts
just to share a (300-Kb) split floppy ...
Reference:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4207.0
Quote from: dankie on January 25, 2010, 07:27:22 PM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TW3-4NR18M3-4&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1180025111&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1b5129ffda92f1ddce78e0af3eec1550
Well - that sounds like a very interesting article....
Has somebody a copy ?
There may be an unreleased reason for The Orion Project backing out of a deal with the current owner of Stanley Meyer’s equipment. I have plans that show how to run an ICE completely off of a water fuel cell WITHOUT the need of ANY gasoline whatsoever. It’s not necessary for me to know how Meyer did it now. I suspect this is why the current owner of Meyer’s equipment is in a hurry to make some money off of it.
I predict the price of oil is going to start dropping soon because this will be the only way to keep people running cars on petroleum based fuels longer. It is now only a matter of time before all of the major energy venders start showing drastic declines in quarterly profits. You can bet that OPEC is completely furious at this latest discovery.
The attempted suppression started a short time after the web sites starting selling the plans to make this new fuel cell. The inventor(s) currently have a patent pending on the new water fuel cell design. They didn’t even wait to secure the patents to release the technology and this is why I suspect the oil companies weren’t able to buy them out. Shortly after selling the plans online, nasty viruses were planted on all the websites preventing people from purchasing and downloading the plans. The affected websites have since been repaired and are back in service currently.
Fossil fuels? I’ve heard of this type of energy technology before. Don’t tell me. Wasn’t this the energy based on petroleum that was so damned expensive and polluted the air we breathe?
P.S. If you currently work for an oil company, you may want to switch jobs before all of your coworkers do ;)
Quote from: chessnyt on February 07, 2010, 09:50:42 AM
Fossil fuels? I’ve heard of this type of energy technology before. Don’t tell me. Wasn’t this the energy based on petroleum that was so damned expensive and polluted the air we breathe?
I can't wait until they make burning raw hydrocarbon fuel in the atmosphere
with exhaust to atmosphere - illegal. I expect this to happen eventually.
No more nasty carbon footprints all over, let what's in the ground stay
there...It's a new day.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: chessnyt on February 07, 2010, 09:50:42 AM
There may be an unreleased reason for The Orion Project backing out of a deal with the current owner of Stanley Meyer’s equipment. I have plans that show how to run an ICE completely off of a water fuel cell WITHOUT the need of ANY gasoline whatsoever. It’s not necessary for me to know how Meyer did it now. I suspect this is why the current owner of Meyer’s equipment is in a hurry to make some money off of it.
I predict the price of oil is going to start dropping soon because this will be the only way to keep people running cars on petroleum based fuels longer. It is now only a matter of time before all of the major energy venders start showing drastic declines in quarterly profits. You can bet that OPEC is completely furious at this latest discovery.
The attempted suppression started a short time after the web sites starting selling the plans to make this new fuel cell. The inventor(s) currently have a patent pending on the new water fuel cell design. They didn’t even wait to secure the patents to release the technology and this is why I suspect the oil companies weren’t able to buy them out. Shortly after selling the plans online, nasty viruses were planted on all the websites preventing people from purchasing and downloading the plans. The affected websites have since been repaired and are back in service currently.
Fossil fuels? I’ve heard of this type of energy technology before. Don’t tell me. Wasn’t this the energy based on petroleum that was so damned expensive and polluted the air we breathe?
P.S. If you currently work for an oil company, you may want to switch jobs before all of your coworkers do ;)
Stfu , you HOBO .
Your just a backyard amateur like all the rest , you are an actor , an scammer .
Quit acting smart over @ energeticforum.com , we know your a fraud and a poor HOBO trying to extort people .
Stop messasing me you noob , I dont work with noob scammers .
Quote from: dankie on February 13, 2010, 04:47:56 PM
Stfu , you HOBO .
Your just a A amateur like all the rest , you are an actor , an scammer .
Quit acting smart over @ energeticforum.com , we know your a fraud and a poor HOBO trying to extort people .
Stop messasing me you noob , I dont work with noob A .
First of all Dinkie, I have never been to the forum you claim I messaged you at and furthermore I have not responded to any of your postings on this forum so there is no way I would EVER personal message you. You are obviously lost in loserville and even Farrah Day points this out very well. Don’t make me put you in your place like Farrah does all the time.
If you want to straighten out nuts, then why don’t you have a little talk with crazy World Order who thinks he’s figure out Meyer!
The plans I am currently building are not Meyers design. They were designed by a Nuclear Physicist by the name of Dr. Steven Eaton, who worked for the National Science Foundation for 23 years. He has had many accomplishments in Physics including being credited with the inventing of early warning nuclear detection devices being used worldwide in power plants today.
Haven’t you realized, Dinkie, that I haven’t yet given a link on where to buy the plans? It’s because I’m not selling anything, you moron. He (Dr. Eaton) has designed a water fuel cell that produces enough HHO gas to run an electric generator which in turn powers his fuel cell leaving a little better than >87% of the generator’s capacity to run other electrical devices at the same time.
I wouldn’t even count on you for the correct time of day let alone electrical knowledge. If you have an ICE that runs on a water fuel cell, then let’s see it? What’s that? No? You don’t have one? I didn’t think so, Dinkie.
Quote from: chessnyt on February 14, 2010, 12:37:00 AM
First of all Dinkie, I have never been to the forum you claim I messaged you at and furthermore I have not responded to any of your postings on this forum so there is no way I would EVER personal message you. You are obviously lost in loserville and even Farrah Day points this out very well. Don’t make me put you in your place like Farrah does all the time.
If you want to straighten out nuts, then why don’t you have a little talk with crazy World Order who thinks he’s figure out Meyer!
The plans I am currently building are not Meyers design. They were designed by a Nuclear Physicist by the name of Dr. Steven Eaton, who worked for the National Science Foundation for 23 years. He has had many accomplishments in Physics including being credited with the inventing of early warning nuclear detection devices being used worldwide in power plants today.
Haven’t you realized, Dinkie, that I haven’t yet given a link on where to buy the plans? It’s because I’m not selling anything, you moron. He (Dr. Eaton) has designed a water fuel cell that produces enough HHO gas to run an electric generator which in turn powers his fuel cell leaving a little better than >87% of the generator’s capacity to run other electrical devices at the same time.
I wouldn’t even count on you for the correct time of day let alone electrical knowledge. If you have an ICE that runs on a water fuel cell, then let’s see it? What’s that? No? You don’t have one? I didn’t think so, Dinkie.
Yes I know , it was to force a response from you .
. PR boy of Tutanka
Does anybody know, who the current owner of the Dune Buggy from Stanley Meyer is ?
Please let me know.
You can also sned this privately if you like via Personal Mail or email.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, somebody has sent me the information of the company that bought the Meyer assets and I am contacting them now
to see, what they will do with the technology.
If I will not hear anything from them in about a week of time, I will publish their name and
publish an open letter over here.
It would not be good, if all the details of the buggy, that runs only on water is
locked away by a private company.
This would not be in the sense of the late Stanley Meyer I guess IMHO.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: chessnyt on January 19, 2010, 10:46:52 PM
Confirmation that his device actually does work comes from his collection of granted U.S. patents on various parts of his water fuel cell system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the U.S. Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by U.S. Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established. If he was a fraud, then the U.S. Patent Office would have to be considered his accomplice.
It would not surprise me one bit if you were on the payroll of the oil industry. The same people who offered Meyer $1 billion dollars to sell out. How much are they paying you? Are they getting a bargain hiring you to try and smear the works of Meyer that could undo their global power and dominance?
The fact that you are attacking the work of a man who was poisoned to death because he wouldn’t sell out makes you and your intentions very obvious. Now go and tell the unholy oil company owner bosses of yours we didn’t buy their first round of disinformation.
This is always one of my favorite comments from idiots. People that are so incredibly stupid that they think that the $200 or so filing fee to get a patent is enough for the patent office to thoroughly verify that every device they grant a patent to actually works. Hint: it doesn't. And there are more things with patents that don't work than that do. In fact, I could patent you. And you don't work. And you will never contribute to society. You will never have anyone that wants you.
Ther is no reason to apologize about having negativity on this. It was PROVEN to be a fraud. There is no debate on it any more any more than you could try to debate that 2+2=5..and I bet you are so f***ing stupid that you would do that too.
O, a post from my old self.
Its funny how I escaped the hydrogen game hunscathed, having all my equipment payed for by a bunch of suckers who bought some wire from me.
I am ready to collaborate on stephen meyers, if somebody has 18 tube cell.
Hi all,
First of all, Stan Meyer's was a scam artist. Remember how he claim a oil company offered him a billion dollars, and he wanted to save the world from these greedy people.
Now, instead what did he do, got patents to sell them himself. Seems Stan Meyer was no different then those he claim to be greedy!
It take more energy to make HHO, then the energy you can get out of it. Total waste of $$$ and cents!
Tom
Quote from: TommeyLReed on August 18, 2014, 02:24:50 PM
Hi all,
First of all, Stan Meyer's was a scam artist. Remember how he claim a oil company offered him a billion dollars, and he wanted to save the world from these greedy people.
Now, instead what did he do, got patents to sell them himself. Seems Stan Meyer was no different then those he claim to be greedy!
It take more energy to make HHO, then the energy you can get out of it. Total waste of $$$ and cents!
Tom
No buddy, if you have a self battery charger then hho is free. :)
Yeah, waste more energy to get less energy out..That's real smart!
From what I can determine this troll's sole purpose is to lead people down blind alley's Tom.
Best to not directly address these types.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 18, 2014, 11:03:36 PM
From what I can determine this troll's sole purpose is to lead people down blind alley's Tom.
Best to not directly address these types.
Regards...
.... :o
Stan Meyers' setup was overunity through a resonant feedback system. This enabled him to produce more energy than what was used in its generation.
Quote from: Bob Smith on August 19, 2014, 10:07:02 AM
Stan Meyers' setup was overunity through a resonant feedback system. This enabled him to produce more energy than what was used in its generation.
Bob to the best of my knowledge Stan Meyer never proved over unity. Do you have reliable data that shows he got over unity?
@MarkE,
then how do you think he drove his Dune Buggy car ?
Do you think he had so many batteries that produced enough HHO gas to drive it this far ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E
Quote from: hartiberlin on August 19, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
@MarkE,
then how do you think he drove his Dune Buggy car ?
Do you think he had so many batteries that produced enough HHO gas to drive it this far ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E
Stefan, that is the beautiful thing about illusions: The illusionist through suggestion and misdirection gets the audience to see what the illusionist wants them to perceive and not his trick. That video shows a dune buggy going down the road. That's it. It doesn't show anything that establishes the fuel source or type. Stan Meyer told his audience a story: That the water he poured into a tank got electrolyzed and was used as the fuel, and that it took very little energy to electrolyze the water.
What is not in dispute: No one has ever reproduced Stan Meyer's over unity electrolysis claims. Many have tried. Stan Meyer's claims run counter to established physics. Stan Meyer was found to have committed an "egregious fraud" upon his investors by an Ohio trial court judge.
While physics will always have room to improve, it takes evidence to get there. Evidence that Stan Meyer was anything more than a con artist is sorely lacking.
Quote from: MarkE on August 19, 2014, 08:45:59 PM
Stefan, that is the beautiful thing about illusions: The illusionist through suggestion and misdirection gets the audience to see what the illusionist wants them to perceive and not his trick. That video shows a dune buggy going down the road. That's it. It doesn't show anything that establishes the fuel source or type. Stan Meyer told his audience a story: That the water he poured into a tank got electrolyzed and was used as the fuel, and that it took very little energy to electrolyze the water.
What is not in dispute: No one has ever reproduced Stan Meyer's over unity electrolysis claims. Many have tried. Stan Meyer's claims run counter to established physics. Stan Meyer was found to have committed an "egregious fraud" upon his investors by an Ohio trial court judge.
While physics will always have room to improve, it takes evidence to get there. Evidence that Stan Meyer was anything more than a con artist is sorely lacking.
hi MarkE,
There was a person mentioned pjkbook.pdf whom is based in India.
He was the only one whom came close in achieving in what Stan Meyer did i think 6lpm using only 0.5Amp at 12volts.After the news he was threaten by many related to the "O" industry.
To protect his family he went silence on his project after that.But he did manage to release tips before the silence.
The old method is to condition the stainless steel rods for few weeks which the surface have been made rough.The oxides will start to form on the inner(outwards) and outer rod(facing inwards).
Once the oxides is formed on tube the current draw will be significantly reduced and the produce of bigger bubble starts to be produced.
Enough with the old method which is waste of time to try."Trust me"
There is this recent discovery which i have seen somewhere in the internet where scientist recently managed to reproduce the bubble production and yet consuming low current without the need to condition the rods for a long period they mentioned 3 months.
They are using
"Super Corona Dope" which is applied on the rod which have been made rough to increase surface area.
Unfortunately i cannot my hands on this stuff outside USA.My >$1000USD hho project was aborted partially due to fire safety concern since i'm living in a high rise apartment with no backyard and after looking into the 1000w generator noise spec around 59db.Imagine running a stupid generator in a high rise apartment while you sleep not forgetting the neighbors. :D :D :D
If you combine the super corona dope on the rods with Dave lawton circuit shown in my youtube:sanjev21.I think the hho output is going to be crazy using low power.
The only hobbyist i know is lasersaber whom used this stuff for his static motor video to prevent arcing and improve performance.
That's all for my 2 cents worth of advise.
Super Corona Dope was something used in TV repair in the days of CRTs. It had some nasty solvents in it like they used to have in plastic airplane model glue.
I am evidence driven. Accounts of people doing one thing or another are fine, but if the claim is extraordinary then it needs evidence more substantial than an anecdote or two. If you think that there is a way to break water molecules into H[sub2[/sub] and O[sub2[/sub] gas that exceeds Faraday efficiency then please post the specifics and I am sure someone will try it out. Just think how valuable such a discovery could be to creating economical energy storage for wind and solar as well as many other applications.
Quote from: MarkE on August 20, 2014, 03:51:10 AM
Super Corona Dope was something used in TV repair in the days of CRTs. It had some nasty solvents in it like they used to have in plastic airplane model glue.
I am evidence driven. Accounts of people doing one thing or another are fine, but if the claim is extraordinary then it needs evidence more substantial than an anecdote or two. If you think that there is a way to break water molecules into H[sub2 and O[sub2 gas that exceeds Faraday efficiency then please post the specifics and I am sure someone will try it out. Just think how valuable such a discovery could be to creating economical energy storage for wind and solar as well as many other applications.
hi MarkE,
That's the word "Faraday" which was mentioned BY the person whom first succeeded in replicating Stanley Meyer.
I no longer kept all the links but i am just showing you some link just base on search "Super Corona Dope"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPQyxdKidxw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPQyxdKidxw)
Try to do google search on "Super Corona Dope" HHO if you are lucky you will be pointed to the rather recent article.
I am just condensing the article down to the key points for anyone whom is interested in this project.
Dave Lawton circuit is also sold in ebay in kit or assembled form.One of my video shows even show you how to fix a bug that came with this circuit.
The pin 12 of pll:4046 can be improved further by using suitable resistor to gnd.During the time of my experiment i merely grounded pin to solve.1 or 2 years later i figured out how roughly to tune pll.
Honestly i am no longer interested in this project since it's got no use for me. ;)
But this project got some serious potentials for those whom are interested.
Curing Super Corona Dope in temp controlled oven is better choice.
That's it from me related to HHO.
magpwr if someone actually succeeded in reproducing against Stan Meyer's claims, then where is the machine? There's no shortage of people anxious to reproduce those claims. The YT video showed current but not voltage or power, and did not show gas volume evolved. There's no way to tell if it's efficiency was good or bad.
Hi all,
Why even talk about old news with Stan Meyer's claims. I call a scam, got me.
Let's look at real data that can be proven, not off the wall here say.
If thousands of good experimentals could not build Stan's HHO circuit that he patented, why are those with no understand of conservation of energy won't put this to rest, got me?
I will say it again, Stan like many wacko's use words like, "Free energy", "Greedy oil companies" and lets not forget using the word of God to scam people.
If you want free energy, I will tell the world how to get it.
Buy a solar panel ( photovoltaic cell), it's cheap and it really works!
Other then that, if history prove me right, others scam artists will be bring up off the wall claims of free energy this coming year.
Just my two cents!
Tom
Tom, I am with you. A judge found he scammed a pair of his investors , and no one has been able to reproduce what he claimed. Still, faith runs eternal. Even John Rohner still has some people giving him money.
Quote from: MarkE on August 20, 2014, 08:36:40 AM
no one has been able to reproduce what he claimed.
There are people in Australia and New Zealand who would beg to differ, and claim that they were freely given Stan's schematics and instructed by Stan himself when he came to New Zealand, and are successfully running systems in their cars. I will not post links. I will not post claims. They are out there. And for every claim, there is someone to disprove it.
In the end, it may come down to their words against yours and those of the legal system.
I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree.
Bob
Quote from: Bob Smith on August 21, 2014, 09:14:41 AM
There are people in Australia and New Zealand who would beg to differ, and claim that they were freely given Stan's schematics and instructed by Stan himself when he came to New Zealand, and are successfully running systems in their cars. I will not post links. I will not post claims. They are out there. And for every claim, there is someone to disprove it.
In the end, it may come down to their words against yours and those of the legal system.
I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree.
Bob
Bob, stories that can't be verified are just stories.
I have difficulty with the logic of a story that says someone or some people have something of immense value but restrict themselves to exploiting only a small value out of it. If the idea is that these people are scared of big oil henchmen, then why undertake risk for a small return? If the scheme worked, small scale use wouldn't remove the threat to big oil interests. The threat would exist as long as anyone knew how to practice the discovery. And if there are big oil henchmen out there for you to fear, why would you publicly announce here that you have information that they would want to suppress? That just doesn't make sense to me.
What does make sense to me is that people like to tell fictional stories. When someone makes a big claim but offers no supporting evidence, I can't think of any good reason to take the claim seriously.
Hi Bob,
I know someone on Mars that claim HHO is for real, this is why it sounds so crazy!
It takes more energy to produce HHO, let's not forget the BTU's that will also generate heat and effect production of this fuel.
I seen so many people talk about LPM production that I have to laugh, at 1kw of energy you will produce 3,412.14 Btu's.
This will super heat this water into steam between the plates.
HHO production have to stay cool to be more efficient. Even a gallon of water will change in temperature of 1 deg for every 8.33 btu, or raise the temperture to 479deg with average water temperature of 70deg in due time at 4312.14 btu's.
Now over untiy here, just a waste of energy!
Quote from: MarkE on August 21, 2014, 09:34:18 AM
Bob, stories that can't be verified are just stories.
I have difficulty with the logic of a story that says someone or some people have something of immense value but restrict themselves to exploiting only a small value out of it. If the idea is that these people are scared of big oil henchmen, then why undertake risk for a small return? If the scheme worked, small scale use wouldn't remove the threat to big oil interests. The threat would exist as long as anyone knew how to practice the discovery. And if there are big oil henchmen out there for you to fear, why would you publicly announce here that you have information that they would want to suppress? That just doesn't make sense to me.
What does make sense to me is that people like to tell fictional stories. When someone makes a big claim but offers no supporting evidence, I can't think of any good reason to take the claim seriously.
I respect you Mark, and your right to disbelief until what you deem solid proof is demonstrated. That's a basic, logical right that should be accorded everyone, as is my right to disagree.
Bob
Most who have discovered the "secrets" abide by
the wisdom of not making loud noises. Silently
maintaining a "low profile" while enjoying the
benefits of technology which the World System
has decided it is not ready for.
As with most "secrets" simplicity is key. There
are many distractions on forums such as these
to assure that the vast majority will not find the
essence. Disinformation which keeps them looking
in all the wrong places.
Meyer obviously did not fully understand what he'd
stumbled upon and he jealously protected the simplicity
of the process by producing ample disinformation.
Unfortunately, his motivations were less than pure.
The Love of Money truly is the root of all which is bad.
A contradiction that is frequently encountered with extraordinary claims is that some of the very same people who go to lengths to promote the claims simultaneously insist that the information must be kept secret. An alternate term for such claims is: myths.
Anyone who promotes any technology while insisting
that it must be kept secret, or who is seeking great
financial reward for the "knowledge" has clearly identified
themselves as being suspicious at the least and probably
dishonest.
The "secret" to Meyer's discovery is certainly not secret;
it has been revealed in several of the echo chambers but
has been largely obscured by noise. Those who have made
their own devices freely share the knowledge amongst
themselves and their associates who are sincere and trusted.
Les Banki is attempting once again to make the technology
understood. Perhaps this time his unique efforts will be
appreciated by all who seek the understanding.
Does this mean that you have a working OU electrolysis set-up such as Stan Meyer claimed?
If you do not have such a set-up, then on what basis do you claim that:
QuoteThe "secret" to Meyer's discovery is certainly not secret;
it has been revealed in several of the echo chambers but
has been largely obscured by noise. Those who have made
their own devices freely share the knowledge amongst
themselves and their associates who are sincere and trusted.
It is not strictly electrolysis.
There are many.
With sufficient patience you too might enjoy success.
HI SeaMonkey,
"It is not strictly electrolysis.", this is just off the wall theories other then electrolysis.
First of all, if you can't backup your claims, then you just look foolish like Stan Meyer did.
Stan's PWM was a simple motor speed controller to control the amps going into the cell, nothing special.
Why I even question these HHO scams, got me. But sometime you have to challenge people theories!
I would ask that anyone who make this claims, prove them!
This forum on scam artist Stan Meyer's is a joke!
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 21, 2014, 09:54:04 PM
It is not strictly electrolysis.
There are many.
With sufficient patience you too might enjoy success.
Call it whatever you like: bananas if it suits you. You either make the extraordinary claim as Stan Meyer did that you can use an electrical process to split water and get more chemical energy out of the resulting H
2 and O
2 gas then electrical energy expended, or you do not. If you don't then it's all moot. If you do then where is the evidence to support your extraordinary claim?
It will all be revealed in due time. Freely.
For the time being only those who are deemed
worthy will be invited into the fold. It is the very
carefully considered decision of the committee.
There are valid reasons for the selectivity.
Sadly, there are not many in this forum who
will be invited. Possibly none.
Pay attention to what is being discussed in the
appropriate thread and comprehension may take
root.
Simplicity is key.
If simplicity is the key...I am the lock.
*awaits RSVP invite*
Regards...
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 21, 2014, 11:30:50 PM
It will all be revealed in due time. Freely.
For the time being only those who are deemed
worthy will be invited into the fold. It is the very
carefully considered decision of the committee.
There are valid reasons for the selectivity.
Sadly, there are not many in this forum who
will be invited. Possibly none.
Pay attention to what is being discussed in the
appropriate thread and comprehension may take
root.
Simplicity is key.
You've hit the: "We've got an incredibly valuable secret.", "You have to become a member of our secret society to learn the secret.", and the "Only the worthy can join our secret society." buttons that are perfect for forming cults. Steorn pushed those buttons too. They kept some people on the line for almost four years. When they finally disbanded their secret society the supposed secrets still hadn't passed. The truth of course was that the only thing that was really secret to the cult members was that like so many other cults, Steorn didn't have the valuable secrets they claimed either.
Have fun in the club house.
Is the decision being made about Stan's HHO setup being fake, based on the fact that no one else has been able to replicate it?(that we know of). If this is the case,then the TPU and the likes must also be fake. Infact,you might aswell throw every !so called! free energy device like the TPU in the bin-dont even bother trying. I mean if confirmation only comes by way of successful replication,then no claimed OU devices works-!right?!.
It's not that things cant be done,it's more that we just dont know how to do it yet-history has shown this time and time again.Remember,the earth use to be flat,but now it has a much better shape. :D
Quote from: tinman on August 22, 2014, 12:46:22 AM
Is the decision being made about Stan's HHO setup being fake, based on the fact that no one else has been able to replicate it?(that we know of). If this is the case,then the TPU and the likes must also be fake. Infact,you might aswell throw every !so called! free energy device like the TPU in the bin-dont even bother trying. I mean if confirmation only comes by way of successful replication,then no claimed OU devices works-!right?!.
It's not that things cant be done,it's more that we just dont know how to do it yet-history has shown this time and time again.Remember,the earth use to be flat,but now it has a much better shape. :D
Demonstrations that reproduce what S. Mark showed are readily arranged. Reproducing the claims is rather difficult.
The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is upon the claimant. What can I tell you: No OU claim to date has been successfully proven. The probability of OU is given our admittedly limited understanding of nature still vanishingly small. For me it is for practical purposes indistinguishable from zero. But it is not an absolute. Appropriate evidence would change my view.
That also doesn't mean that people who believe OU is probable shouldn't try things out. It means they should have realistic expectations that they are going to get a non-OU result. And it means that if they should get a result that seems to be OU that they need to double check very, very carefully. The experience of: devising experiments, conducting experiments, and reviewing experiment data can develop and refine very valuable skills. It can be fun as well.
Extraordinary claims...
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 01:10:56 AM
Demonstrations that reproduce what S. Mark showed are readily arranged. Reproducing the claims is rather difficult.
The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is upon the claimant. What can I tell you: No OU claim to date has been successfully proven. The probability of OU is given our admittedly limited understanding of nature still vanishingly small. For me it is for practical purposes indistinguishable from zero. But it is not an absolute. Appropriate evidence would change my view.
That also doesn't mean that people who believe OU is probable shouldn't try things out. It means they should have realistic expectations that they are going to get a non-OU result. And it means that if they should get a result that seems to be OU that they need to double check very, very carefully. The experience of: devising experiments, conducting experiments, and reviewing experiment data can develop and refine very valuable skills. It can be fun as well.
Would love to see these demondstrations-a clear one.
I have seen many talented people try many times to replicate the TPU,both here,EF and OUR-but to no avail. The device could have been faked quit easly,as i did with that 3 watt akula fake-just without all the un needed crap on the circuit board.
The problem is,when some one actually comes up with something that work's,he will be just placed in the fake bin with all the others. Some time's it's not worth the hassel of going public,and hence the reason there are those that dwell in the hidden group's-such as sea-monkey.
@MARK E:
The exemplary model of a perpetual motion device or motor is found in nature thus our objective has already been achieved before our own realization of this phenomenon.
Before the human conception of stun guns, the electric eel already existed and produced enough electricity to stun its enemies. This creature even preceded the "discovery" of electricity itself - at least the human one.
We also discovered the secrets of aerodynamics and subsequently, human flight, much later than our natural models around us.
So nature reveals secret legitimate concepts in our realm by example and therefore dictates that which is possible.
The Earth itself is a great example of perpetual motion as it has been spinning while orbiting the sun since its beginning. It has been doing this throughout time without the aid of any new power input which qualifies it as a perpetual motion object in and of itself. If it slowed down in either its orbital pattern or its axial spin, then we would soon thereafter lack the ability to survive on this planet. Perpetual motion is in fact key to our very survival and existence within this solar system we co-inhabit.Now I cannot duplicate the solar system, but does this fact negate the fact that our planet is a true example of over unity? Does it make it any less valid or real? I think not.
Regards,
Chess
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 01:43:56 AM
@MARK E:
The exemplary model of a perpetual motion device or motor is found in nature thus our objective has already been achieved before our own realization of this phenomenon.
Before the human conception of stun guns, the electric eel already existed and produced enough electricity to stun its enemies. This creature even preceded the "discovery" of electricity itself - at least the human one.
We also discovered the secrets of aerodynamics and subsequently, human flight, much later than our natural models around us.
So nature reveals secret legitimate concepts in our realm by example and therefore dictates that which is possible.
The Earth itself is a great example of perpetual motion as it has been spinning while orbiting the sun since its beginning. It has been doing this throughout time without the aid of any new power input which qualifies it as a perpetual motion object in and of itself. If it slowed down in either its orbital pattern or its axial spin, then we would soon thereafter lack the ability to survive on this planet. Perpetual motion is in fact key to our very survival and existence within this solar system we co-inhabit.Now I cannot duplicate the solar system, but does this fact negate the fact that our planet is a true example of over unity? Does it make it any less valid or real? I think not.
Regards,
Chess
Where is there evidence that the earth's celestial movements are OU? Earth's orbit is subject to decaying force caused by the sun's atmosphere, offset by the sun's radiation pressure. But for the sun's radiation pressure, IE outside power, the earth's orbit would decay, very, very slowly. Earth is a great example of the efficacy of a large amount of kinetic energy in a very low loss environment. OU is very special, and very unlikely.
Quote from: tinman on August 22, 2014, 01:36:58 AM
Would love to see these demondstrations-a clear one.
I have seen many talented people try many times to replicate the TPU,both here,EF and OUR-but to no avail. The device could have been faked quit easly,as i did with that 3 watt akula fake-just without all the un needed crap on the circuit board.
The problem is,when some one actually comes up with something that work's,he will be just placed in the fake bin with all the others. Some time's it's not worth the hassel of going public,and hence the reason there are those that dwell in the hidden group's-such as sea-monkey.
A TPU is a matter building a power converter with a battery and sticking it inside what looks like a toroidal transformer. Cells like CR123A's would be ideal and could hold up very well.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 01:55:41 AM
Where is there evidence that the earth's celestial movements are OU? Earth's orbit is subject to decaying force caused by the sun's atmosphere, offset by the sun's radiation pressure. But for the sun's radiation pressure, IE outside power, the earth's orbit would decay, very, very slowly. Earth is a great example of the efficacy of a large amount of kinetic energy in a very low loss environment. OU is very special, and very unlikely.
You have made some extraordinary claims, Mark. Where is your proof? Please show us your replication of the solar system? Where are your measurements and test data? If you could just show us all your replication, then we could begin to believe you.
Remember what you always say, "The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is upon the claimant.". So please kindly show us your proof and show us your replication.
Regards,
Chess
Quote from: MarkE
You've hit the: "We've got an incredibly valuable secret.", "You have to become a member of our secret society to learn the secret.", and the "Only the worthy can join our secret society." buttons that are perfect for forming cults. Steorn pushed those buttons too. They kept some people on the line for almost four years. When they finally disbanded their secret society the supposed secrets still hadn't passed. The truth of course was that the only thing that was really secret to the cult members was that like so many other cults, Steorn didn't have the valuable secrets they claimed either.
Have fun in the club house.
Your response was anticipated.
The "secrets" which you're seeking are in plain
view. Whatever it is that prevents you from
"seeing" them is internal to your thought processes.
All who are invited must first pass the ethics and
integrity test. It is not difficult but most do fail.
Once again, Love of Money or all that it can buy
is a great obstacle for the vast majority.
Digest what Les Banki has recently provided.
@Mark E:
Replication seems to be very important to you so you must have attempted to replicate Stan's demonstration fuel cell, right? Could you at least show your attempted replication of Meyer's cell?
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 02:06:32 AM
You have made some extraordinary claims, Mark. Where is your proof? Please show us your replication of the solar system? Where are your measurements and test data? If you could just show us all your replication, then we could begin to believe you.
Remember what you always say, "The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is upon the claimant.". So please kindly show us your proof and show us your replication.
Regards,
Chess
My statements are in line with accepted science. What do you find extraordinary about them?
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 22, 2014, 02:27:41 AM
Your response was anticipated.
The "secrets" which you're seeking are in plain
view. Whatever it is that prevents you from
"seeing" them is internal to your thought processes.
Well if they are in plain view and you don't mind others seeing them, then would you do Stefan a favor and let him in on the secret as a token of your appreciation for his hosting this site? Because I am sure he is very anxious to see a working OU device.
Quote
All who are invited must first pass the ethics and
integrity test. It is not difficult but most do fail.
I trust that Stefan qualifies as ethical enough.
Quote
Once again, Love of Money or all that it can buy
is a great obstacle for the vast majority.
Digest what Les Banki has recently provided.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 02:56:23 AM
@Mark E:
Replication seems to be very important to you so you must have attempted to replicate Stan's demonstration fuel cell, right? Could you at least show your attempted replication of Meyer's cell?
We have thousands of examples of ordinary electrolysis including careful measurements that confirm the Faraday limit. Someone such as Stanley Meyer or anyone else who wishes to promote a claim of electrolysis at better than the Faraday limit bears the burden of providing strong evidence for their claim that contradicts so much established experience. Replication is important evidence needed to support extraordinary claims. The burden of such evidence falls on the claimant. Since I do not make Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims I do not bear such a burden.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 04:57:19 AM
We have thousands of examples of ordinary electrolysis including careful measurements that confirm the Faraday limit. Someone such as Stanley Meyer or anyone else who wishes to promote a claim of electrolysis at better than the Faraday limit bears the burden of providing strong evidence for their claim that contradicts so much established experience. Replication is important evidence needed to support extraordinary claims. The burden of such evidence falls on the claimant. Since I do not make Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims I do not bear such a burden.
Couldn't of worded it better my self. As Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
It is NOT an extraordinary claim to NOT have OU, so why are we always asked to disprove others extraordinary claims? its funny huh
It would be like saying that the earth is square and its up to everyone else to disprove it, but not me to prove it, its just insane
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 04:57:19 AM
We have thousands of examples of ordinary electrolysis including careful measurements that confirm the Faraday limit. Someone such as Stanley Meyer or anyone else who wishes to promote a claim of electrolysis at better than the Faraday limit bears the burden of providing strong evidence for their claim that contradicts so much established experience. Replication is important evidence needed to support extraordinary claims. The burden of such evidence falls on the claimant. Since I do not make Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims I do not bear such a burden.
I asked the question to find out if you had attempted specifically to replicate Stan Meyer's demo cell. You still haven't answered the question. The question was way too technical in nature for you. I am very sorry I have overestimated your ability to comprehend simple questions. My bad. Let me ask you in simpler terms then.
Have you ever bought stainless steel tubes (a total of 18) and arranged them (housed them) in a plastic tube so as to match the fuel cell that Stanley Meyer made for demonstration purposes? Now if you have, could you show your replication?
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 08:39:24 AM
I asked the question to find out if you had attempted specifically to replicate Stan Meyer's demo cell. You still haven't answered the question. The question was way too technical in nature for you. I am very sorry I have overestimated your ability to comprehend simple questions. My bad. Let me ask you in simpler terms then.
I thought I made it clear why there has never been any reason that I or anyone else who adheres to the well demonstrated Faraday limit should undertake such an endeavor. I thought that I made it clear that when we have a strong body of evidence backing our current understanding, that it is up to someone who challenges that understanding to supply strong evidence. If you did not find that a clear enough expression of "No", then I apologize for any confusion.
Quote
Have you ever bought stainless steel tubes (a total of 18) and arranged them (housed them) in a plastic tube so as to match the fuel cell that Stanley Meyer made for demonstration purposes? Now if you have, could you show your replication?
No, I have not. As I have explained, there was never any reason that I should. Electrolysis is well understood and documented.
I have already said.
I am ready to collaborate if somebody wants to make an 18 cell tube.
6 sets, triple tube.
as per Stephen Meyers.
The weak and incompetents argue , the strong and real experimenters make things.
So many buttheads on the net these days, arguing over this and that and politics.
O wise Dankie, was on the right track.
Will you continue his work and put the work in yes or no ?
If no then STFU.
@Mark E:
It was a simple yes or no question. I didn't ask for your views on electrolysis, claims you were making or for a speech on something you have posted like salt and pepper all the way through this forum. We all have your rant on claims and who is responsible for them as I noted earlier.
But thank you for the actual "no" response.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 22, 2014, 09:36:21 AM
I have already said.
I am ready to collaborate if somebody wants to make an 18 cell tube.
6 sets, triple tube.
as per Stephen Meyers.
The weak and incompetents argue , the strong and real experimenters make things.
What is the null hypothesis that you intend to falsify? If you have an exact specification of a device that Meyer built, then the null hypothesis can be that the device worked as claimed when constructed to the specifications that you have. If you do not have such specifications, then you will need to select a different null hypothesis to falsify. That could be for example: "Electrolysis cannot deliver more energy out than in." You can then attempt to build a unit with whatever information that you have in hopes that you will be able to demonstrate over unity and therefore falsify the null hypothesis.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 09:46:43 AM
@Mark E:
It was a simple yes or no question. I didn't ask for your views on electrolysis, claims you were making or for a speech on something you have posted like salt and pepper all the way through this forum. We all have your rant on claims and who is responsible for them as I noted earlier.
But thank you for the actual "no" response.
Are you really complaining that I explained my answer? Do you disagree with the notion that it is up to those who make extraordinary claims to prove their claims? Why do you consider expressing the position that it is their responsibility to be a rant? Whose responsibility could it possibly be? And why do you think that?
I was always taught to never answer a question with a question.
I guess because it wood make e person look evasive.
Regards...
MarkE, let somebody build a Stephen Meyers design and waste his money.
I would like an old rich retired guy with Hydrogen fixation to continue the legacy of O wise Dankie.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 09:51:59 AM
Are you really complaining that I explained my answer? Do you disagree with the notion that it is up to those who make extraordinary claims to prove their claims? Why do you consider expressing the position that it is their responsibility to be a rant? Whose responsibility could it possibly be? And why do you think that?
Well Mark, thank you for asking my opinion. Here it is. You have already "explained yourself" quite thoroughly throughout various threads you have posted in here on this forum. I am sure there is no clarity needed concerning your views on responsibility. I consider your answer a "rant" when it appears throughout a thread over and over again. Check this thread. Perhaps you are unaware that you repeat yourself again, again and still again (redundancy).
Whose responsibility is it to prove "extraordinary claims"? It is obviously the claimant, as you have repeated over and over again (which most should know by now by heart). Do I believe this is correct? YES, it should go without saying.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 10:05:00 AM
Well Mark, thank you for asking my opinion. Here it is. You have already "explained yourself" quite thoroughly throughout various threads you have posted in here on this forum. I am sure there is no clarity needed concerning your views on responsibility. I consider your answer a "rant" when it appears throughout a thread over and over again. Check this thread. Perhaps you are unaware that you repeat yourself again, again and still again (redundancy).
Whose responsibility is it to prove "extraordinary claims"? It is obviously the claimant, as you have repeated over and over again (which most should know by now by heart). Do I believe this is correct? YES, it should go without saying.
well that point of view seems to be at odds with the questions you asked:
Quote@Mark E:
Replication seems to be very important to you so you must have attempted to replicate Stan's demonstration fuel cell, right? Could you at least show your attempted replication of Meyer's cell?
If you recognize that the burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claim why would you conclude that I have ever had any reason to replicate Stan Meyer's set-ups when I do not promote his claims? What was your reasoning behind your stated assumption that I must have done that?
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 10:11:24 AM
well that point of view seems to be at odds with the questions you asked:
If you recognize that the burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claim why would you conclude that I have ever had any reason to replicate Stan Meyer's set-ups when I do not promote his claims? What was your reasoning behind your stated assumption that I must have done that?
Because many people here are actual builders and I was just curious to see if you were one of them (at least when it came to electrolysis). I didn't ask you to prove ANY claim concerning electrolysis. The answer I was looking for was "yes" or "no", minus the standard rant we all have memorized.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 10:11:24 AM
well that point of view seems to be at odds with the questions you asked:
If you recognize that the burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claim why would you conclude that I have ever had any reason to replicate Stan Meyer's set-ups when I do not promote his claims? What was your reasoning behind your stated assumption that I must have done that?
Your logic is sound. If I were you I wouldn't feed the trolls any more. Whats the point? You are clearly right in everything you have said.
Like you have said, the burden is on the person/s making extraordinary claim/s and not everyone else. He even admitted that, so what ever he has to say (bar an apology) isn't worth replying to.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 10:18:10 AM
Because many people here are actual builders and I was just curious to see if you were one of them (at least when it came to electrolysis). I didn't ask you to prove ANY claim concerning electrolysis. The answer I was looking for was "yes" or "no", minus the standard rant we all have memorized.
Chesnyt that is all fine and well but you have not answered my question. I have been polite enough to answer your questions. Kindly answer mine:
QuoteIf you recognize that the burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claim why would you conclude that I have ever had any reason to replicate Stan Meyer's set-ups when I do not promote his claims? What was your reasoning behind your stated assumption that I must have done that?
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 10:27:26 AM
Chesnyt that is all fine and well but you have not answered my question. I have been polite enough to answer your questions. Kindly answer mine:
I already answered your question. Think hard and figure it out, please. And thanks :)
Chesnyt I am afraid you did not address my question. Perhaps if we run through it one more time.
You asked:
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 02:56:23 AM
@Mark E:
Replication seems to be very important to you so you must have attempted to replicate Stan's demonstration fuel cell, right? Could you at least show your attempted replication of Meyer's cell?
Your question states the predicate assumption that: "you must have attempted to replicate Stan's demonstration fuel cell". You separately state that you agree with the premise that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims falls only upon the claimant. But, since I have never claimed that Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims are true, there is no extraordinary claim on my part that is served by replicating his devices. So how is it you came up with your predicate assumption that I "must have" done so?
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 12:07:00 PM
Chesnyt I am afraid you did not address my question. Perhaps if we run through it one more time.
You asked:
Your question states the predicate assumption that: "you must have attempted to replicate Stan's demonstration fuel cell". You separately state that you agree with the premise that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims falls only upon the claimant. But, since I have never claimed that Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims are true, there is no extraordinary claim on my part that is served by replicating his devices. So how is it you came up with your predicate assumption that I "must have" done so?
I have already answered your question. I understand that it is hard for you to answer a simple "yes" or "no" question, thus it doesn't surprise me that you do not understand an answer that required more information than yes or no.
Sadly, you have made it obvious that your predicate was disingenuous. Such is life.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 12:47:40 PM
Sadly, you have made it obvious that your predicate was disingenuous. Such is life.
Sadly, there are those who would love to put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions based on speculation, but such is life.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 22, 2014, 09:36:21 AM
I am ready to collaborate if somebody wants to make an 18 cell tube.
6 sets, triple tube.
as per Stephen Meyers.
Stan and Stephen have their reasons for using
those types of configurations but they're not
necessary and are not recommended for early
stage efforts. The cells used to perfect the
driving techniques may be of simplest construction.
Once that process is well understood then there are
numerous ways to accomplish increased surface area.
Regarding the concept of Proof: The most persuasive
proofs are those attained by those who are seeking
proof. While it may be convenient to observe proofs
which others have attained there may yet remain doubts
or suspicions. In order to remove all doubts the proofs
must be accomplished by each who would seek Truth and
the satisfaction which it imparts.
There is no need to attempt to persuade others in
sophistic debate. Those who are unable to believe in
certain possibilities are not prepared to seek truth.
Let them be.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 12:59:23 PM
Sadly, there are those who would love to put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions based on speculation, but such is life.
Chessnyt, no one put any words into your mouth. I directly and politely asked you to offer your justification for your assertion that I "must have" replicated Stan Meyer's contraption several times. Each time you declined. You have already agreed that proof such as replication is a burden of someone who makes extraordinary claims. And we all know that I do not claim Stan Meyer's device worked as claimed. Ergo there was never any motivation for me to replicate his device in order to try and prove it worked as he claimed. Ergo there is no reason to believe that I "must have" executed such a replication. Ergo your assertion that I "must have" executed such a replication had no basis in fact. You tacitly confirmed that you knew as much before you made your false assertion by your repeated refusals to offer any reason for that assertion. Try to spin it any way you like.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 22, 2014, 01:33:57 PM
Stan and Stephen have their reasons for using
those types of configurations but they're not
necessary and are not recommended for early
stage efforts. The cells used to perfect the
driving techniques may be of simplest construction.
Once that process is well understood then there are
numerous ways to accomplish increased surface area.
Regarding the concept of Proof: The most persuasive
proofs are those attained by those who are seeking
proof. While it may be convenient to observe proofs
which others have attained there may yet remain doubts
or suspicions. In order to remove all doubts the proofs
must be accomplished by each who would seek Truth and
the satisfaction which it imparts.
There is no need to attempt to persuade others in
sophistic debate. Those who are unable to believe in
certain possibilities are not prepared to seek truth.
Let them be.
That sounds like a slight variation on the tried and true: "Only the worthy can see the emperor's fine clothes." and "Only those who first believe can see the evidence." Those were favorite tactics of the crew at Steorn.
Quote from: MarkE
That sounds like a slight variation on the tried and true: "Only the worthy can see the emperor's fine clothes." and "Only those who first believe can see the evidence." Those were favorite tactics of the crew at Steorn.
Actually, it is more about "choices."
In the final analysis we are held back by our own
fears or perceptions or desires.
So long as you entertain the fear of being ridiculed
by your "peers" your growth will cease.
So long as you see the Status Quo as your definition
of Reality you are content with your false sense of
security.
You may be hopeless until your eyes are opened.
What are you afraid of?
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 01:44:44 PM
Chessnyt, no one put any words into your mouth. I directly and politely asked you to offer your justification for your assertion that I "must have" replicated Stan Meyer's contraption several times. Each time you declined. You have already agreed that proof such as replication is a burden of someone who makes extraordinary claims. And we all know that I do not claim Stan Meyer's device worked as claimed. Ergo there was never any motivation for me to replicate his device in order to try and prove it worked as he claimed. Ergo there is no reason to believe that I "must have" executed such a replication. Ergo your assertion that I "must have" executed such a replication had no basis in fact. You tacitly confirmed that you knew as much before you made your false assertion by your repeated refusals to offer any reason for that assertion. Try to spin it any way you like.
You publicly admit you haven't built Stanley Meyer's system so you would be the last person I would listen to in regards to his system working or not. You're simply an armchair quarterback with NO practical experience with Meyer's system. The world is full of people like you. Acting like experts without actually getting off their lazy butts and building it. I can get the same information you have to offer in a $2 almanac so that's what your words and advice are worth to me. $2.
The world is full of people reciting things out of books (like parrots) and then claiming things that may or may not be true. People just like you said, at one point in time, that it was impossible for airplanes to fly. People just like yourself used to spout things like the world is flat and the rings of Saturn are perfectly concentric. Everything written in a book is subject to modification. After all, it was written by an imperfect man (unless you are claiming some authors actually walked on water).
If the men that actually get off their asses and build things would have listened to you, we would not have United Airlines and the convenience of being able to travel great distances in a short amount of time.
I'm not in the least impressed that you can recite like a parrot. My parrot can do that too and I don't have to pay him either.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 22, 2014, 02:24:34 PM
Actually, it is more about "choices."
In the final analysis we are held back by our own
fears or perceptions or desires.
So long as you entertain the fear of being ridiculed
by your "peers" your growth will cease.
So long as you see the Status Quo as your definition
of Reality you are content with your false sense of
security.
You may be hopeless until your eyes are opened.
What are you afraid of?
Fantasy paraded as reality is not a good thing.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
You publicly admit you haven't built Stanley Meyer's system so you would be the last person I would listen to in regards to his system working or not. You're simply an armchair quarterback with NO practical experience with Meyer's system. The world is full of people like you. Acting like experts without actually getting off their lazy butts and building it. I can get the same information you have to offer in a $2 almanac so that's what your words and advice are worth to me. $2.
And out come more ad hominem attacks: nice. The interesting point here is how quickly you have moved away from your agreement that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims falls on the claimant, because what is ordinary already has well established evidence.
Quote
The world is full of people reciting things out of books (like parrots) and then claiming things that may or may not be true. People just like you said, at one point in time, that it was impossible for airplanes to fly. People just like yourself used to spout things like the world is flat and the rings of Saturn are perfectly concentric. Everything written in a book is subject to modification. After all, it was written by an imperfect man (unless you are claiming some authors actually walked on water).
Now you add men of straw to your ad hominem attacks. I am evidence driven. Produce evidence of something extraordinary and I am happy to look. Have a question about how to test an idea even outlandish ones and I often offer help. But make extraordinary claims that lack evidence, and I treat them for what they are: fanciful stories.
Quote
If the men that actually get off their asses and build things would have listened to you, we would not have United Airlines and the convenience of being able to travel great distances in a short amount of time.
I'm not in the least impressed that you can recite like a parrot. My parrot can do that too and I don't have to pay him either.
More ad hom attacks: they're boring. They are unproductive.
@Everyone:
Stan Meyer's original patent was rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO examiners didn't believe he had anything other than standard Faraday electrolysis, so the original patent application was denied. Stan then filed an appeal, which due to this appeal process, US Patent Office examiners were forced to allow Meyer to demonstrate his now famous "Demo Cell" at the patent office in Washington DC at a special hearing. Meyer convinced all of the US Patent Office examiners in attendance (and their seconded experts) that his technology was in fact far more efficient than Faraday electrolysis thus awarding him his patent as a result of the findings of this appeals hearing.
There always seems to be the same pattern in all of these threads that claim that known physics has been proven wrong-they never actually prove it. There is always some catch,such as-you must be a believer before we share the secret,or-you have built it wrong,thus the reason you are not getting the results that we have.
Time and time again,those who make the claim avoid presenting proof via way of an endless game of mouth tennis with those that stand by known physics. Then comes the shift,where those that stand by the known and proven become the bad guy's. This is where the claiments make there escape,and dont have to present something they dont have. This gives them a means of escape from the hole they dug themself into. We see this all the time-time and time again-the same old same old.
Why come to a forum like this,and post devices that you are never prepaired to show-or prove?
Why make claimes that you can NEVER back up?.
Why the endless games of mouth tennis with those that simply ask you to back up your claims,and prove physics wrong?.
The answer is simple-you are simply all talk-no action-because you have no action to show. You are board and cannot/do not have anything to show,but more so,live in a dream land-an endless fantasy that was created by one man.
Im off to read the bible.
Quote from: tinman on August 22, 2014, 09:54:03 PM
There always seems to be the same pattern in all of these threads that claim that known physics has been proven wrong-they never actually prove it. There is always some catch,such as-you must be a believer before we share the secret,or-you have built it wrong,thus the reason you are not getting the results that we have.
Time and time again,those who make the claim avoid presenting proof via way of an endless game of mouth tennis with those that stand by known physics. Then comes the shift,where those that stand by the known and proven become the bad guy's. This is where the claiments make there escape,and dont have to present something they dont have. This gives them a means of escape from the hole they dug themself into. We see this all the time-time and time again-the same old same old.
Why come to a forum like this,and post devices that you are never prepaired to show-or prove?
Why make claimes that you can NEVER back up?.
Why the endless games of mouth tennis with those that simply ask you to back up your claims,and prove physics wrong?.
The answer is simple-you are simply all talk-no action-because you have no action to show. You are board and cannot/do not have anything to show,but more so,live in a dream land-an endless fantasy that was created by one man.
Im off to read the bible.
The moth tenis is your own fault. You are acusing others but you are a player too in all this man. If you're sick and tired of the thread, get out! Or do you have no life to speak of and you are what you acuse others of. I do not see the guy asking for money or tryn to pul a scam so what is your excuse to play into this when you are just what you claim him to be. Go yread your hypocite book and get lost.
I believe everything has a reason why things happen in this world and that is the secret of GOD.
And therefore everyone should know which is the right thing to follow.
and from there the BIBLE is the LIGHT FOR ALL OF US to see the way. :)
This forum is a mixture of good and evil therefore we should know which is right and wrong and get only the truth to build the right thing. ;)
TITS :)
Quote from: chessnyt on August 22, 2014, 08:28:59 PM
@Everyone:
Stan Meyer's original patent was rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO examiners didn't believe he had anything other than standard Faraday electrolysis, so the original patent application was denied. Stan then filed an appeal, which due to this appeal process, US Patent Office examiners were forced to allow Meyer to demonstrate his now famous "Demo Cell" at the patent office in Washington DC at a special hearing. Meyer convinced all of the US Patent Office examiners in attendance (and their seconded experts) that his technology was in fact far more efficient than Faraday electrolysis thus awarding him his patent as a result of the findings of this appeals hearing.
It is a commonly held misconception that a granted patent means that the subject invention does what its inventor claims. This is not true. Many, many patents have been granted for inventions that do not work. The patent office is required by law to give wide berth to claims. The rules for rejecting a patent because the examiner does not beleive the invention can work are very restrictive and weighted very heavily in favor of the applicant.
One of the requirements for getting a patent grant is that the examiner must be convinced that a person of ordinary skill in the art can practice the claims without "undue experimentation". Given that in over 20 years no one has shown that they can reproduce Stanley Meyer's extraordinary claims one may reasonably conclude that the same person who an Ohio judge declared had committed an "egregious fraud" failed to enable his patent applications. An unenabled application is readily defeated in court. So, did Stan Meyer sabotage his own patent applications? Or is the far simpler explanation the correct one: He did not have what he claimed.
@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories.
The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day. On this point I agree with Oscar. They have no life or they wouldn't have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress. They are talkers and not doers. They have no friends because they have no people skills. They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates. They don't build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity. This is not their purpose. They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships). They pretend they don't care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance. They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned. They always chose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb. They NEVER actually contribute to a replication. Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters. Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.
The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way. They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research. They are the doers and not just talkers. They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts. They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed "laws" of physics. Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with. Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt. They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord. They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on. They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes. They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the "good guys" of the forum. They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible. Some just get a kick out of it. Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.
Now will the builders please step forward?
Regards,
Chess
One reason that so few have succeeded in duplicating
Meyer's work is that Meyer himself didn't fully understand
what was happening and couldn't positively isolate the
critical pulse characteristics. State of the art devices
and technology have improved considerably since the
time Stan was developing the driver circuits.
His pulsing devices, for the most part, utilized Bipolar
Transistors which have certain drawbacks. Today it is
possible to use MOSFETs with high speed drivers to
better generate the necessary pulses.
So what is the "secret?" Very sharp pulses of an optimal
pulse width at an optimum frequency modulated at an
optimum rate into bursts of the optimum number of pulses
with an optimal rest period between bursts.
The amplitude of the pulses should also be adjustable in
order to determine the most efficient peak voltage.
Those who have adequate knowledge of electronic circuits
and devices should rather easily be able to devise a circuit
with suitable adjustments to accomplish that task.
Begin tests with a simple cell consisting of just two electrodes
and spend the needed time patiently searching for results.
Once the phenomenon is observed and carefully evaluated
it may be possible to devise control circuitry to automatically
'scan and lock.' One of Meyer's circuits was designed to do
just that.
Do not rely on Meyer's circuits to produce the best results,
however. Be creative and improve upon his designs since
they were sometimes unreliable and difficult to adjust.
Examine the materials that Les Banki has generously provided.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.0)
If you really want it, go get it. As inexpensively as possible.
Simplicity is key.
Chessnyt,
Your analysis above is right on the mark!
Thank you, Sea Monkey. I will try some additional experimentation with these tips in mind. I also need to look at the Les Banki material as well. Would you kindly refer me to the thread in which Les shares his insights?
Thanks in advance,
Chess
You are very much welcome.
Look Here. (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.0)
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 23, 2014, 01:12:26 AM
One reason that so few have succeeded in duplicating
Meyer's work is that Meyer himself didn't fully understand
what was happening and couldn't positively isolate the
critical pulse characteristics. State of the art devices
and technology have improved considerably since the
time Stan was developing the driver circuits.
"So few", is a total of zero proven cases to date.
Quote
His pulsing devices, for the most part, utilized Bipolar
Transistors which have certain drawbacks. Today it is
possible to use MOSFETs with high speed drivers to
better generate the necessary pulses.
Bipolar devices, properly driven are faster than MOS devices. The huge advantage of MOS devices is the high power gains that they afford compared to pure bipolar.
Quote
So what is the "secret?" Very sharp pulses of an optimal
pulse width at an optimum frequency modulated at an
optimum rate into bursts of the optimum number of pulses
with an optimal rest period between bursts.
The amplitude of the pulses should also be adjustable in
order to determine the most efficient peak voltage.
Those who have adequate knowledge of electronic circuits
and devices should rather easily be able to devise a circuit
with suitable adjustments to accomplish that task.
If this is in fact so then someone should be able to demonstrate that the claim is true.
Quote
Begin tests with a simple cell consisting of just two electrodes
and spend the needed time patiently searching for results.
Once the phenomenon is observed and carefully evaluated
it may be possible to devise control circuitry to automatically
'scan and lock.' One of Meyer's circuits was designed to do
just that.
Do not rely on Meyer's circuits to produce the best results,
however. Be creative and improve upon his designs since
they were sometimes unreliable and difficult to adjust.
Examine the materials that Les Banki has generously provided.
If you really want it, go get it. As inexpensively as possible.
Simplicity is key.
Chessnyt,
Your analysis above is right on the mark!
One might take note of whose statements conform to the truth over time and whose do not. One might take note of who relies on demonizing those they disagree with and who does not. There is nothing wrong with speculative ideas, even wildly speculative ideas. Evidence drives what we understand and separates it from our fancies.
hi MarkE,
Previously i spoke of a inventor in India whom conditioned cell to get some oxide coating on tube to improve efficiency to exceed Faraday.The only person whom came close to Stanley Meyer's.
This time i shall show you this commercial video seen in gizmodo using nickel oxide to achieve the same feat.For demo they are just using 1xAAA to get Hydrogen from water.
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-pulled-hydrogen-from-water-using-an-aaa-batt-1625507145 (http://gizmodo.com/scientists-pulled-hydrogen-from-water-using-an-aaa-batt-1625507145)
Still living in the dark?
Quote from: OscarMeyer on August 22, 2014, 11:04:03 PM
The moth tenis is your own fault. You are acusing others but you are a player too in all this man. If you're sick and tired of the thread, get out! Or do you have no life to speak of and you are what you acuse others of. I do not see the guy asking for money or tryn to pul a scam so what is your excuse to play into this when you are just what you claim him to be. Go yread your hypocite book and get lost.
What i do peanut,is post actual build's,with actual result's.I write and comment on what i see,and i see a whole lot of talk(and dribble from people like your self)and no action. You make a claim,you put forth your evidence,not just pollywaffle on and on. Im guessing you are board,and just had to throw in your two cent's worth,while i base my statements on experiments done-yes,my own HHO experiments.
So go take your nap now,unless of course you can show an over faraday HHO system-bet ya cant,but that is no supprise.
Quote from: magpwr on August 23, 2014, 05:45:51 AM
hi MarkE,
Previously i spoke of a inventor in India whom conditioned cell to get some oxide coating on tube to improve efficiency to exceed Faraday.The only person whom came close to Stanley Meyer's.
This time i shall show you this commercial video seen in gizmodo using nickel oxide to achieve the same feat.For demo they are just using 1xAAA to get Hydrogen from water.
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-pulled-hydrogen-from-water-using-an-aaa-batt-1625507145 (http://gizmodo.com/scientists-pulled-hydrogen-from-water-using-an-aaa-batt-1625507145)
Still living in the dark?
magpwr the Stanford innovation is not being able to electrolyze water with 1.5V potential. That is already well established art. Ideally, 1.23V is all that is required and one can get there or very, very close with expensive anode and cathode materials. The Stanford innovation is electrolyzing water at 1.5V with much cheaper anode and cathode materials than others have previously used.
Quote from: MarkE on August 23, 2014, 05:59:46 AM
magpwr the Stanford innovation is not being able to electrolyze water with 1.5V potential. That is already well established art. Ideally, 1.23V is all that is required and one can get there or very, very close with expensive anode and cathode materials. The Stanford innovation is electrolyzing water at 1.5V with much cheaper anode and cathode materials than others have previously used.
@ Mark
I have never seen any benefit at all in all my HHO testing,that shows that 1.5 volt's is the optimal voltage-or any low voltage for that matter,for producing HHO. It always add's up to being the same watt's input,for tha same amount of gas produced by the same cell. If we go heavy on the Elite,and use a low voltage,we may get X amount of gas production per watt. If we go lite on the Elite,and use a higher voltage,we still get X amount of HHO per watt. I have never seen any benefit for using low voltage. I also built the Dave Lawton circuit,and tested that with my 7 tube cell,and after days of tuning and trying all mannor of frequencies and pulse width's,i managed to get my cells to ring in resonance. Even then,i got a better output from the same cell using the same amount of power on a straight DC current. Lawton's circuit has since been used for part's-a big waste of time. I then spent many hours and dollars building the altinator setup,and did get better results with that one-infact it was the closest i got to faraday with any of my setups-even better than my eleven plate dry cell. 2.62 watt hours for 1LTR of HHO was my best yet. Looking back on my note's,i ran the cell so as each tube had 5.5 volt's across them,and used KOH as the Elite.
Data is always good. For a given set of electrodes and electrolyte dialing the voltage around probably won't change the production versus power until the voltage is so low that you don't produce any gas, or the voltage is so high that you start getting big I2*R losses, or worse get arcing. These guys are altering the electrodes to minimize the effective I2*R losses that the electrodes impose. Overcoming that loss was sort of the idea with the pulsing in the 2005 Japanese paper. The single alkaline cell is a good marketing visual.
Hi Mark,
I would not waste my time explaining anything to these clowns that are making any claims on HHO, it was a scam when Stan Meyer did it, and it will be in the future also.
For anyone to think that they can but 1kw into a HHO cell, and expect the same mechanical output in a engine is just fooling themselves. HHO is a total scam, some people just can't except these facts!
If you put any amount of energy into a HHO, you will get far less energy back...How many time can you say this is a stupid claim!
Tom
Chessynt,
I see that you dared challenge o wise Dankie in the past.
You have no right to call out the builders, you are the essence of weakness.
Only I have that right, since I created the Stephen Meyers driver.
The only novel thing, that is worth building, is that setup.
So will the builders step up to the plate and pursue the legacy of O wise Dankie
Quote from: TommeyLReed on August 23, 2014, 08:04:35 AM
Hi Mark,
I would not waste my time explaining anything to these clowns that are making any claims on HHO, it was a scam when Stan Meyer did it, and it will be in the future also.
For anyone to think that they can but 1kw into a HHO cell, and expect the same mechanical output in a engine is just fooling themselves. HHO is a total scam, some people just can't except these facts!
If you put any amount of energy into a HHO, you will get far less energy back...How many time can you say this is a stupid claim!
Tom
Tom with regards to efficiency of electrolysis by any means, what you say is certainly the available experience.
I am trying to learn to be more patient and diplomatic with others. I get lots of opportunity for practice here.
Quote from: TommeyLReed on August 23, 2014, 08:04:35 AM
Hi Mark,
I would not waste my time explaining anything to these clowns that are making any claims on HHO, it was a scam when Stan Meyer did it, and it will be in the future also.
For anyone to think that they can but 1kw into a HHO cell, and expect the same mechanical output in a engine is just fooling themselves. HHO is a total scam, some people just can't except these facts!
If you put any amount of energy into a HHO, you will get far less energy back...How many time can you say this is a stupid claim!
Tom
Tom, a oeps?
Who is talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXAtgWytw64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXAtgWytw64)
Did you build the combination Ex- /Implosion, we did do, or did you not, so just talking?
Regards, Johan
Quote from: tinman on August 23, 2014, 05:48:51 AM
What i do peanut,is post actual build's,with actual result's.I write and comment on what i see,and i see a whole lot of talk(and dribble from people like your self)and no action. You make a claim,you put forth your evidence,not just pollywaffle on and on. Im guessing you are board,and just had to throw in your two cent's worth,while i base my statements on experiments done-yes,my own HHO experiments.
So go take your nap now,unless of course you can show an over faraday HHO system-bet ya cant,but that is no supprise.
Where is your overuntiy build tinfoil man? I must have mised it huh? you big hypocrit! I dont see any building going on in your last post to chesnyt and me. all I have to say is everybody go back and reread post #138, catagory #1!!!!!!!!! that is what you and all the other jibber jabbers are!
Silence, all of you.
No more excuses, no more arguing.
Time to continue legacy of O wise Dankie.
Here is the accompanying text of when I explained my circuits.
I developped this circuits for the free energy quantum type experiments.
It is a 3 phase sine wave generator/oscillator mixed with an amplifier.
Amplifier works in A MODE, continous current flow, this is because transformers will introduce a phase angle between current and this will usually **** things up if there is every a infinite Z situation as in AB mode. Transistors dont like phase angles between voltage and current. There is always a small opening in the valve so to speak, all external noise and SMPS (if you dont use battery) noise should theoretically be cancelled out.
It is auto self-matching, you will not have to match mosfets since the amplifiers will auto regulate that, wich means that your centre tap transformer will not be become saturated by unequal static currents.
THIS IS MEANT TO BE USED @ FULL AMPLITUDE, LOWERING THE AMPLITUDE WILL SEND IDLE CURRENT SKY HIGH, THIS IS NOT AN AUDIO AMP. NOTICE IS A SIMULATED OFFSET SINE WAVE ???
Also, I have included a pulse train generator, that will never send incomplete
pulses when the gate turns on, it will either finish its current pulse or not send it.
Happy experimenting.
And here is the patent, in wich my driver is to be applied.
http://www.waterfuelcarengine.com/patent-mls-hydroxyl-filling-station.html
Quote from: OscarMeyer on August 23, 2014, 10:18:58 AM
Where is your overuntiy build tinfoil man? I must have mised it huh? you big hypocrit! I dont see any building going on in your last post to chesnyt and me. all I have to say is everybody go back and reread post #138, catagory #1!!!!!!!!! that is what you and all the other jibber jabbers are!
[/quote\)
Quote from: OscarMeyer on August 23, 2014, 10:18:58 AM
Where is your overuntiy build tinfoil man? I must have mised it huh? you big hypocrit! I dont see any building going on in your last post to chesnyt and me. all I have to say is everybody go back and reread post #138, catagory #1!!!!!!!!! that is what you and all the other jibber jabbers are!
Dear Peanut.
Please show me(and everyone else here) when and where i made claim to any overunity device?
You see peanut,it is not me that makes claim to any overunity device. Im just calling your bluff,and your done-nothing to show from any of the claiments here-as per nomal-and you call me a hypocrit.
Go have a good hard look in the mirror peanut,and there you will see a true hypocrit. Like the others,you are now trying to shift attention toward another that ask's you to put up-or shut up.
You know your done,your in a corner you cannot escape from. Your all the same-claim after claim,but never a shred of proof.
Quote from: tinman on August 23, 2014, 10:50:30 AM
Dear Peanut.
Please show me(and everyone else here) when and where i made claim to any overunity device?
You see peanut,it is not me that makes claim to any overunity device. Im just calling your bluff,and your done-nothing to show from any of the claiments here-as per nomal-and you call me a hypocrit.
Go have a good hard look in the mirror peanut,and there you will see a true hypocrit. Like the others,you are now trying to shift attention toward another that ask's you to put up-or shut up.
You know your done,your in a corner you cannot escape from. Your all the same-claim after claim,but never a shred of proof.
When did i make a overunity claim? show one instance! Mr. REPLY #138, catagory 1, I made no such claims to having made any ounity build! Not even 1!!! So show us all or shut up(this ott to be good)
Waiting........................... ::)
I was the forefront of this hydrogen thing, I knew nothing about electronics or life, but I was still the best.
O wise Dankie...
Basicly I had privileged information from people who visited that Buggy.
A bunch of poor hillbillies clinging on to non-functionnal technology.
75000 bought them papers, wich have only value for a researcher, it was a quest in need of continuation.
Everybody who tried in my private group failed and came to conclusion of MIA.
I escaped the Hydrogen game unscathed, enriched by wire sells, having made these oscillators.
As usual, went farther than most, if there is contunuation to be done, its in this direction.
Hear the interview of Stephen Meyers, let the still living brother and top engineer give you insight of value.
If you are to ''believe'', then you must follow the evidence, not doing that is called incompetent detective.
Quote from: OscarMeyer on August 23, 2014, 11:12:41 AM
When did i make a overunity claim? show one instance! Mr. REPLY #138, catagory 1, I made no such claims to having made any ounity build! Not even 1!!! So show us all or shut up(this ott to be good)
Waiting........................... ::)
Where did i say that you made an OU claime?-thats right,never. What i did say was this(and read carefully)Quote: Im just calling your bluff,and your done-nothing to show from any of the claiments here.
Now you do see that i said!any of the CLAIMENTS here!-not your name. You just put 2 and 2 together,and came up with five.
Now,before you go off on another diverging tangent,lets have a look at your little statement.
Quote:Where is your overuntiy build tinfoil man? I must have mised it huh?
So i ask once again-where did i ever make claim of an OU device?
To the wealthy and motivated continuer of the Meyers brother legacy.
If you decide to make Stephen Meyers system, I will offer you general wisdom and guidance, and electronics help.
I am not interested in small replications, I am talking 18 tube 6 set, 6 transformer, full budget. Do not even contact me like some have tried, I smell hillbilly a mile away.
yes sir, I will build it, is all I am interested in.
In parallel as you I am working on gravity device, I am already near final illumination, you will have the safety net.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 23, 2014, 10:38:16 AM
Silence, all of you.
No more excuses, no more arguing.
Time to continue legacy of O wise Dankie.
Here is the accompanying text of when I explained my circuits.
I developped this circuits for the free energy quantum type experiments.
It is a 3 phase sine wave generator/oscillator mixed with an amplifier.
Amplifier works in A MODE, continous current flow, this is because transformers will introduce a phase angle between current and this will usually **** things up if there is every a infinite Z situation as in AB mode. Transistors dont like phase angles between voltage and current. There is always a small opening in the valve so to speak, all external noise and SMPS (if you dont use battery) noise should theoretically be cancelled out.
It is auto self-matching, you will not have to match mosfets since the amplifiers will auto regulate that, wich means that your centre tap transformer will not be become saturated by unequal static currents.
THIS IS MEANT TO BE USED @ FULL AMPLITUDE, LOWERING THE AMPLITUDE WILL SEND IDLE CURRENT SKY HIGH, THIS IS NOT AN AUDIO AMP. NOTICE IS A SIMULATED OFFSET SINE WAVE ???
Also, I have included a pulse train generator, that will never send incomplete
pulses when the gate turns on, it will either finish its current pulse or not send it.
Happy experimenting.
And here is the patent, in wich my driver is to be applied.
http://www.waterfuelcarengine.com/patent-mls-hydroxyl-filling-station.html
I would take all the logic and suck that into a little CPLD. Xilinx, Altera, and Lattice all offer free tools. The only catch is the asynchronous logic is a big no no in CPLDs. So you would have some work to do to convert over to a synchronous design. That's not so hard because you can easily decode any count you want and make the count sequence lengths anything you want. What you have here will fit a 32 cell device, but you could go safe and use a 64 or 128 macro cell device. I like the Xilinx CPLDs but Altera and Lattice also make perfectly good parts. The other thing that you could do is burn up some marco cells and resistors to generate step wise sine waves instead of square waves to feed your filters. Between your steep active filters and a stepped sine wave input, your output sine waves would be extra clean.
I cant tell you how much I like EE, free energy I will abandon once I get my device, too multidimentional and boring.
My next projects in line, game hacking platform for kids ( analyse pixel data and ethernet flux and ruin video games forever) detection impossible.
Even in the virtual world, there will be no respite for noobs.
and rooth canal making machine(all those billions squandered by dentists, should be monopolized, for the betterment of the patient)
I have unfinished business with an xbox controller, basicly I was ordering positions via uart to a added on chip on an xbox controller, wich was
inputting analog data between packets and could go precisely( with much tuning) a pixel very precisely and fast, an isolated external sub-module if you will, that understood absolute coordinates.
This was achieved somewhat successfully, but you see there acceleration rates for every game so its a pain in the ass, this ''analog for pixel'' data is not known.
Before that , I made absolute usb mouse module, it always knew where it was and went to that exact pixel as fast as elecronically possible, pretty basic.
Next was absolute ps4.
I called these game drives, just like CNC drives.
The goal was that it would be controllable by a inexpensive main analyzing brain, based on LPC4337 , frame buffer and FPGA, 30$ small circuit.
The topologies for these is carefully thought out already... Still vague but I know its gonna be awesome fun.
The future will be great.
@ The time, I didnt venture past cmos and hardware, all for low skill requirement. I knew this was gonna be very limited use so the extra research wasnt worth it.
Would you like to market this MarkE, plz go ahead... LOL
The choice of topology, I believe , was the right one tho.
If the circuits do what you want and especially if you have them built then there isn't any good reaon to change. Maybe if you were selling kits you might want to get out of the MSI logic. The good news is that 4000 CMOS is slow and tolerates asynchronous logic fairly well.
MarkE, how do you like them big boasting, big boating, projects of mine.
You think you could handle a piece of this large pie I wanna make?
My personal opinion is that Stan Meyer was as the Ohio judge said: an "egregious fraud". I am not interested in pursuing his claims myself. But if you want design help with experiments that you are going to set up and run I can help. Is there anything that the present circuit doesn't do or doesn't do well that you want to address?
the circuit works in 74hc just the same but the output of flips flops has to be inverted if I remember.
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/1264-ntb/tech-briefs/electronics-and-computers/1839
Output from switch capacitors has steps that need filtering
Beyond the whole massiveness of it and need for tight component tolerance for the filters for phase precision (really ?)
transformers also, I expect you will ned 50-100 volts, Stephen Meyers didnt use very HV (28 I believe), wich helps the transformer construction
I say construction because buying wide band transformer is expensive.
there is many stages of annoying voltage regulators also, because the amps need to run, and drive the 12v mosfets @ about 8 volts higher on gate.
I anticipated I needed 22v dual rail power supply.
let me seek the pcb.
I must identify it, its a big one, I work in a way where nothing is identified.
the dc pulser, works marvellously. Try it on sims using the gate protection with 2 totally independant gate and pulse.
To clarify a point made in this thread over and over:
The jails are full of fraudsters and criminals deemed so by so called "judges" in a morally and ethically corrupt system set up by murderous satan worshiping pedophiles.
Carry on.
Regards...
Guys,
The thread is years old and the videos have been removed. So what ever happened to his equipment? and his "new age sparkplug". Certainly someone has tried to install the original parts if found. What happened?
Thanks.
So if you notice, in the patent, high vacuum is happening while signals are applied, I know for a fact that this moves the gas to where we want it to go and makes more of it.
This vacuum needs to happen.
Also, if you notice, generators are synch, I really don't understand why. Solved.
I really wonder how far he went, Stephen, he had a vast lab, seemed like deep research had been done.
Secretive little Stephen
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 23, 2014, 01:26:16 PM
the circuit works in 74hc just the same but the output of flips flops has to be inverted if I remember.
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/1264-ntb/tech-briefs/electronics-and-computers/1839
Output from switch capacitors has steps that need filtering
Beyond the whole massiveness of it and need for tight component tolerance for the filters for phase precision (really ?)
transformers also, I expect you will ned 50-100 volts, Stephen Meyers didnt use very HV (28 I believe), wich helps the transformer construction
I say construction because buying wide band transformer is expensive.
there is many stages of annoying voltage regulators also, because the amps need to run, and drive the 12v mosfets @ about 8 volts higher on gate.
I anticipated I needed 22v dual rail power supply.
let me seek the pcb.
I must identify it, its a big one, I work in a way where nothing is identified.
the dc pulser, works marvellously. Try it on sims using the gate protection with 2 totally independant gate and pulse.
There are lots of Class D amplifiers out there that you could use that might greatly dimplify your board. Another thing that you could do is replace the counters with a uC and double buffered SPI or I[sup2[/sup]C DACs. That would allow you to generate synchronized sinewaves that would require only minimal filtering. If you use a computer program to generate your waveforms then you can pretty much do want you want.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 23, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
So if you notice, in the patent, high vacuum is happening while signals are applied, I know for a fact that this moves the gas to where we want it to go and makes more of it.
You know this because of tests you have done, or research that you have performed?
Yes, I witness that I. Vacuum there was added vapor, and bubble increased, gas trapped in water was escaping to the surface, tmy theory is tickle the water all the way out, vacuum must be there till explosion
Class d, too advanced, less signal integrity. Effect before efficiency engineering, I made big time waste already
This oscillator was very fast response, very snappy, very simple soldering.
MarkE, if I say I want you to make video game hack machine, that works by pixel, and Internet packet and never adds software to either the computer or game device, dvi is simply doubled by a twin cable.
How do you even manage this.
Are you nerd enough?
Quote from: Rigel4 on August 23, 2014, 07:56:40 PM
Guys,
The thread is years old and the videos have been removed. So what ever happened to his equipment? and his "new age sparkplug". Certainly someone has tried to install the original parts if found. What happened?
Thanks.
@Rigel:
The equipment was sold to a buyer who asked to remain anonymous. The original buyer of the Meyer Estate backed out of the deal at the last minute and the entire estate went back on the market. It was was finally sold as a package deal which included all of Meyer's projects he was working on at the time simultaneously, including the dune buggy. Part of the final sales agreement was that the buyer would not be named by the seller. All of Meyer's things have never been seen since. I could be wrong (and if I am, I'm sure someone will correct me) but Meyer's entire work has not been seen since the estate sale to the new mysterious owner.
I suspected the videos would be taken down from YouTube so I made backup copies of the videos. Sure enough, the videos vanished too. If anyone is interested in viewing these videos, just let me know and I will upload them to a special "archive" account I use on YouTube. If anyone is interested in viewing my demo cell replication of Meyer's initial system (the tubal array), also just let me know and I can post them here in this thread.
Regards,
Chess
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 23, 2014, 10:04:00 PM
MarkE, if I say I want you to make video game hack machine, that works by pixel, and Internet packet and never adds software to either the computer or game device, dvi is simply doubled by a twin cable.
How do you even manage this.
Are you nerd enough?
Packetizing and retransmitting video is relatively straightforward engineering.
Looking @ some random video of Stephen Meyers , I cam baffled by the low quality video pitch he did
You should all be good buys and listen to markE now, thx again for buying my wire guys
Quote from: chessnyt on August 23, 2014, 10:18:56 PM
@Rigel:
The equipment was sold to a buyer who asked to remain anonymous. The original buyer of the Meyer Estate backed out of the deal at the last minute and the entire estate went back on the market.
Thank you Chessnyt. I was interested not in the videos per se, but after he passed on, if anyone did anything with the original technology.
I follow this story and thank you.
:)
Quote from: Rigel4 on August 24, 2014, 02:11:04 AM
Thank you Chessnyt. I was interested not in the videos per se, but after he passed on, if anyone did anything with the original technology.
I follow this story and thank you.
:)
@Rigel:
The original technology was being modified/retrofitted for fuel injection internal combustion engines at the time Meyer was poisoned. Stan never finished this modification, which was in fact a separate technology from the original technology. This is why there were no videos made of Stan driving the dunebuggy with the later fuel injection system he was designing. There were videos made of Stan explaining his new system standing next to the dunebuggy but he never even started the engine. Not even to idle it.
The original technology (which was designed for carburetor type engines) was stripped off of the dunebuggy before the fuel injection retrofit. Personally, I don't believe the fuel injection style system would have ever worked. This is why I am only interested in the system that actually worked as evidenced by the many videos of Stan actually driving and idling the dunebuggy. The true "original" water fuel cell technology (the tubal cluster array).
Quote from: chessnyt on August 24, 2014, 06:25:01 AM
@Rigel:
The original technology was being modified/retrofitted for fuel injection internal combustion engines at the time Meyer was poisoned. Stan never finished this modification, which was in fact a separate technology from the original technology. This is why there were no videos made of Stan driving the dunebuggy with the later fuel injection system he was designing. There were videos made of Stan explaining his new system standing next to the dunebuggy but he never even started the engine. Not even to idle it.
The original technology (which was designed for carburetor type engines) was stripped off of the dunebuggy before the fuel injection retrofit. Personally, I don't believe the fuel injection style system would have ever worked. This is why I am only interested in the system that actually worked as evidenced by the many videos of Stan actually driving and idling the dunebuggy. The true "original" water fuel cell technology (the tubal cluster array).
This narrative exemplifies a logical problem seen with many free energy claims: A supposed dependance of a general miracle on a particular application. Engineering a device that operates on hydrogen fuel is not any kind of impossible undertaking. The impossible undertaking, the thing that would have immense value if only it were true would be Stan Meyer's claim to electrolyzing water at far below the resulting HHV of the extracted H
2. If his process did as he claimed there was no need for Stan Meyer to work up a fuel injected system for his dune buggy anymore than there was for him to develop hydrogen powered aircraft or space rockets. Had they been true, Meyer could have proved his claims in an ordinary chemistry lab.
@MarkE:
Look Mark. My last posting was addressed to a specific person and not you. I see what you are trying to do here. You are OBVIOUSLY trying to pick a fight with me. I get it, but as you are fully aware, fighting is counter productive.
Your last posting (the one before you attack me) was not even on topic, but when you choose to be on topic, it is only to attack me.
So I am asking you nicely to please refrain from attacking my opinions and posting off topic in this thread?
Thank you,
Chess
You clearly are in left field. Lost and terrorized by the fact that you might have been caught in a corner for years now. Believe me, I been there.
Simply let it go, answer you will never find, seek you will always seek.
You basically got 2 choices, 2 big Trojan horse d**** to suk.
Either you suk MarkE's d**** and let it go.
Or suk my d**** and admit that I am right, there's no continuation besides Stephens system, longshot.
Life suks I know.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 24, 2014, 11:48:52 AM
@MarkE:
Look Mark. My last posting was addressed to a specific person and not you.
It is a public message board. If you want to send PMs then use the message feature.
Quote
I see what you are trying to do here. You are OBVIOUSLY trying to pick a fight with me. I get it, but as you are fully aware, fighting is counter productive.
No, I offered an observation relevant to your comment.
Quote
Your last posting (the one before you attack me) was not even on topic, but when you choose to be on topic, it is only to attack me.
I am afraid that I do not see where my comment made any statement about you or even any opinions you have expressed. I do not see any direct or indirect reference to you. Perhaps you would be good enough to help me out here and cite the specific passage that you believe amounted to a personal attack against you. I do find your sudden concern with civility a refreshing contrast to many of your recent posts. Does this mean that you intend to refrain from flame posts going forward?
Quote
So I am asking you nicely to please refrain from attacking my opinions and posting off topic in this thread?
First, my comment noted the incongruence between what Stan Meyer claimed and what he did according to the story that you told. My post did not comment about you or make any direct comment about your opinions.
Second, public discussions invariably involve multiple independent opinions. If you wish to have a private discussion with anyone means are available for that. I note that you frequently express your disagreement with various opinions which is entirely your right.
Third, the supposed off topic message was a response to armcortex' question. Armcortex has been talking about building a rig that will supposedly reproduce Stan Meyer's set-up. I have been offering Armcortex suggestions on how to move forward. Those suggestions are potentially helpful to anyone who might be interested in building such hardware. His last question was a bit out of left field, but my one response closed it. The thread was hardly derailed by my showing him the courtesy of an answer, anymore than it is by my showing you the courtesy of this polite reply.
Quote
Thank you,
Chess
Quote from: Loner on August 24, 2014, 12:12:12 PM
Mark, I just had to throw in my worthless two cents.
Stan Meyer's story is one of the few that I can't actually offer an opinion either way. I was quite amazed at reading about the procedures at his "trial", meaning the court case about his claims that failed. If you actually read all about it from all the angles, then there was enough "strange" things happening during the trial to indicate he was going to fail, no matter what was done or found. Seeing that I firmly believe in the phrase "I believe it when I see it for myself.", I cannot state that I believe his claims. Even the reports that I have read are not my own "firsthand" recordings, so I cannot say for certain that they are accurate, but enough details match-up with the court reporter's record to make me wonder.
I HAVE seen evidence that was obviously designed to confuse. The entire setup with all the extra circuitry that was published was a quite simple Fuel Injection system. Of course, at the time, it was quite forward thinking, but 99% of the circuitry was to support the proper pulse width and timing for injection purposes and I was very frustrated with a LOT of experimenters that didn't recognise that as soon as they saw the prints. (I still have several GB of collected data from that time, but to review it again would be a waste of time.) No matter what I say, and no matter what anyone else posts here, the real proof will come when the process can be replicated. There are plenty of basic specs out there. The process IS simple to try. Has anyone had success?
I can say that I actually attempted the "Original" method, from another unnamed experimenter, using a motor/generator with a shorted output diode. I have even blown up intake manifolds on small Briggs engines by missing the fact that intake valve sealing is not always perfect, along with waste spark, timing, etc. The mechanical aspects of actually using HHO is a whole different game, Just as you say. Only once did I see, for myself, what I would consider "OU" production, but it was short lived and quite destructive, both in the fast burn of HHO (Which BOTH explodes andimplodes if my observations are correct. That's Another area of study, I guess.) and what it did to the circuitry involved. I stopped right there and went to other things.
As a final "Dumb" remark, I hope that people remember that if you are dealing with "Real Electron" manipulation, then you are playing with the sub-atomic realm, by definition. It's already proven, by mainstream science, that not all things add up correctly when in that realm. I would not be too quick to judge because actually seeing certain things can be a "Life altering" experience that not all basic experimenters are prepared to deal with. Some go to God, some go power crazy, some go greedy, etc. I sometimes think that keeping a level head and hiding in the shadows might be the easiest way to go, even if it's not the most responsible and demonstrates a lack of courage. Of course, some get into the sticky position of NDA's and government work that can make part of the work not up to discussion. That can be a hard point to get past.
All in all, it does require a lot for me to accept Stan's initial concepts, but I cannot state for certain either way at this point and would love to see anyone try their own replication of the slow conditioned, six tube setup from the original information. That would be a nice starting point. As to the rest of it, I'll believe it when I can replicate it for myself...
Chess....
Do you have any firsthand info on the "Original" setup. (I remember the nice video of the rapid pressure rise in the six tube setup, but have no info on actual test conditions...) I would be pleased to review any documentation that you might have. Just the idea of the container being a "Water Cap" introduces a lot of variables having nothing to due with basic conduction through the water. I am always interested in such info as it can be a release from certain agreements if the info comes from another source.
Loner what it all boils down to is that Stan Meyer made a series of extraordinary claims that are not supported by understood science. From time to time an extraordinary claim will turn out to be correct. What tells us such a claim is correct is hard evidence.
Evidence in favor of Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims is sorely lacking more than 20 years after he made them. I encourage anyone who thinks that Stan Meyer's claims might be true to investigate to their personal content. It is after all their time and money to do with as they please. If someone wishes to promote his claims as true then I ask that they provide hard evidence to support such claims. So far, no one has.
@MarkE:
First you state that the off topic message was "supposed"...
Quote from: MarkE on August 24, 2014, 12:34:35 PM
Third, the supposed off topic message was a response to armcortex' question.
Then you go on to ADMIT that it was in fact off topic and not just "supposed"...
Quote from: MarkE on August 24, 2014, 12:34:35 PM
out of left field
You contradict your own statement within the very same reply! By your own admission, you clearly prove that the posting in question was in fact, OFF TOPIC! Do you believe that the people viewing this thread can't see or realize that you are contradictory and less than truthful? Really?
@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories.
The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day. They have no life or they wouldn't have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress. They are talkers and not doers. They have no friends because they have no people skills. They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates. They don't build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity. This is not their purpose. They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships). They pretend they don't care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance. They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned. They always chose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb. They NEVER actually contribute to a replication. Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters. Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.
The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way. They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research. They are the doers and not just talkers. They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts. They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed "laws" of physics. Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with. Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt. They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord. They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on. They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes. They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the "good guys" of the forum. They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible. Some just get a kick out of it. Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.
Now once again I ask, will the builders please step forward?
Regards,
Chess
Quote from: chessnyt on August 24, 2014, 02:21:58 PM
@MarkE:
First you state that the off topic message was "supposed"...
Then you go on to ADMIT that it was in fact off topic and not just "supposed"...
You contradict your own statement within the very same reply! By your own admission, you clearly prove that the posting in question was in fact, OFF TOPIC! Do you believe that the people viewing this thread can't see or realize that you are contradictory and less than truthful? Really?
@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories.
The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day. They have no life or they wouldn't have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress. They are talkers and not doers. They have no friends because they have no people skills. They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates. They don't build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity. This is not their purpose. They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships). They pretend they don't care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance. They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned. They always chose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb. They NEVER actually contribute to a replication. Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters. Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.
The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way. They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research. They are the doers and not just talkers. They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts. They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed "laws" of physics. Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with. Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt. They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord. They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on. They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes. They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the "good guys" of the forum. They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible. Some just get a kick out of it. Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.
Now once again I ask, will the builders please step forward?
Regards,
Chess
Is that a big no to my polite request that you identify where I supposedly attacked you as you accused? Is there a logical reason that you have misrepresent my reference to Armcortex' post as a reference to my own? Is there a logical reason that you assert that answering Armcortex was an inappropriate digression off topic, but your now repeated posting classifying posters is somehow on the topic of Stan Meyer's equipment?
Define yourself as you will.
MarkE, my attack dog,
I want you to break his will
4 years ago he argued with me, that is unacceptable.
Does not even dare to answer to me directly, he is a scared broken man, he asks himself at night
If he is locked into a corner, he is.
MarkE, plz relieve him of his imaginary burden, it is not up to him to develop breakthrough technology
Quote from: Loner on August 24, 2014, 12:12:12 PM
Mark, I just had to throw in my worthless two cents.
Stan Meyer's story is one of the few that I can't actually offer an opinion either way. I was quite amazed at reading about the procedures at his "trial", meaning the court case about his claims that failed. If you actually read all about it from all the angles, then there was enough "strange" things happening during the trial to indicate he was going to fail, no matter what was done or found. Seeing that I firmly believe in the phrase "I believe it when I see it for myself.", I cannot state that I believe his claims. Even the reports that I have read are not my own "firsthand" recordings, so I cannot say for certain that they are accurate, but enough details match-up with the court reporter's record to make me wonder.
I HAVE seen evidence that was obviously designed to confuse. The entire setup with all the extra circuitry that was published was a quite simple Fuel Injection system. Of course, at the time, it was quite forward thinking, but 99% of the circuitry was to support the proper pulse width and timing for injection purposes and I was very frustrated with a LOT of experimenters that didn't recognise that as soon as they saw the prints. (I still have several GB of collected data from that time, but to review it again would be a waste of time.) No matter what I say, and no matter what anyone else posts here, the real proof will come when the process can be replicated. There are plenty of basic specs out there. The process IS simple to try. Has anyone had success?
I can say that I actually attempted the "Original" method, from another unnamed experimenter, using a motor/generator with a shorted output diode. I have even blown up intake manifolds on small Briggs engines by missing the fact that intake valve sealing is not always perfect, along with waste spark, timing, etc. The mechanical aspects of actually using HHO is a whole different game, Just as you say. Only once did I see, for myself, what I would consider "OU" production, but it was short lived and quite destructive, both in the fast burn of HHO (Which BOTH explodes andimplodes if my observations are correct. That's Another area of study, I guess.) and what it did to the circuitry involved. I stopped right there and went to other things.
As a final "Dumb" remark, I hope that people remember that if you are dealing with "Real Electron" manipulation, then you are playing with the sub-atomic realm, by definition. It's already proven, by mainstream science, that not all things add up correctly when in that realm. I would not be too quick to judge because actually seeing certain things can be a "Life altering" experience that not all basic experimenters are prepared to deal with. Some go to God, some go power crazy, some go greedy, etc. I sometimes think that keeping a level head and hiding in the shadows might be the easiest way to go, even if it's not the most responsible and demonstrates a lack of courage. Of course, some get into the sticky position of NDA's and government work that can make part of the work not up to discussion. That can be a hard point to get past.
All in all, it does require a lot for me to accept Stan's initial concepts, but I cannot state for certain either way at this point and would love to see anyone try their own replication of the slow conditioned, six tube setup from the original information. That would be a nice starting point. As to the rest of it, I'll believe it when I can replicate it for myself...
Chess....
Do you have any firsthand info on the "Original" setup. (I remember the nice video of the rapid pressure rise in the six tube setup, but have no info on actual test conditions...) I would be pleased to review any documentation that you might have. Just the idea of the container being a "Water Cap" introduces a lot of variables having nothing to due with basic conduction through the water. I am always interested in such info as it can be a release from certain agreements if the info comes from another source.
@Loner:
I do have much to share concerning Meyer's original setup, but to post it here would simply be an exercise in futility. As soon as I post something, it will be completely buried in worthless trash from MarkE and his friends within 15 minutes thus making it a complete waste of time and effort. They count on that too.
Below I have left a link where you, or anyone else seeking to gather and share information on Meyer's research minus the drama and wading through the skeptics along the way. At that link, I have started a new thread that focuses the discussion towards builders and towards Meyer's original technology (the tubular cluster array). Over there, I can guarantee you a completely different experience altogether.
LINK:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2533.msg5791/topicseen.html#msg5791
Hello,
To all of the fools who believe Stan Meyers was the real deal, I have fart car to sell you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cHKbCtj6A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cHKbCtj6A)
Tom
@Loner:
See what I mean? Already you have a guy spitting out the same thing, over and over again. Like we all have not heard this before. Like they are actually contributing something meaningful. And then you have their friends telling me things I will have to suk. This is proof of the low caliber of people posting here. They actually get away with talking like this here. You will not have this experience at the link posted at the bottom of this post.
I don't know for sure what Stan Meyer's results were actually, as I have no proof. I am simply reserving judgement until all of my research and data intake is complete. Replication is the only way this is going to be accomplished, as replication is the scientific approach to verify ANY technology. I am determined to replicate Meyer's original technology whether the nay sayers like it or not.
Now people coming here and making these OBVIOUSLY negative statements think that we don't know that what we are trying to accomplish is "impossible". As if we haven't heard these things a million times before. If you go to the Alcoholics Anonymous web site, don't be surprised to hear people talk about addictions. It's no different here. The name of the forum is Overunity.com. Why would you come here if you expected to find nobody talking about over unity devices or the replications of them? Hello? Come on now.
LINK:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2533.0.html (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2533.0.html)
Follow then markE, follow them.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 24, 2014, 04:27:35 PM
@Loner:
I do have much to share concerning Meyer's original setup, but to post it here would simply be an exercise in futility. As soon as I post something, it will be completely buried in worthless trash from MarkE and his friends within 15 minutes thus making it a complete waste of time and effort. They count on that too.
Below I have left a link where you, or anyone else seeking to gather and share information on Meyer's research minus the drama and wading through the skeptics along the way. At that link, I have started a new thread that focuses the discussion towards builders and towards Meyer's original technology (the tubular cluster array). Over there, I can guarantee you a completely different experience altogether.
LINK:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2533.msg5791/topicseen.html#msg5791
Chessnyt it is your choice not to produce here what you claim is evidence that supports your claims here where such evidence would be subjected to scrutiny. If evidence only looks good where it is not challenged, then how good can the evidence really be?
Quote from: TommeyLReed on August 24, 2014, 04:29:45 PM
Hello,
To all of the fools who believe Stan Meyers was the real deal, I have fart car sell you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cHKbCtj6A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4cHKbCtj6A)
Tom
That's funny.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 24, 2014, 05:44:32 PM
Follow then markE, follow them.
Armcortex, Chessnyt is entitled to his opinions and how he chooses to conduct himself. If he wants to pack up his marbles and retreat to Rosemary Ainslie's web site where I believe he is an admin, then that is his choice. The site as Chessnyt notes offers a "very different experience". That is because dissenting opinions are routinely edited or censured, while the administrators themselves engage in very rude personal attacks on even the most polite and patient posters such as poynt99.
Quote from: MarkE on August 24, 2014, 09:44:16 PM
Chessnyt it is your choice not to produce here what you claim is evidence that supports your claims here where such evidence would be subjected to scrutiny. If evidence only looks good where it is not challenged, then how good can the evidence really be?
@MarkE:
If you had taken the time to read my last post, which I have quoted below, you would already know that I make no scientific claims to having proof. Please read paragraph number two again and you will see that I, to the contrary, stated I have no scientific proof. This is why I am still experimenting with the tubal cluster array I have already built.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 24, 2014, 05:34:16 PM
@Loner:
See what I mean? Already you have a guy spitting out the same thing, over and over again. Like we all have not heard this before. Like they are actually contributing something meaningful. And then you have their friends telling me things I will have to suk. This is proof of the low caliber of people posting here. They actually get away with talking like this here. You will not have this experience at the link posted at the bottom of this post.
I don't know for sure what Stan Meyer's results were actually, as I have no proof. I am simply reserving judgement until all of my research and data intake is complete. Replication is the only way this is going to be accomplished, as replication is the scientific approach to verify ANY technology. I am determined to replicate Meyer's original technology whether the nay sayers like it or not.
Now people coming here and making these OBVIOUSLY negative statements think that we don't know that what we are trying to accomplish is "impossible". As if we haven't heard these things a million times before. If you go to the Alcoholics Anonymous web site, don't be surprised to hear people talk about addictions. It's no different here. The name of the forum is Overunity.com. Why would you come here if you expected to find nobody talking about over unity devices or the replications of them? Hello? Come on now.
LINK:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2533.0.html
Quote from: chessnyt on August 24, 2014, 10:22:00 PM
@MarkE:
If you had taken the time to read my last post, which I have quoted below, you would already know that I make no scientific claims to having proof. Please read paragraph number two again and you will see that I, to the contrary, stated I have no scientific proof. This is why I am still experimenting with the tubal cluster array I have already built.
Chessnyt, why the straw man? I said "evidence".
Yeah I know right, if theres one thing I hate its those damned small sites.
Yeah, those pesky moderators of small sites, they never learn.
They are trouble, those damned moderators, should be a law against this right.
Follow them MarkE, follow them.
Hello,
I don't know what it will take for people to understand Stan Meyer was a fraud, seems to me I can add to his claims.
I think Stan's HHO system used poo as the eletrolyte, as much BS this guy added to his system it's the only real secret that really worked.
Some of you HHO inventors, please add poo to the electrolytes. If you need this special formula, I have lots of extra poo you can have.
Don't forget to mix it well, or the gas just might stink too much.
That's my two cents today!
Tom ::)
Quote from: TommeyLReed on August 25, 2014, 07:45:30 AM
Hello,
I don't know what it will take for people to understand Stan Meyer was a fraud, seems to me I can add to his claims.
I think Stan's HHO system used poo as the eletrolyte, as much BS this guy added to his system it's the only real secret that really worked.
Some of you HHO inventors, please add poo to the electrolytes. If you need this special formula, I have lots of extra poo you can have.
Don't forget to mix it well, or the gas just might stink too much.
That's my two cents today!
Tom ::)
Hi Tom,
Basically, thats good info, for even more fumes:
http://nh3fuel.com/ (http://nh3fuel.com/)
http://gregvezina.com/ (http://gregvezina.com/)
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-vezina/26/772/952 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-vezina/26/772/952)
Thanks, for reminding us All!
Regards, Johan
[quote author=chessnyt link=topic=8665.msg415776#msg415776 date=1408916056
The name of the forum is Overunity.com. Why would you come here if you expected to find nobody talking about over unity devices or the replications of them? Hello? Come on now.
[/quote]
Could we please see one of these successful replications'?.
Quote from: TommeyLReed
I don't know what it will take for people to understand Stan Meyer was a fraud, seems to me I can add to his claims...
Stan, the man, did have shortcomings and may
have fallen prey to greed, but the fact remains
that he did make an important discovery.
That only a handful of determined experimenters
have come to understand that discovery is a
testimony to the power of propaganda and
disinformation.
Cui bono? Big Oil and the Petro-Dollar.
Quote from: tinman
Could we please see one of these successful replications'?.
They are not "replications" per se, since they are not
duplications of Meyer's circuitry or constructions. There
are significant differences.
In due time everyone who desires may see one.
In the meantime it would be beneficial for those who
truly want to "see" to experiment very simply and very
inexpensively. There is no substitute for self-created
"proof."
Les Banki has done his part in supplying documents
which motivate towards the realization of success.
Hello,
I see it this way, no matter what circuit claims Stan had, it's still a PWM watt controller that's it.
It's not a coil, it's a electrolyte battery that creates the HHO.
Nothing special, Stan dies because he was greedy like the big oil companies that he claimed God was going to set us all free from.
Last time I checked, God is not into man made $$$.
The reason nobody was able to copy Stans majic HHO system is because it was a trick to fool people.
"How did the rabbit get in the hat?"
Sorry, but most people I see on youtube claiming Stan's system are also doing tricks like a good magician pull a babbit out of a hat.
Tom
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 25, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
They are not "replications" per se, since they are not
duplications of Meyer's circuitry or constructions. There
are significant differences.
In due time everyone who desires may see one.
In the meantime it would be beneficial for those who
truly want to "see" to experiment very simply and very
inexpensively. There is no substitute for self-created
"proof."
Les Banki has done his part in supplying documents
which motivate towards the realization of success.
Note the wording: "which motivate towards the realization of success". There is no statement that Les Banki or anyone else has actually succeeded. There isn't a promise that one following Sea Monkey into the back alley will succeed. The Ohio judge summarized why when he found Stanley Meyer an "egregious fraud".
I guess some still chose to ignore my earlier post...the fact that "judges" are as reliable as those who employ them.
Both have dubious credibility, to say the very very least.
And...I would like anyone to logically challenge another fact...
NOBODY, but nobody here knows anything conclusive about the viability of Myres' circuit.
Sorry if I cut the legs off anyone's bully pulpit with the axe of common sense.
Well, not really.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 25, 2014, 10:41:01 PM
I guess some still chose to ignore my earlier post...the fact that "judges" are as reliable as those who employ them.
Both have dubious credibility, to say the very very least.
And...I would like anyone to logically challenge another fact...
NOBODY, but nobody here knows anything conclusive about the viability of Myres' circuit.
Sorry if I cut the legs off anyone's bully pulpit with the axe of common sense.
Well, not really.
Regards...
Have fun trying to chop down established facts:
Fact: Stanley Meyer made his claims over 20 years ago.
Fact: Stanley Meyer's claims are extraordinary.
Fact: Stanley Meyer's claims have never been proven true.
Fact: It is a requirement of all utility patents that the specification describe in sufficient detail how to practice the claims such that a person with ordinary skill in the art can so practice them without undue experimentation.
Fact: No one has ever shown that they can successfully reproduce Stanley Meyer's claims by practicing his patents.
Fact: Three expert witnesses in the 1996 investor lawsuit testified that Stanley Meyer's scheme used ordinary electrolysis.
Fact: Ordinary electrolysis is far less than 100% efficient.
Fact: Stanley Meyer was sued multiple times by different investors, and was forced to return those investors' monies as a result of losing those lawsuits that alleged breach of contract by fraud.
Fact: No one has produced any evidence that the judges in any of the actions against Stan Meyer were tainted.
Given the failure of the many who have tried to reproduce Stanley Meyer's claims from his patent one may reasonably conclude that the patents did not describe what Stan Meyer claimed. that amounts to fraud in the patent applications.
What a load of unmitigated long winded bullshit...saying absolutely nothing and proving or disproving absolutely nothing, except that what i posted still stands.
Not since MileyCHighrus has such dimwittery been displayed on this forum.
Regards...
Edit:
I would also add...I kinda lost track, can anyone tell me just how many lying so called "structural engineers" lined up to back up the official lie on just how those buildings went down on 9/11 ?
And for that matter how many lying so called "scientists" lined up to back up the official lie on "Global Warming"...not to mention those that kept their mouths shut about the fraudulent evidence ?
*awaits another blast of hot air*
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 26, 2014, 12:11:43 AM
What a load of unmitigated long winded bullshit...saying absolutely nothing and proving or disproving absolutely nothing, except that what i posted still stands.
Not since MileyCHighrus has such dimwittery been displayed on this forum.
Regards...
Unilaterally declare what you like. Hurl all the insults that you like. Neither is hardly an effective substitute for or counter to actual reasoned argument.
Apparently this bears repeating...
"I would also add...I kinda lost track, can anyone tell me just how many lying so called "structural engineers" lined up to back up the official lie on just how those buildings went down on 9/11 ?
And for that matter how many lying so called "scientists" lined up to back up the official lie on "Global Warming"...not to mention those that kept their mouths shut about the fraudulent evidence ?
*awaits another blast of hot air*
Regards..."
@Cap-Z-ro:
I have to agree with you on how scientists are bought by the people that hire them and it's no coincidence that their opinions reflect their employers. Sad but true.
I tried to subtly warn the people in this thread much earlier that MarkE is a category three from the quote below:
Quote from: chessnyt on August 23, 2014, 12:53:57 AM@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories.
The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day. On this point I agree with Oscar. They have no life or they wouldn't have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress. They are talkers and not doers. They have no friends because they have no people skills. They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates. They don't build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity. This is not their purpose. They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships). They pretend they don't care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance. They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned. They always choose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb. They NEVER actually contribute to a replication. Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters. Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.
The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way. They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research. They are the doers and not just talkers. They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts. They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed "laws" of physics. Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with. Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt. They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord. They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on. They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes. They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the "good guys" of the forum. They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible. Some just get a kick out of it. Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.
Now will the builders please step forward?
Regards,
Chess
MarkE and his cohorts are trained very well for this specific purpose. Notice how he befriends those who have nothing to offer because they are not a threat and they do not pursue that which he knows to be technology that could disrupt his bosses' agendas.
He loves this:
FACT - He posts more than you (grand total and daily average wise) yet he has been here considerably less time.
FACT - He claims to want to help yet he sews discord and negativity at every opportunity.
FACT - He doesn't build anything except for snide comments with his keyboard.
FACT - He constantly reminds people that mainstream science doesn't agree with us, as if we keep forgetting.
FACT - He engages in cluttering up a thread so as to bury any useful content so far in between it becomes difficult to even extract.
FACT - Look at how this site is dying as he has chased all the serious builders away.
That is what professional disinformation agents do. This guy is a plant.
Regards,
Chess
Well, Chessnut, old buddy, we both know of a web forum where people can theorize and discuss whatever they like without any interference from people YOU don't want to hear from, don't we. A site that has 60 thousand visitors a day (but only 5 commenters)! (One or two of them may even be real people instead of bots and spiders looking for vulnerabilities and finding them on a regular basis. Read your membership list lately? LOL!) So why are you bothering to read and comment here, where you are constantly refuted and mocked? Why don't you have your grand discussions and builder's groups and discoveries and academic validation and all the rest, where you are more appreciated for the great work you are doing for mankind? Instead of griping and moaning about this silly old site with its paid disinformation agents like MarkE. If you accuse me here of being a PAID AGENT yet again, though, without providing any evidence for that assertion.... everybody will know that you are just blowing smoke, another false claimant who attacks his critics instead of simply refuting them with facts or demonstrations of his own. Oh... that's right, sorry, you have no such facts or demonstrations. So your only tactic is to accuse falsely and insult.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 26, 2014, 01:07:05 AM
Apparently this bears repeating...
"I would also add...I kinda lost track, can anyone tell me just how many lying so called "structural engineers" lined up to back up the official lie on just how those buildings went down on 9/11 ?
And for that matter how many lying so called "scientists" lined up to back up the official lie on "Global Warming"...not to mention those that kept their mouths shut about the fraudulent evidence ?
*awaits another blast of hot air*
Regards..."
Where there was a turn to the absurd: Trying to tie Stanley Meyer's bogus claims to conspiracy theories about 9/11.
Quote from: chessnyt on August 26, 2014, 01:48:47 AM
@Cap-Z-ro:
I have to agree with you on how scientists are bought by the people that hire them and it's no coincidence that their opinions reflect their employers. Sad but true.
I tried to subtly warn the people in this thread much earlier that MarkE is a category three from the quote below:MarkE and his cohorts are trained very well for this specific purpose. Notice how he befriends those who have nothing to offer because they are not a threat and they do not pursue that which he knows to be technology that could disrupt his bosses' agendas.
He loves this:
FACT - He posts more than you (grand total and daily average wise) yet he has been here considerably less time.
FACT - He claims to want to help yet he sews discord and negativity at every opportunity.
FACT - He doesn't build anything except for snide comments with his keyboard.
FACT - He constantly reminds people that mainstream science doesn't agree with us, as if we keep forgetting.
FACT - He engages in cluttering up a thread so as to bury any useful content so far in between it becomes difficult to even extract.
FACT - Look at how this site is dying as he has chased all the serious builders away.
That is what professional disinformation agents do. This guy is a plant.
Regards,
Chess
Chessnyt, I see it is to be more mud slinging. How, delightful. Anyone can read my posts and see how I conduct myself. They can see for themselves to what extent I keep my posts on topic and technical, or not. To anyone who claims that I have chased away contributions to science, I ask for the numbers: How has the rate of innovative developments changed since I arrived? Who if anyone have I given technical advice to that broke their device or sent them in the wrong direction? How many have I given help to that has helped them further along with their investigations? We can even take for example Ms. Ainslie. My factual report on the 555 circuits should provide a great deal of help to anyone interested in her magazine article claims, especially if they want to try and reproduce either the circuits or the waveforms she said were used. Anyone with a bit of patience, ordinary building skills and even a very modest oscilloscope can reproduce everything shown in my report. Anyone with good circuit analysis skills can validate my analysis.
You are free to hold and express your opinion. The logic anyone uses to develop their ideas and how they conduct themselves is a matter largely of personal choice.
Chess, its quite obvious to you and me, and a number of others here, that anyone with their technical abilities would be putting that knowledge to good use...instead of spending countless hours trying to discredit everything and anyone.
The only conclusion left is that that is their job.
They try to present themselves as keenly analytical and logical, but when called on their behavior, all ther faux logic and common sense goes out the window...and you get the following:
The shill retreats to his position of making his baseless unproven claim that Meyers is a fraud right after I provided 2 classic examples of cabal manipulation of courts and witnesses.
He attempts to redefine 1 of those examples as "Trying to tie Stanley Meyer's bogus claims to conspiracy theories about 9/11."...while failing to come up with a false scenario to account for the remaining example.
And in his desperation, he reveals his cabal connections by discrediting all the legitimate structural engineers who came forward to to expose the official lie of 9/11, by offhandedly dismissing them as conspiracy theorists.
Where did his reasoned logic suddenly go ?
The answer is, he never had any to begin with, he's just an actor...and a bad one at that.
There hasn't yet appeared a shill that I couldn't break down to its essential elements.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 26, 2014, 09:23:09 AM
Chess, its quite obvious to you and me, and a number of others here, that anyone with their technical abilities would be putting that knowledge to good use...instead of spending countless hours trying to discredit everything and anyone.
Then your imagination could be less limited.
Quote
The only conclusion left is that that is their job.
It is the conclusion that you have preconceived.
Quote
They try to present themselves as keenly analytical and logical, but when called on their behavior, all ther faux logic and common sense goes out the window...and you get the following:
The shill retreats to his position of making his baseless unproven claim that Meyers is a fraud right after I provided 2 classic examples of cabal manipulation of courts and witnesses.
If B is a member of A, it does not mean that all A is B.
Quote
He attempts to redefine 1 of those examples as "Trying to tie Stanley Meyer's bogus claims to conspiracy theories about 9/11."...while failing to come up with a false scenario to account for the remaining example.
You alleged two conspiracies and then attempt to boot strap one from the presumed existence of the other.
Quote
And in his desperation, he reveals his cabal connections by discrediting all the legitimate structural engineers who came forward to to expose the official lie of 9/11, by offhandedly dismissing them as conspiracy theorists.
LOL, now you are just completely misrepresenting.
Quote
Where did his reasoned logic suddenly go ?
It is still right here for all to see.
Quote
The answer is, he never had any to begin with, he's just an actor...and a bad one at that.
Sure, there are monied interests who just quake in their boots about message boards.
Quote
There hasn't yet appeared a shill that I couldn't break down to its essential elements.
At least that is what you say. I wonder if you have convinced even yourself.
Quote
Regards...
Its too late for this shill folks, he already risen for the 9/11 bait trap I set for him.
He referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories, when we all know the only conspiracy lies with the perpetrators...the very same people who pay for his activities here - the cabal.
He can slice and dice all he wants...but, he's exposed himself once again, and there he sits, with all four limbs firmly embedded in the tar baby.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 26, 2014, 12:13:57 PM, when we all know
It might be a good idea if you speak for yourself only.
Look at the combustion process closely. Methane use is simple. ch4+O2 yields co2 and h20 . It is called a hydrogen bond replacement- producing excess thermal energy inside a closed vessel. It causes molecular motion. Obviously if we had a process on board that took carbon dioxide and water and produced methane and oxygen then shipped it over to the engine and ignited it the car wouldn't move. This is not what happens in an engine. The hydrogen combines with oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. The carbon combines with oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. The temperature rises and nitrogen and oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE combine to form nitrates.. That is why Myer's buggy ran. That is why all engines run. They exploit the energy stored in the oxygen molecules FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. The engine simply increases the temperature of the fuel until the atmosphere burns. The gasoline engine causes a spark to cross a gap. All this bullshit about crazy temperatures. The uv from the spark gap is intense. Intense and at ionizing frequencies. This "ignites" the fuel heating process. The ionized and accelerated electrons cause secondary molecules ionization and hydrogen bonds are broken all over the mixture. This releases monatomic hydrogen-which forms hydrogen gas which captures ATMOSPHERIC oxygen to form water. Formation of water is exothermic last I knew. This heats up the fuel. Now it becomes easier and easier to thermally ionize molecules and cause exothermic reactions that will not occur at lower temperatures.
Quote from: celsus on August 26, 2014, 12:27:05 PM
It might be a good idea if you speak for yourself only.
Only a moron with 27 posts under his belt would enter a thread swinging a dead cat.
OR, this just another support shill showing up to act as a heat sink...and supporting the 'official 9/11 lie' no less.
I suspect the latter to be the case.
Regards...
Quote from: sparks on August 26, 2014, 01:52:59 PM
Look at the combustion process closely. Methane use is simple. ch4+O2 yields co2 and h20 . It is called a hydrogen bond replacement- producing excess thermal energy inside a closed vessel. It causes molecular motion. Obviously if we had a process on board that took carbon dioxide and water and produced methane and oxygen then shipped it over to the engine and ignited it the car wouldn't move. This is not what happens in an engine. The hydrogen combines with oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. The carbon combines with oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. The temperature rises and nitrogen and oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE combine to form nitrates.. That is why Myer's buggy ran. That is why all engines run. They exploit the energy stored in the oxygen molecules FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. The engine simply increases the temperature of the fuel until the atmosphere burns. The gasoline engine causes a spark to cross a gap. All this bullshit about crazy temperatures. The uv from the spark gap is intense. Intense and at ionizing frequencies. This "ignites" the fuel heating process. The ionized and accelerated electrons cause secondary molecules ionization and hydrogen bonds are broken all over the mixture. This releases monatomic hydrogen-which forms hydrogen gas which captures ATMOSPHERIC oxygen to form water. Formation of water is exothermic last I knew. This heats up the fuel. Now it becomes easier and easier to thermally ionize molecules and cause exothermic reactions that will not occur at lower temperatures.
The notion of producing liquid fuels from atmospheric CO
2 and water is alive and well. The US Navy in fact has an active program to convert atmospheric CO
2 and sea water to liquid fuels using power from nuclear reactors.
ICE and Diesel powered vehicles have lighter fuel tanks because they get their O
2 from the air. They don't have to carry the O
2 or other oxidizer around with them. In the case of electrolysis, the needed amount of oxygen is already part of each water molecule. Extra O
2 from the air doesn't help. The show stopper problem for water as fuel schemes is not the disadvantage of toting around oxygen that hydrocarbon burning engines take from the air. The show stopper is the lack of extractable chemical energy in water as it is the "ash" of the hydrogen and oxygen oxidation reduction reaction.
Quote from: MarkE on August 26, 2014, 03:29:14 PM
The notion of producing liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 and water is alive and well. The US Navy in fact has an active program to convert atmospheric CO2 and sea water to liquid fuels using power from nuclear reactors.
ICE and Diesel powered vehicles have lighter fuel tanks because they get their O2 from the air. They don't have to carry the O2 or other oxidizer around with them. In the case of electrolysis, the needed amount of oxygen is already part of each water molecule. Extra O2 from the air doesn't help. The show stopper problem for water as fuel schemes is not the disadvantage of toting around oxygen that hydrocarbon burning engines take from the air. The show stopper is the lack of extractable chemical energy in water as it is the "ash" of the hydrogen and oxygen oxidation reduction reaction.
Well put. On a separate note. Why are we not working on something like SHT that uses a combination of methods both chemical and whatever catalyst/method is required, to create the fuel? Does it matter if it's partially a chemical reaction if it allows more production of gas? I know SHT has its own issues, but I do not understand how they can repeatedly claim such high rates of gas regardless of source. Could Myers have been using a hybrid system?
Quote from: celsus on August 26, 2014, 12:27:05 PM
It might be a good idea if you speak for yourself only.
Hey you schrodinger's cat newbie. I only have 20 posts and I agree with you. We do not need ad-hominem attacks regardless of amount of posts. 8) Hold on I gotta check on my cat he's been sick lately.
Quote from: Rigel4 on August 26, 2014, 05:57:10 PM
Well put. On a separate note. Why are we not working on something like SHT that uses a combination of methods both chemical and whatever catalyst/method is required, to create the fuel? Does it matter if it's partially a chemical reaction if it allows more production of gas? I know SHT has its own issues, but I do not understand how they can repeatedly claim such high rates of gas regardless of source. Could Myers have been using a hybrid system?
If only SHT could deliver on their 1kg of H
2 from 1kg of water claims. Unfortunately they can't. They get ~118g H
2 gas from 1kg of water like anyone else who uses a metal to reduce the water into a metal oxide and released H
2 gas.
The problem with Stan Meyer is a problem with lack of evidence for an extraordinary claim.
@sparks
So you're back. hehehehehe
Where the hell have you been man.
I see you have not lost your touch. Always around to link relationships of effects.
Regarding the production of hydrogen via water, knowing what I know today, I am sure there is no bond breaking in the electrolysis process. The process does not effect the bonds, like microwave does not heat the plate, only the food. What it really does is it pulls on the nuclei of each atom and rips the bonds apart.
You see, in order for the hydrogen to remain as hydrogen once split apart, those bonds need to be intact otherwise you no longer have hydrogen but just produced another element, since the element is the total of nucleus plus bonds (what we today call electrons - bull but let's play the game by standard rules - hehehe). If you take this as a potential explanation, there might be an easy way to test this.
Just use one anode and cathode and set them as close together as possible. Run the system and see how much hydrogen is being produced. Then stop the system and add two Neo magnets, one on each side of the anode/cathode
with opposing polarities facing each other but with a spacer between to hold them apart. The Neos will add to the pull force of the pulsed anode/cathode and should this produce more hydrogen, this may be an indicator that the bonds (which should not be influenced by any pulsing energy) are not what is being pulled on but it is the nucleus that gets pulled away, thus pulling away the whole Atom. You may have to switch the polarities of the magnets as a third test to see if this also has any effect.
Anyways, just wanted to say hi.
wattsup
Quote from: Rigel4 on August 26, 2014, 06:06:41 PM
Hey you schrodinger's cat newbie. I only have 20 posts and I agree with you. We do not need ad-hominem attacks regardless of amount of posts. 8) Hold on I gotta check on my cat he's been sick lately.
Well, what a surprise, yet another 'official 9/11 lie' supporter, and also another new account.
Coincidence ?
Or, yet another shill to replace the one I already burned up.
Again, the latter wood be the case.
Regards...
I find this 'shill' accusation based on post count a bit inconsistent because one can be accused to be a 'shill' based on a high post count as well as on a low post count.
Every 'Troll' has a beginning and does start his/her
career with a post count of '1.' It has always been
post content which establishes the identity of any
Troll. Some are more adept, more skillful, more
creative than others. Some are downright
entertaining. The internet has brought us many
very positive advancements and a less positive
multiplication of the Troll population. It is human
nature - whenever a group of people are engaged
in conversation it becomes a powerful magnet for
any prospective Troll who finds the situation
impossible to ignore.
In the meantime progress continues with the
discovery that Stan Meyer made in peaceful
quietude far removed from any distracting
drama.
To call it "Meyer Technology" is perhaps a
misnomer; Stan never did reveal the essential
details of the process in any of his writings,
presentations or patents, most likely because
he did not fully understand what was taking place.
That those details are lacking from his patents
is not uncommon; many patents convey the
general nature of the device without revealing
essential details. Unfortunately, too many
experimenters have missed the essence in trying
to duplicate what Stan described as he described
it.
That's yet another appeal to supposed magic hidden behind a curtain.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 26, 2014, 02:56:48 AM
Well, Chessnut, old buddy, we both know of a web forum where people can theorize and discuss whatever they like without any interference from people YOU don't want to hear from, don't we. A site that has 60 thousand visitors a day (but only 5 commenters)! (One or two of them may even be real people instead of bots and spiders looking for vulnerabilities and finding them on a regular basis. Read your membership list lately? LOL!) So why are you bothering to read and comment here, where you are constantly refuted and mocked? Why don't you have your grand discussions and builder's groups and discoveries and academic validation and all the rest, where you are more appreciated for the great work you are doing for mankind? Instead of griping and moaning about this silly old site with its paid disinformation agents like MarkE. If you accuse me here of being a PAID AGENT yet again, though, without providing any evidence for that assertion.... everybody will know that you are just blowing smoke, another false claimant who attacks his critics instead of simply refuting them with facts or demonstrations of his own. Oh... that's right, sorry, you have no such facts or demonstrations. So your only tactic is to accuse falsely and insult.
Hey TK, just how would you know that we have up to 60,000 visitors per day? (truthfully, it's actually upwards of 70,000). The only way you could know is if you visited our site recently ;) Well, that would make you one of the 60,000 that visit our site, yet doesn't post there. By your own admission, you are a closet fan of our site. Well I'm very flattered. I'm also glad that you are able to admit it, too. This shows that you are making lots of progress in your ongoing therapy.
Now if you enjoy visiting our site on a regular basis without posting, then it stands to reason that upwards of 60,000 others do too. Besides, spam bots leave spam behind. Do you really think we could delete 59,999 spam postings every day without someone noticing? Keep dreaming though.
I'm also glad that you too acknowledge MarkE as a disinformation agent. Congratulations!
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 26, 2014, 02:56:48 AM
Instead of griping and moaning about this silly old site with its paid disinformation agents like MarkE.
I could not have said it better myself.
Doesn't it feel better now that you have come out of the closet and admitted publicly that you secretly visit our web site frequently?
Quote from: orbut 3000 on August 26, 2014, 11:06:40 PM
I find this 'shill' accusation based on post count a bit inconsistent because one can be accused to be a 'shill' based on a high post count as well as on a low post count.
This is just so juvenile...
To assert that my decree was based solely on post count is so obviously unintelligent it could only come from yet another shill account.
Lets see, 127 posts...we have a low enough post count to qualify for shill status...we also have the prereqesite support for the '9/111 official lie' support in place and...hmmm ?
Yep, I'd say we have another winner here folks.
Guess this means the last 2 are considered burned out also huh ?
Or...there's a gang shilling in the works.
Stay tuned...maybe there's more shill tuning to come yet.
Regards...
Quote from: chessnyt on August 27, 2014, 01:08:51 AM
Hey TK, just how would you know that we have up to 60,000 visitors per day? (truthfully, it's actually upwards of 70,000). The only way you could know is if you visited our site recently ;) Well, that would make you one of the 60,000 that visit our site, yet doesn't post there. By your own admission, you are a closet fan of our site. Well I'm very flattered. I'm also glad that you are able to admit it, too. This shows that you are making lots of progress in your ongoing therapy.
Now if you enjoy visiting our site on a regular basis without posting, then it stands to reason that upwards of 60,000 others do too. Besides, spam bots leave spam behind. Do you really think we could delete 59,999 spam postings every day without someone noticing? Keep dreaming though.
I'm also glad that you too acknowledge MarkE as a disinformation agent. Congratulations! I could not have said it better myself.
Doesn't it feel better now that you have come out of the closet and admitted publicly that you secretly visit our web site frequently?
More mud slinging: Nice.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 26, 2014, 03:01:52 PM
Only a moron with 27 posts under his belt would enter a thread swinging a dead cat.
OR, this just another support shill showing up to act as a heat sink...and supporting the 'official 9/11 lie' no less.
I suspect the latter to be the case.
Regards...
That certainly makes me the worst, laziest and most worthless 'shill' of all times ;D
@wattsup
Hi guy. Been soldiering in the war against poverty. Good to see some of the old crew still aboard.
I was just noting that if you feed the hydrogen into the cylinder and you get the oxidizer from the atmosphere, what do you do with the oxygen you don't need. Every two moles of hydrogen you produce you are left with 1 mole of oxygen.
The navy is also working on synfuel using algae oil and seawater no nukes. This isn't all that comforting. Military vessels filter feeding all over the globe competing with marine filter feeders.
Quote from: celsus on August 27, 2014, 07:46:47 AM
That certainly makes me the worst, laziest and most worthless 'shill' of all times ;D
.
Standing behind the 'official 9/11 lie' which cost the lives of hundreds of thousand kind of speaks for itself.
But, on the upside tho, admitting the problem is the first step toward resolution.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 27, 2014, 08:40:30 AM
Standing behind the 'official 9/11 lie' which cost the lives of hundreds of thousand kind of speaks for itself.
Could it be that you just imagined that I did?
Do you sometimes have the feeling that those 'shills' are waiting in front of your door, hiding in cars with dark windows, for example?
That they hide behind trees in the park when you walk the dog?
Do you sometimes hear steps behind you when you go through an empty street in the dark?
They are everywhere, always trying to hide the truth about everything. Frightening, isn't it? 'We all' can be glad that they have no chance to do so whiile there are people like you who 'burn them up' with words in a forum for mentally challenged tinkerers.
Keep on.
Quote from: celsus on August 27, 2014, 09:32:31 AM
Could it be that you just imagined that I did?
Do you sometimes have the feeling that those 'shills' are waiting in front of your door, hiding in cars with dark windows, for example?
That they hide behind trees in the park when you walk the dog?
Do you sometimes hear steps behind you when you go through an empty street in the dark?
They are everywhere, always trying to hide the truth about everything. Frightening, isn't it? 'We all' can be glad that they have no chance to do so whiile there are people like you who 'burn them up' with words in a forum for mentally challenged tinkerers.
Keep on.
Yet another new account playing the baiting game...same way this account used on TA's thread by the way.
Troll shill written all over it...alienating pretty much the entire forum by labeling everyone as mentally challenged tinkerers.
A smoother move than a good laxative.
Projection seems to be a common trait they all exhibit.
One as childish as the next...likely all are one and the same.
Will the next shill please step up to the dais ?
Regards...