Stanley Meyer Explained

[h20power]

kolbacict, Just what do I need to get? I mean I know what I need to get and have in fact been asking for it for awhile now, but I am curious in learning just what you think I need to get.


Onepower I hear you loud and clear. When I jumped off the bandwagon of those employing the "Guess Method," I began to notice that my experiments completely diverged from theirs. Back then I think most of them where getting around 5-400 volts to their WFC's with the vast majority of them getting around 10-15 volts while in a very short time after leaving the guess methodology behind I started getting voltages unheard of to my WFC. I clearly remember talking about it and having people think I was pulling their chain telling them tall tales. When that video interview of me taken by John Fraser hit YouTube it was clear I wasn't telling any tall tales as the voltage readings were easy to read when watching the video. I clearly had the differential probe hooked up to the WFC, both leads, and was driving the WFC with VIC transformer. All of the sudden the bar of high voltages got pushed to levels no one had ever seen before as 7.3-7.4 kv was a far cry from 5-400 volts.
What saddened me about all of that was the way the Open Source community reacted to seeing someone get true high voltages the likes talked about in Stanley Meyer's technical brief and patents for the first time ever and since if my memory serves me correctly. People started resorting to all kinds of foolishness in trying to show their experiments were also producing high voltages, like not hooking up both the probe leads to the WFC, and some even reprogramming their oscilloscopes to read higher than it was actually reading. As I improved upon my results I'd show screenshots of the waveform and voltages being applied to the water fuel cell but each time I did so it seemed to make everyone else more and more angry so I stopped showing my work at around 8.8 kv reached to the cell.
I even pointed out just where in Meyer's writings where it stated that in order to get this technology up and running the voltages to each individual cell had to be around 1 kv or more, but again it just seemed to make the Open Source community even more angry so I just stopped sharing altogether. In time my experimental results were so far outside of theirs that they simply could not believe it and rejected my work telling people I was cheating somehow.
Now it seems things are getting heated up again because I actually shared the core science behind the patents letting people know just what it was Meyer was mimicking in nature. And I did so showing many different examples of how mother nature goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules as well as other types of molecules. But it seems it's all for not as that same old record is still playing on their music boxes. Now it seems I just need to wait and give people a chance to truly go over some of the things I have posted.

[massive]

not seeing anything in those screen shots unless that is the message ??

H2 from water is still the biggest threat to oil and the electric industries, so any research or should further research is important.
what Ive always thought of the lightning model is that there is open circuit until ionization but when the strike hits the earth is what interested me. the earth plate at zero R.
Meyers never went into the short circuit condition in any of his talks ... which is zero R

this is where I look at Teslas tower or wooden tower with conductive top. the concept people believe of broad casting is ridiculous.
most tall buildings around the world have Lightning rods as conductive path to EARTH, the zero R.
IF Tesla broadcast anything it would be better as a positive charge to attract negative strike, then transform it and feed it to usable level.


PS: Heretical builders was the site , and damn good too. Ive even forgotten the owner name, oh well he did a service for us having that site.

[kolbacict]

sorry for the bad pictures, it was meant.

[h20power]

Excuse me if not. It's just that you really need to get something.

So, that is what you think I need to get is it? Wrong! The way you show the pulsing should be is drawing far more current from the supply as it's on more than it is off verses Meyer's off more than it is on. Anyone versed in adding up energy can easily see that as the math will show it loud and clear. But if that doesn't convince you then just put an analog amp meter in line with the power supply with one circuit pulsing the way you show and the other the way Meyer shows on the same transformer at the same voltage input and take some current readings.


You really should try and show people like me a little more respect as I have already done those test I mentioned for you to try and do many years ago.


Here is what you simply don't get and that is how to interpret the readings on a oscilloscope for allow me to ask you a question, yes? What does the area under the curve represent on the oscilloscope?

[kolbacict]

But if that doesn't convince you then just put an analog amp meter in line with the power supply

I agree. This is obvious without an ammeter. But we want a miracle, right?
According to classical electrochemistry, gas cannot stand out more than according to Faraday's law.
but it doesn't suit us.