Stanley Meyer information

[h20power]

I first explained this in a different thread, but it seems I was stepping on some toes. It is evident that the author of that thread was trying to come up with capital for his own replication commercialization under the title Stan Meyer explained, which was misleading.

Do you know what this is actually saying? You are calling for the defunding, or in this case never funding, of this technology. For more than twelve years I have watched people like you talk, talk, talk but never lift a finger to actually do anything. If it were up to people like you this photo sums up our chances of getting anything done to actually do something about our climate change problems.


I thought about what you said and went over my entire thread to see if I did or did not give this technology away and I took notes and posted a few pages where I gave the technology away for free but the thread is full of things like that. When I started off I didn't know everything about this technology and sure didn't know what it was trying to mimic in nature. But over time I kept building, testing, observing, and asking and answering questions until I got at the core science behind this technology.


This is not the first time someone has come along and asked everyone to defund or never fund this technology and it probably will not be the last, but the way I see it this technology is key to getting the world off of fossil fuel use. I will keep on trying to do something meaningful towards our climate change problems and would apricate it if you would not say such things to try and encourage folks to not give this technology their support.


Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions

[pauldude000]

I have a degree in chemistry.
Electrical breakdown is not that. You can talk a lot about the development of the process.
In the end, the matter ends with the thermal destruction of the substance.
In a Mylar capacitor, a giant electric field is applied to a thin film.
And completely different frequencies.
It could be expected that at some frequency the film would begin to break down.
But that doesn't happen.

You have a degree, well good for you. It IS all about covalent bonds and if you actually have a degree in chemistry then you know that to be true, so why the sophistry?


Electrical breakdown, or even thermal destruction of a substance, (though equivalent, they are not necessarily the same) do indeed yield the same product, specifically the separation of atoms within a molecule.


Sophistry aside, who cares whether the bonds of mylar break down or not with frequency? We are not discussing the covalent bonds or chemical structure of mylar. Again, apples to oranges.  You are AVOIDING THE ISSUE.


If you wish for me to start checking the logic behind your statements, I can start with the porcelain or mylar issue in reference to the specific logical fallacy being applied. I can do that if you want. It is a Fallacy of Composition, by the way, as you are claiming that what is (or might be) true of part of the whole (mylar or porcelain in this case) must be true of the whole (all dielectrics including water). Your statement is illogical according to the science concerning logic.


Covalent bonds cover the gamut when talking bonds joining molecular structures, according to chemistry. You have not discredited in any manner one word I have said, at least not according to science, that is.


My question is why are you trying so hard to derail or discredit the topic -- that you are willing to look foolish to anyone else here with a degree in chemistry or even suitable knowledge thereof? If you have a degree in the sciences, then it was required for you to take philosophy, where you were taught the logical fallacies and to avoid their use. Repeated and consistent use demonstrates probable intent.


Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

Do you know what this is actually saying? You are calling for the defunding, or in this case never funding, of this technology. For more than twelve years I have watched people like you talk, talk, talk but never lift a finger to actually do anything. If it were up to people like you this photo sums up our chances of getting anything done to actually do something about our climate change problems.

I couldn't personally care less about your funding one way or the other. I wish you luck, as far as that goes.


I AM DOING THIS FOR FREE, as I stated. If that is a perceived "threat to your funding" then sorry, but the apology is all you get as I intend to see this through.


For me, this type of stuff is a hobby. For you, if you are trying to make a living out of it, I would follow the example of the guy who made the water hammer OU water heating pump device. He just opened his doors, and started installing working units. People have tried hard to discredit him, but he wasn't claiming it was OU, just extremely efficient. Some of the first people he sold it to were claiming it was OU, specifically a fire department. That is called brilliant marketing. If you claim OU in any sense of the word, your business is dead before it even gets started, even WITH nationwide coverage. Just my two bits of advice.


As far as you talking others into spending money on your venture, that is up to them and I am not advising them one way or the other. Being as it is their money, they are fully capable of deciding what they choose to do with it.


Paul Andrulis

[kolbacict]

No, no, I want to do it.
Moreover, I really need it.
The decomposition of water, or the self-oscillating pendulum of Milkovich, is not important.
but nothing works.

[pauldude000]

No, no, I want to do it.
Moreover, I really need it.
The decomposition of water, or the self-oscillating pendulum of Milkovich, is not important.
but nothing works.

I like your little laboratory setup. Small, simple and to the point.


Voltage range, over 1kv. Amperage, as close to zero as you can physically get. Treat that little electrolysis unit as a capacitor -- don't add salts or anything else to make it more conductive like you normally would with electrolysis.


Read that patent from front to back, and download and read the other relevant patents -- take notes. Ignore all the BS about lasers that many of the patents reference as necessary, that was all fluff.


The goal is to charge the capacitor to its max without letting it discharge, then keep hitting it with oscillating resonant DC pulses. Use the series LC capacitance formulae. The biggest question is whether or not your plates will be too close together or too far apart concerning the applied voltage. You want them to be just farther apart than the breakdown voltage of the capacitor for maximum capacitance, but not so close together that it allows arcing, even if the dielectric is liquid and self-healing. Arcing is a waste of energy. The voltage needs to be stored in the dielectric (water). Once the field is established, the hydrogen atoms will line up the water molecule with the induced A field, do to their natural charge.


According to Stanley Meyer, higher frequency pulses or higher voltages should produce higher gas outputs (how he claimed to regulate the system for "on demand use" which changes gas volume needs over time). Such makes logical sense, as higher pulse frequency should yield more gas when each pulse produces gas, and higher voltage would stress the molecule more even at a given pulse rate. So long as the field is stronger than, say 10eV upon the molecule in the capacitors A field between the plates, the bonds should break.




My thoughts:


Truthfully, I think it would be better to use a multi-dielectric capacitance chamber, basically the plates on the outside of a water container rather than submerged in the liquid, but I don't know if this will work. It is one of the things I want to try myself. I love to experiment.