Stanley Meyer Explained

[L505]

H20power, you have not scientifically or mathematically proven where the electrons go, and where they sit waiting.  Stan Meyer says in one of his patents or articles that the electrons are destroyed/consumed and converted into heat/light. Earlier he said with his obsolete WFC system that electrons were NOT consumed at all! Very contradictory - but then again the water injector is a different invention than the original WFC. If this is the case with the water injector, that electrons are somehow destroyed and converted to energy - then he would have killed our planet pretty quickly and turned all of our drinking water into heat and light.  Do you think his aims were good?

Is this how the Sun works? Ball of water that destroys matter?

Electrons are not DESTROYED off our planet as far as I know.  They just move and move other things around them. Correct me if I am wrong. I.e. when you have a battery in operation the electrons just go from one chemical to the other chemical - the electrons are not actually eaten by magical gothic zombies.

If Stan's wish is to destroy electrons (reducing mass of planet) then we are going to kill ourselves with this device pretty quickly, are we not? Or do electrons get created from God or from the Vacuum - and if so then please demonstrate it and say so. All we want are answers. Stop brushing it under the carpet.

H20Power you better stop bragging about your engineering skills because if you engineer a device that kills me, make no mistake I will come after you with a baseball bat and harm you! That is not good engineering skill of you (humor noted, I could not do so if I had already been killed first  )

Where did these electrons disappear to in this hydrogen fracturing process? Then where did they magically come back from? Or did they? Did God generate them again and have them destroyed for us first?

These are the questions you should be answering and asking, H20Power.

If you want to ask the right questions, then open your damn ears and listen. Stop rambling on about how everyone should just go look up Corona discharge.. that is just an easy way out for you. You use this as your escape. You like to use that label like it is the Bible that we should all read. If you were truly an engineer and scientist though you would not even have to refer people to the Corona discharge - you could sum it up and explain what happens within a few sentences.

For example let us say that what happens in Stan's system is that the electrons get dislodged and stuck in the air somehow. Then when the flame finishes burning the water ions grab back those electrons and we have water again. YOU EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TERMS LIKE THIS and stop farting around.

If you do not explain your system then you will potentially kill millions of people. Do you realize what harm you will do to this planet if your device is destroying electrons and matter? Do you realize what weapons of mass destruction you are launching?

When the mixture has completed burning and the piston is moving, the electrons jump back in to the ions to create non ionic water molecule?

YOU, yes, YOU, h20power.. why don't YOU start asking the right questions.

If you really knew what you were doing you could sum up the "discharge" and ionization effect in a few sentences and just SAY SO for crying out loud that the electrons dislodge into the air and get stuck there like glue for a second, then they come back into the water ions. But here is the QUESTION TO ASK - where did the energy come from to release that sticky glue bond that those electrons were temporarily using to hold on to the air, if indeed that this is where they go?

Were the electrons just floating without glue? If they were floating without glue then they would not be floating at all - they would already have formed the water, preventing the flame in the first place! Ask the right questions. Answer them. 

People talk about how Stan's device is some Divine system that pulls and pushes evenly like the yin and yang. Sorry, does not scientifically explain it. Guess what - two magnets stuck together also do this. THEY DO NOT PRODUCE USEFUL ENERGY. THEY CANCEL OUT.  So start explaining Stan's device properly, scientifically - because you are NOT doing so - H20power, nor is Outlawsc or even the other more religious buddhist quacktards on this site.

And for Ms. Farrah Day, gentle lady - if ionization and temporary electron dislodging really does causes the energy to be released in Meyer's system - then H20Power is mostly right in saying that we need not to worry much about the rest of the system like the old obsolete WFC. We could produce small crappy amounts of hydrogen using even old obsolete electrolysis and still release massive amounts of energy from it if this ionization "discharge" really works. However, if this ionization discharge does not work and Stan just theorized it worked... well.... then the gas processor is mostly a useless dream.   This, I am still sitting on the fence about - because it is possible Stan was delusional. I am not saying he was, but there is an equal possibility.

The right question to ask (ARE YOU LISTENING H20POWER?) are: is there energy required to release electrons from a temporary ionization glue in the air? Are the electrons disappearing and where to?  If they disappear is it only temporary, and are they then plucked again and returned? Where from? Why? These are the questions to ask. Or are the electrons are destroyed and gone?  If it is a case of the electrons being dislodged and "hanging out somewhere else" for a while, like at the shopping mall or corner store, or where-ever. I have some doubts because it takes energy to release that glue that they were sticking to, in the air, temporarily, to hide from the water molecule for a while. How are you going to drive these electrons home from the shopping mall without paying for the fuel to do so? Or were the electrons just magically pulled back with the force without amps and current?

Do also think about magnets and how they stick together due to equal forces. No movement there.. 0. Cancel out.  If there truly was a way to harness energy like from just fields and potential - then what about permanent magnets?

If it is a case of electrons being destroyed then I am scared.

UNTIL YOU COME UP WITH SOUND SCIENTIFIC THEORY, WE WILL NOT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

One more thing h20power: stop repeating the same useless beaten to death horse: Learn to ask the right questions.  Why I want you to stop beating this dead cliche? Because you have not asked the right questions and neither did Stan! You h20power and Stan did not THINK about the consequences of destroyed electrons, or if not destroyed then WHAT? Where are they?  That is the right question to ask. When you start asking them, then please continue to preach like a Priest with your dead horse. I have asked them. Not you! 

Farrah Day asked some good questions that you just ignored and told everyone to look up Corona discharge. Again I repeat you could explain your device without even recommending people look up Corona discharge.. tell them about the temporary ionization glue, if that is how it works - and do explain how this bond in the air ionization is broken without it taking massive amounts of energy. Do not just brush it under the carpet and tell people to go read up on Corona discharge. Just because you ask scientists to explain how lightening works and they do not have all the answers, does not mean that because of this your device will work! That is what you seem to think.  Here is a thought for you: the energy in lightening may come from the Sun, because water had risen to a higher level and now has more charge up high in the sky. Then the energy could be explained as coming from the sun in lightening. I am not saying this is the case - but if it is, then it would mean that referring people to how lightening works would actually DISPROVE stan's device, not prove it. Unless stan's device got energy from the sun somehow. 

And there are theories out there that energy in lightening does come from the sun. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. One theory, AFAIR, is that the water from oceans, etc. get heated by the sun and this water turns into gas in the sky. Those are called clouds. However, when the gas turns back to liquid what happens? ask the right questions. This has tremendous potential energy due to water being a lower energy level than gas. Why? Gas is taking up lots of space and has energy. Similar to how it takes lots of energy to melt ice since ice is lower energy that water.  So since  gaseous clouds all of a sudden start turning RAPIDLY into liquid, they cause lightening discharge. That is just one theory - do look it up - because I may have not explained it as well as they did with the static explanations.  This could also explain why people supposedly "burn water" with those plasma spark plugs on the free energy quacktard forums. If we use some energy to mistify the water into a little spray of cloud, is this energy that we put into the system then not available to us to discharge? But they cancel out. The mechanical energy we used to separate the water into a spray is then converted into spark. I.e. the mechanical energy it took to mistify the water is gained back in the little spark you get, and you have zero net.

[HeairBear]

Interesting arguments L505. I'm confused about how you interpret ionization and such. Do you understand it and you say Meyers didn't? I'm not sure what "sitting on the fence with this one" means. Please let me offer an explanation... The following was copied from http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/06/ARG/steinman.htm

Air Ions Defined

The word ion, derived from a Greek verb suggesting motion, has the sense of “a traveler.” The term was first used to describe the effects observed when electrical currents were passed through various solutions; molecules in the solutions would dissociate and migrateâ€"that is, travelâ€"to electrodes of opposite polarity. A theory advanced by the Swedish researcher S. A. Arrhenius that the migrating ions were electrically charged atoms was substantiated by the later discovery of the electron and its nature.

Ions are defined as atoms or molecules that have lost or gained electrons. (Electrons are the only easily available charge carriers.) When an atom or molecule has an equal number of electrons and protons it is electrically balanced, or neutral. If an electron is lost, the atom or molecule becomes positively charged and is a positive ion. Gaining an electron makes it a negative ion.

What is called an air ion, or a charged air molecule, is really no such thing. Air is a mixture of gases, including nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other trace gases, any one or more of which may be ionized. Sometimes a diatomic gas molecule, such as nitrogen or oxygen, will gain or lose the electron. Sometimes it will be a more complex gas such as carbon dioxide. In any case, when molecules of one or more of the gases in air gain or lose electrons, the result is conventionally called air ions. Air ions differ from ions in solution in that energy is needed for their formation.

In normal, unfiltered air, air ions are molecular clusters consisting of about 10 neutral gas molecules around a charged oxygen, water, or nitrogen molecule. These are called small air ions. Small air ions are relatively mobile and soon encounter ions of the opposite polarity or a grounded surface, at which point they lose their charge and become neutral molecules again. Small air ions have a life span of a few seconds to a few minutes in clean air.

Under the right conditions, these ions attach to particles or other large molecular clusters in the air, resulting in large air ions. The relative proportion of small and large air ions present generally depends on the cleanliness of the air. Large quantities of particulate matter or aerosols in the air lead to a depletion of small air ions.

However, any discussion of neutralizing static charge on insulators in a static-control program, as here, will deal primarily with the production and effects of small air ions.


Where do the electrons go? In Stan's case, ground. The EEC is clearly used after the electrolytic cell to ionize the liberated gasses. Stan calls it an "Electron Extraction Circuit", Tesla called it an "Ozone Generator", "Air Ionizer", etc... The technology is older than the hills, so, it should not be too hard of a concept even when the names have changed which all inventors love to do when they invent(rediscover). like the "Transmogrifier" or a "Flux Capacitor".

[sebosfato]

Hello guys i would like to invite you to my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Here i released the basic information about the way meyer did to achieve 1000x efficiency electrolysis.

I ask for donations so if you can please donate it will help a lot. I decided to come here and advert you about it. 

Answer he didn't used high voltage between the plates. He talked about this to confuse people.
40kv at 1ma = to 40 watts right ?
How about 4000 amps at 0,01volts
would not it be = to 40w?

The key is how to pass this huge current thru water at this very low voltage. You would need very high surface on the plates and...

Info about this here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Please donate

[L505]

Hello guys i would like to invite you to my thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html

Here i released the basic information about the way meyer did to achieve 1000x efficiency electrolysis.

I ask for donations so if you can please donate it will help a lot. I decided to come here and advert you about it. 

Answer he didn't used high voltage between the plates. He talked about this to confuse people.
40kv at 1ma = to 40 watts right ?
How about 4000 amps at 0,01volts
would not it be = to 40w?

The key is how to pass this huge current thru water at this very low voltage. You would need very high surface on the plates and...

Info about this here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Please donate

Sebosfato, no offence - but piss-off! No one sends donations when you just yap and talk. Put the evidence where your mouth is. You don't need donations to build it if you already know it works - because if you already know it works, then show it to everyone. Put up or shut up.

[L505]

Interesting arguments L505. I'm confused about how you interpret ionization and such. Do you understand it and you say Meyers didn't?

Meyer's didn't do a very good job of stating that ionization is cheap and easy to do. Is this true?

If so, this is the entire key to the whole invention and it means one could build a far simpler electricity creation device. All one has to do is ionize air, and combine it with some other stuff.... a plastic comb for example, and you have free static electricity from a comb.

It should be emphasized everywhere that ionization of air is the huge key to the invention. I'm still not sure it is, because rubbing a comb to knock off electrons takes energy. Someone needs to explain how this Meyer system somehow does it without the comb rubbing.

Someone needs to prove that ionization and knocking electrons off air is cheap and free, or somehow a net energy gain. Doesn't make sense to me since in order to increase the energy level (knock an electron off), one has to increase the energy to get up to that energy level. I keep the open mind though, and not saying it isn't possible.. I just wonder how.

If the energy comes from the motion of the molecules moving, then the water must cool down or slow down its molecules and that's where the energy comes from? If possible, it would break the laws of physics since heat can't be extracted from substances that are at their surrounding atmosphere temperature (not saying the laws can't be broken though, again I'm open minded).

Where do the electrons go? In Stan's case, ground. The EEC is clearly used after the electrolytic cell to ionize the liberated gasses. Stan calls it an "Electron Extraction Circuit", Tesla called it an "Ozone Generator", "Air Ionizer", etc...

He didn't make this clear, that the air ionizer was somehow free? As far as I know Tesla used energy to ionize air, it wasn't free.

As for the Ground...
Okay, that's interesting. A lot of people act as if they have found the solution to Meyer's system but no one has mentioned these points about the electrons disappearing to GROUND.

I once had the idea that maybe the electrons were going to ground, like how when you rub a comb and touch a door knob the electrons short out. So which ground ? earth ground, or the engine metal ground?

If it is the engine metal, then why don't the electrons just rejoin again and stop the fuel from being created since everything is touching the metal in the engine.. Or do the electrons go into the battery of the car or through the alternator? Flow of electricity has to be explained here. 

When the gases enter the combustion chamber, the cylinders are metallic... so would the ionic gases then just rejoin to the engine ground metal inside the chamber? Unless somehow the spark beats the gases. Again, more flow and complete explanations please. Until we understand all of this.. we aren't going to know how it all works!

Stan didn't mention that ground was extremely important in the circuit and that this is where electrons go? Normal circuits don't work this way do they, where electrons just disappear to ground? Usually the electrons run back to your battery terminal or similar. With generators the electrons race back to the magnet, AFAIK.

Okay so why do the electrons want to go to ground... the coils trap them, the light bulb draws the electrons in, and they go to ground after that why? Do any circuits work this way where ground just consumes electrons (well, stores them). Is this possible? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just questioning this to understand how and why it could work.

When you rub a comb the reason they go to ground is because you have added energy to the comb by moving it back and forth. How does this Meyer system do it without rubbing the comb? Also clouds rub by wind and sun energy and that's why we see bolts of lightning, because of the sun charging up the clouds. Where does Stan get this energy without using movement from wind currents or the sun?

When you strip electrons off the air, it should be the same as knocking energy levels up of any other substance, as far as I know. just like rubbing a comb costs energy. Electrons are jiggled out off the comb and that took energy to get them jiggled. So Stan does this by what magic? Just voltage alone...  can I charge up a comb with just voltage alone? If so there might be easier ways to generate energy - not saying that we should work on other stuff and forget the water cell, just questioning this whole thing because really working with a comb could be easier than a complex engine compartment, to at least prove the theory in a lab easily.

Since after all a molecule is a molecule, and an energy level is an energy level, I still don't see how magically ionization is free and knocking off electrons to ground doesn't take any energy to ionize air?

The only sensible way I see in gaining energy from this, is to reduce the mass of the water, which could be dangerous, or to cool off the water and have it ice cold out the tail pipe (which goes against the laws of physics, but I'm not saying it isn't possible), or to change the structure of water to have more bonds since more bonds mean more energy is released.

The technology is older than the hills, so, it should not be too hard of a concept even when the names have changed which all inventors love to do when they invent(rediscover). like the "Transmogrifier" or a "Flux Capacitor".

Indeed ionization is nothing new. But, is ionization free energy or somehow cheaper than rubbing a comb? Lightning works by the clouds moving with wind currents and gravity pulling icicles down, so that's where the energy comes from there - the sun.  Tesla developed the ionization system  which drew power in order to purify water, air, and emulate lightning.  It's not as if it was free energy, it was just an invention for ionization?  Does someone have some evidence that somehow ionization can be done nearly free without expending energy, and why is that so if rubbing a comb takes energy to knock electrons lose?

If someone could please explain to everyone how knocking off electrons from air molecules is somehow extremely efficient!

The way I see it so far is everyone forgets to do some calculations on the ionization side. We just assume that ionizing air must be cheap, and no proof of that? Really, where are the calculations to show this and prove it? I'm not saying it isn't true, but I wonder why lots of people think they have solved Meyer, without them actually showing the complete science and math?

It was never emphasized by Meyer if it is true, and I wonder if he skipped these points because he was busy explaining other stuff, or whether he just didn't have the heart to offer this to people, or what. 

Also, if the electrons disappear into earth ground, it means the water cannot be formed in the tail pipe - the electrons have escaped and are no longer in the water, they are in the ground? Or are they in the engine metal, and not at the tires to earth ground? When the gas explodes it grabs electrons from the engine again? This seems still like some kind of perpetual motion and there are missing equations for the energy that was gained. Not saying it isn't how the system works, I'm just demanding the science here like any intelligent scientific person would.

And I ask all these questions because, well, one has to "ask the right questions". They aren't meant to be purely negative doubts, or flames; they are meant to help solve this system and make people understand it entirely, scientifically!