Stan Meyer's Initial Technology Replicated

[chessnyt]

Hi Chess, thanks for the explanation. There are of course some ideas there which are not accepted by science, but if your results do  show considerably better than the best faradaic efficiency, then something new is going on.  Keep up the great work and please show us some of your efficiency results when you are ready.
Cheers Pomo.

@pomodoro:
You are very welcome for the explanation.  It is much easier to explain something you are able to do than it is to explain things you have never done before.  So it is only through experience that I possess this advantage to explain what I am doing so well.

I think that it is to the detriment of science that men of science refuse to look at most things outside the accepted ideology.

Truthfully, I am very unimpressed by science.  Modern science in particular.  I believe that our modern society should be much further advanced than it is presently.  Some treat the world as if everything that is to be discovered has already been done.  As if there is nothing beyond their books explaining modern day processes and phenomena.  Nothing exists outside the sacred walls of their well established "laws" which is why I believe science is so limited.  For example; the common cold is still without a cure.  We can merely treat the symptoms but not the cause of the symptoms.  I find this very lacking.

The problem is, how do you teach someone who knows it all? If they believe that they already know all there is to be learned, and how to explain everything that occurs, then this limits ones desire or willingness to go beyond the well received concepts that exist today to discover new things.  It sort of paints them into a box.  If they were ever to admit that one of their beliefs had been violated, then they would feel that they were wrong and their professors before them were wrong, and this would shatter their own confidence in a system they have based possibly their whole careers upon.  It would undermine their core institutions.  It would also make them look silly or unlearned.  In science, reputation is nearly everything and to risk losing it is to risk losing credibility.
     
The greater problem is that there is no universal theory to describe the universe.  In science, there are three separate theories instead.  One of them has to be correct, making two of them false, and so science even disagrees with itself.  This is a major discrepancy in consistency which is self-contradicting.

At one point, I almost decided NOT to get involved in my Stanley Meyer research at all.  It was because of what I was taught that I almost missed this great experience.  I was taught that what Stan was doing was simply impossible, thus a waste of my precious time.  And not just impossible in one aspect, but rather in several different aspects.  Namely, the law of conservation of energy.

Even after my initial breakthrough, I thought that the anomalies I was witnessing were merely malfunctioning or faulty test equipment.  I can't tell you how many times I checked and rechecked temperature readings and analyzed wave forms on my Tektronix oscilloscope.  I soon realized that not all of them could be wrong at the same time.

To prove anything to science was never my intention from the start.  It was simply to prove to myself whether or not what Stan had already done was in fact possible.  I am now convinced.  I truly believe that replication is the ultimate method of verification and validation. 

I will be releasing the data of my research upon completion of my refinements to the project. 


Cheers,

Chess 

[Dog-One]

Another great read Chess, I do enjoy your style of writing as well as your content.  I ask myself if your experience changed you as it has another fellow that has had success with the Stanley Meyer technology.  I bet it has, seems it would have to.

Something soon many of us will have to contemplate is this world we live in--how much of it is truth and how much of it is fiction.  When you watch that newscast of Stan running his buggy and statement is made, "even the Pentagon is interested", one has to know there are people on this planet that knew Stan was correct all along.  We were so close to all that technology going right into a black hole and never coming out.  I'm so thankful guys like yourself dug in and become determined enough to dig it back out.  To the point though, how many other things haven't been dug out and are lost to the general public like ancient artifacts?  Was it just greed and money that corrupted our knowledge?  I'm almost afraid to answer my own question because to do so means we likely lived a life that was more than 50% a lie.

Knowledge is power; in this case awareness.  Something or someone is this world knew it and jumped through their own ass to make sure we never acquired that power, that knowledge.  No one can tell me the great academics and engineers of this modern era couldn't look at Stan's patents and see there was a lot more going on there than they claimed.  They caved to forces I would like to see abolished from this planet.  I see the same thing going on right now with the nuclear industry.  Any child could understand you do not use a highly deadly substance to power your lights and heat your home when there is no way on earth to get rid of this dangerous waste.  Simply a very bad idea, yet it's everywhere doing exactly what some knew it would.  With disasters like Fukushima that cannot even be cleaned up, poisoning our oceans and our air...  Stan's technology could have completely erased this mess before it started; anyone with a half a brain knows it.

It's a bitter sweet state of affairs.  Now we know what could have been.  We see much of our labor has been wasted, turning sweat into money, then into energy to power our lives.  It was never necessary.  So much time wasted.  Time we will never get back and a world we may never be able to clean up.  It makes  me very angry and sad at the same time.  I feel so manipulated, maybe raped is a better word.  And for what?  So some fat ass with more chins than a Chinese phonebook could  get rich?  I feel my pulse pounding just thinking about it.

I hope many of us can walk in your footsteps Chess and realize all of this for themselves.  Maybe we can fix the world a tiny piece at a time and when we leave this world, take with us the knowledge so this never happens again.  I can see no other option.

[memoryman]

Very interesting posts.
@chessnyt: I see some limiting statements by you. Science is not always practiced as it 'should' be. After all, scientists are mostly human.
" In science, there are three separate theories instead.  One of them has to be correct, making two of them false, and so science even disagrees with itself." Not necessarily true: none of them may be true; theories are just that: theories.
As to your Stan Meyers replication: I personally have experience with finding errors in similar claims. I keep going in the hope that someone will prove me wrong.
@Dog-One: your outlook on the past, present and future seems very dark to me. A see a very bright future for Thorium molten salt reactors in some form.

[chessnyt]

Very interesting posts.
@chessnyt: I see some limiting statements by you. Science is not always practiced as it 'should' be. After all, scientists are mostly human.
" In science, there are three separate theories instead.  One of them has to be correct, making two of them false, and so science even disagrees with itself." Not necessarily true: none of them may be true; theories are just that: theories.
As to your Stan Meyers replication: I personally have experience with finding errors in similar claims. I keep going in the hope that someone will prove me wrong.
@Dog-One: your outlook on the past, present and future seems very dark to me. A see a very bright future for Thorium molten salt reactors in some form.

@memoryman:
You are absolutely correct.  There is no doubt about that.  A theory is just that, a theory.  And it is also possible that all three of the scientific theories explaining the universe are wrong, just as you have stated.  Now I had given science the benefit of the doubt by stating that one of them has to be correct (because there can only be one right explanation).   So take away the one out of three chances and science goes from having a 33.3% chance of being right to a 0% chance.  That obviously doesn't help its case but rather extinguishes any hope of science being correct.     

[memoryman]

That does not take into account the possibility that there is a partial truth in any/all of the three theories.
It is also possible that any theory can be unprovable.